O come, O come, (Rahm) Emanuel

Like a lot of political junkies, I’ve been thinking a fair bit about our new president’s first big hire: Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. There are some things to be said about the fact that they botched the announcement, but leave that aside and consider Rep. Emanuel himself; his selection deeply concerns some conservatives but reassures others, including the folks at the Wall Street Journal—and has also provoked considerable consternation among some on the Left.For my own part, I have three thoughts on this pick. First, this means that you can take all that high-toned high-minded “new politics”/”post-partisan”/”new kind of politician”/”hope and change”/”heal the country” talk and throw it out the window. That was for the campaign, and it served its purpose; now it’s time to get real, and that’s going to look very different.Two, on balance, I think that’s a good thing, because Barack Obama is entering a very different world than the world of his campaign, and what worked then isn’t going to work now. I’ve believed for a while that the Democratic congressional leadership, the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, have seen him not as the leader of their party but as someone they would be able to use as a figurehead for their own agenda, and that they would pull him hard to the left; of course, I’ve also believed that he would be perfectly comfortable going along with that. Rep. Emanuel is one of the nastiest partisans in Washington, but he’s also, on his record, a centrist, and hawkish for a Democrat; his selection is the first indication that Barack Obama may in fact want to govern from the center-left, rather than from the leftist positions that won him the primaries. Just as important, his appointment may well be a sign that Sen. Obama picked up on the same signs in his party that I thought I saw, and a signal that he has no intention of letting the likes of Speaker Pelosi dominate his administration—a shot across their bows to let them know that he is the president and he intends to be the president. As the WSJ put it,

As for Mr. Emanuel’s famously sharp elbows, they are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans. With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights—and the ones that really matter—will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill. Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line echoed this when he wrote,

The ascension to the presidency of a given politician doesn’t repeal the rules of politics, one of which is that a president needs someone fierce and ruthless by his side. Whatever Obama decides to try and accomplish, he will require a key aide who answers to this description. . . .I suspect, moreover, that it is Democratic heads Emanuel will be knocking. Republican heads don’t count for much on Capitol Hill these days, and the Obama administration won’t be in much of a position to knock them, in any case.

I maintained, and maintain, that Sen. Obama has showed neither the instincts, nor the ability, nor the experience, nor quite frankly the willingness to upset people necessary to fight free of the left wing of his party and chart his own course; Rep. Emanuel gives him all of the above.And three, I agree with Jennifer Rubin:

It is quite remarkable that, even now, we are still reading the tea leaves and guessing which Obama will be taking office. The high-minded one? The Chicago pol? The ultra-liberal? The moderate? We’ll all stay tuned as, bit by bit, everyone learns who it was we just elected.

Is Barack Obama a good man?

I know there are a lot of conservatives who would answer that question resoundingly in the negative; but for my part, for all the questions and concerns I have about his judgment on people and policies, I can’t help coming down with Beldar: I think he is. I may be convinced otherwise later, but I hope not.

Final thought on John McCain

Though there’s much that I admire about John McCain the man, I’ve felt for a long time that his best qualities were all personal, and that (from a conservative point of view, anyway) there was little to say for him as a politician. Unfortunately, his conduct of this campaign only served to reinforce and underscore that judgment—the way money was spent, the persistent division in his campaign (he seemed almost constitutionally unable to operate with a single campaign manager), his poor personnel judgment (Rick Davis should never run another political operation at any level), his inability to put together a consistent, coherent message (much less to stay on message), and the awful decision-making (most notably the mind-boggling decision to pull out of Michigan) all indicate that whatever concerns anyone might have about Barack Obama’s ability to run the Executive Branch, John McCain wouldn’t have done much better.Unfortunately, the fact that he’s now allowing, and perhaps tacitly encouraging, his campaign staff to trash Sarah Palin further reinforces this. As Jennifer Rubin put it,

All of this, I must admit, also reflects on the non-leadership qualities of the former presidential nominee. John McCain was never known as one to resolve conflicts or knock heads. That’s how he wound up bankrupting his own campaign in the primary and then devolving into bitter infighting in the general election. Watching his team engage in vicious, public fighting suggests that perhaps he was never the ideal person for a chief executive role. After all, if the campaign was this bad, imagine what the White House would have been like.

As much as it pains me to say it, though, Rubin doesn’t go far enough. This doesn’t only reflect on Sen. McCain’s leadership qualities—it reflects on his honor. What Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt are doing, and what others are doing in propagating lies about Gov. Palin, is dishonorable; that Sen. McCain is allowing this to happen without challenging it is even more dishonorable. He owes it to his running mate to do better.

Whither Sarah Palin? (update/repost)

Taken all in all, I incline to think that John McCain’s loss this past Tuesday will prove a boon to Gov. Palin’s political career. To be sure, the folks who ran the McCain campaign are trying pretty hard to pin his loss on her, as a way of shifting the blame off themselves—but I don’t think anyone’s buying it; indeed, from the reactions I’ve seen so far, the only people they’re hurting are themselves. Throw in the interesting and quite plausible suggestion from Matt Lewis that this isn’t about 2008 at all, but rather is an attempt at a pre-emptive strike for 2012 by a potential competitor, and there just doesn’t seem to be any reason to take these criticisms seriously. As long as Gov. Palin keeps staying above the fray, she should come through unscathed by her ticket’s defeat.That’s a good thing, because a victory might well have done harm to her future career prospects. The odds are pretty good that things are only going to get worse over the next few years, and that the GOP’s current minority will prove to be a blessing in disguise; of course, for that to prove out, change will need to come to the party, but Gov. Palin is now in an unfettered position to help bring that change—which she would not have been as VP. As such, given that her geographical obscurity has been wiped out by two months in the national spotlight and that she now has a deep and strong base of support in the national GOP, she’s in a stronger political position going back to Juneau than she would have had in Washington, D. C.That still leaves the question, what next?At this point, Gov. Palin would have to be regarded as the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, but a lot of things can happen in four years; if she just rests on her laurels, she’ll see others pass her by. She needs to take her position as a leader in (if not formally of) the national party and use it, both to strengthen her own position and to advance the GOP cause. To do this, of course, she needs to keep herself out there as a national politician. The usual way to do this is to run for the Senate, but in her case, that probably isn’t the best option.She could, of course; at this point, it looks like Ted Stevens has won re-election despite his conviction, which almost certainly will mean either his resignation or his expulsion by the Senate to serve his sentence. This will trigger a special election to fill his seat, and Gov. Palin could run—and some people are already urging her to do so. The benefit to that would be that if she runs, she’ll win, which will give her a safe seat through the next presidential election cycle; if she doesn’t, that gives the Left two years to hammer her and try to bring her down before her term as governor is up in 2010. The question is, would this be a good opportunity? Sen. Stevens earned a rock-solid seat by bringing home large quantities of pork, on which the state of Alaska is largely dependent, given how much of the state is owned by the feds. Gov. Palin has done a fair bit in her time in office to reduce that dependence, but there’s a lot more work to do in that regard; for her to run for the Pork King’s seat on a pledge not to seek pork and to keep that pledge could put her in a very difficult political position down the line—and for her to do anything else would ruin her nationally.Alternatively, Gov. Palin could wait until 2010 and challenge Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Republican primary; if she did so, however, she would be running for that seat not in order to serve in the Senate, but to run for the Senate simply in order to facilitate a presidential run that would begin shortly after she took her seat would be the worst sort of politics, and it seems hard to believe that Alaskans would go along with it. What’s more, such a tacky move would only damage her standing and reputation.Given that, it seems that Gov. Palin will need to work by other means to keep herself on the national stage. There are several ways by which she can do this. One, as Adam Brickley notes, is to do her job as Governor of Alaska, and in particular to do everything possible to expedite the building of the natural-gas pipeline. This, combined with intelligent national advocacy of drilling in ANWR, will serve to strengthen the country both domestically and in its international position, to strengthen the identification of the national GOP with domestic energy production and energy independence, and also to help her maintain a high national profile as a conservative reformer who gets things done.Another thought Adam had, which hadn’t occurred to me, would be for Gov. Palin to establish a PAC and do fundraising for national Republican candidates for 2010. By doing this, she could give the congressional GOP a real boost two years from now, as well as building support and loyalty among other leaders in the party. Even better, along with sending them money, she could spend time campaigning for Republican candidates across the country, using her own formidable political skills directly to boost their chances. Given that she will be a marked woman for the national Democratic Party in 2010, it might even be better for her not to seek re-election, but to take the time she would need to spend campaigning for herself and invest it instead in other Republican candidates (including, of course, Sean Parnell or whoever would be the GOP candidate to replace her in Juneau). Of course, if she did so, she would need to find another job, but I’ll come back to that in a minute.Before addressing that point, it should also be said that Gov. Palin would do well to work to win over conservative skeptics like Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will, David Brooks, and Christopher Buckley—not because their opinions are particularly important, but because impressing those who ought to be her supporters and currently aren’t is the most direct way to establish herself as the true standard-bearer of the Republican Party. The best way to do this is to address the current lack of a strong conservative identity in the national party, strengthening it and bringing it back to its roots, and to do so in a way which also dispells the easy caricature of her as an intellectual lightweight. Therefore, as one who framed the troubling challenge presented by Iran with the question “what would Reagan do?” I would suggest (as would Jim Geraghty) that Gov. Palin should ask herself the same question, and do what Gov. Reagan did in the 1970s:

Reagan . . . [spent] years in the 1970s mulling the great issues of the day, reading voraciously, and presenting detailed commentaries on everything from the SALT and Law of the Sea treaties to revultions in Sub-Saharan Africa to the future of Medicare. Then and only then, finally, after 16 years on the national stage, did the GOP give Ronald Reagan its nomination and present him as its candidate for the presidency.

Obviously, she’s still going to have her day job, at least through 2010; but in and around that, and raising her kids, I believe Gov. Palin should devote as much time as she can to studying and writing on the great issues of our own day. Keep building her governing experience dealing with the challenges of Juneau—and as much as possible, take advantage of that to use Alaska as a “laboratory of democracy” on issues like health care—but engage intellectually as well with the challenges of Iran and Pakistan, Social Security and judicial philosophy, the future of NATO and how to deal with a resurgent Russia, practical approaches to changing the system in D.C., and what our stance ought to be toward China. Co-author pieces with leading conservative intellectuals—maybe an article on judicial nominations with Antonin Scalia, to throw out one wild idea. Help rebuild the conservative intellectual treasury that was squandered by the GOP during its time in power. And off these articles (and perhaps books), I’d like to see her give speeches under the auspices of the Hoover Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Ethics and Public Policy Foundation, the Institute for Religion and Public Life, and other such organizations. If she does decide not to seek re-election at the end of her term, she could go to work for an organization like AEI, or perhaps in the national party leadership structure, and use that as a platform to continue developing and arguing for her conservative agenda.In short, I believe Gov. Palin should keep her name out there, not just by doing political things (though she should certainly continue as she has begun in Alaska), but by using both her position and her gifts to articulate, develop and defend conservative political philosophy and its applications. In so doing, if over the next four years voters become accustomed to seeing her name and picture appear along with insightful, well-argued, thought-provoking pieces in places like The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, conservative opinion magazines such as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and The American Spectator, websites like RealClearPolitics, and perhaps even on occasion in the MSM if they allow it—including, on topics which make it possible, illustrations from her own achievements in Alaska—then she’ll maintain her public profile but in a way that gives the lie to those who’ve tried to dismiss her; and along the way, she’ll reinvigorate American conservatism in much the same way as Ronald Reagan did, and help the GOP along in the necessary task of taking stock and getting back to being the party it needs to be. Two birds, one stone—and an entirely fitting task for one who would be her party’s leader, to start by leading it back to its soul.

On this blog in history: November 2004

This is a special-edition retrospective post; call it an opportunity to compare and contrast post-election responses from this year with those from four years ago.Electoral musings, part I
Howard Fineman (and others) on the one hand, and the moral arrogance of Peter Beinart on the other.Electoral musings, NYC edition
Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Friedman, and the failure of many liberals to understand conservatives on our own terms.Electoral musings, Canadian edition
A link to the great David Warren’s column on Bush’s re-election.Electoral musings, moral values edition
On the effect of “moral values” on the 2004 election, and the idea that branding liberal positions with the label “moral values” is the key to Democratic victory.Electoral musings, part V
The comforting explanation: “We lost because voters are stupid.”Electoral musings, attitude edition
On the Democratic Party and its attitude toward Christianity. (Barack Obama makes a cameo appearance, in one of the columns I linked here; the Denver Post column is no longer up.)Electoral musings, theological edition
A link to the invaluable Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts and his excellent reflections on a proper Christian approach to politics and elections.

Be careful what you ask for: you just might get it

Words of wisdom at any time, but probably now more than most, at least with respect to the 2008 election. I’m not as sanguine as Perry de Havilland of Samizdata—I confess to a full measure of unease at what’s coming—but taken all in all, I don’t know that I’d be much happier if things had gone the other way; and if I were on the other side of the political aisle, I would still regard the election results as a decidedly mixed blessing. I’ve already noted Gerard Baker’s observation in the Times that this presidential election was a bad one to win, because of the daunting challenges our nation will face over the next several years; which is part of the reason why the aforementioned Perry de Havilland is so pleased that Barack Obama won:

Unlike many, well, most of my compatriots, I am not filled with a deep sense of gloom and foreboding at the prospect of the most left wing president since FDR gaining the Whitehouse. In truth, I can see many reasons to think it may well be a far better outcome than if a Big State Republican like McCain won.Of course Obama will bring an avalanche of policies that will be truly appalling and quite wicked, of that I have no doubt, much like his predecessors in office in that respect. As the global economy continues to come unglued, everything Obama does to deal with the mounting crises will in fact make things worse. Civil liberties will be hammered, all in the name of ‘fairness’, and the flood of regulations pertaining to every aspect of life will grow into a drowning ocean.And that is actually the good news.Why? Because in truth the Republicans under John “I support the bailout” McCain would scarcely have done much better. The economic global meltdown is only just starting to roll: if you think the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the biggie, just wait until you see the fallout from the fun and frolics of the impending mess in other areas, such as debt swaps. This is all going to get worse, a lot worse, and Obama is going to do absolutely everything to dig the holes deeper. Looking back on this period ten to twenty years from now, the Republicans crying into their beer tonight will be saying “thank Christ it was not us in office then”.The lesser evil is not going to win this time and much as it may not seem that way now . . . or any time soon I suspect . . . in the long run this has a far far better chance of leading to the rebirth of a genuine pro-liberty, pro-market political culture, something which the gradual incremental surrender of recent times made impossible (such as the ‘pragmatic voting’ of people who want a smaller state for Republican candidates who ended up growing the regulatory state).Many will find the glee of the statist left over the next few days and weeks hard to endure, but to be honest I have been walking around with a grin all day. Finally the era of gradualism is over and the masks are going to come off. The USA has voted for statism and it is going to get exactly what it voted for at a juncture in history where it will very quickly be impossible to hide the cost of those votes.Obama is not the start of a new era, he is the death knell for the old one.

I tend to agree, though without quite the same assurance; which is why I have the strong suspicion that many if not most of the folks who were celebrating Tuesday night will end up rueing their victory—and perhaps Barack Obama more than anyone. Be careful what you ask for . . .

Rounding up conservative reactions

I’ll use this as a catchall links post, and add more as I get to them. The first several are guest posters at Between Two Worlds, courtesy of Justin Taylor.Eric Redmond: “Living Soli Deo Gloria Under Obama”Randy Alcorn: “It’s Over; But It’s Not Over (One Day It Will Be)”Francis Beckwith: “Thoughts on the Election”Anthony Carter: “Poetic Providence”Stayin Alive: Pro-Life Advocacy in the Obama Era. An Interview with Scott KlusendorfAl Mohler: America Has Chosen a PresidentLigon Duncan: Some Initial Thoughts on Praying for President-Elect ObamaBaseball Crank: Obama Administration Survival GuideEd Morrissey: Learning to be the loyal oppositionClaudia Rosett: It’s Time To Restore Liberty (HT: Ed Morrissey)Michelle Malkin: Gird your loins, conservativesAaron Gardner: Back to The FutureRobert Bluey: GOP Has Been Down This Road BeforeVictor Davis Hanson: The Day AfterJohn Hawkins: The Rightosphere Copes with DefeatThe Anchoress: Bush, Obama, & Ghosts of HateJeff Wright: Hoping For, Even If Not Expecting, A Successful Obama AdministrationKarl Rove: A Way Out of the Wilderness

Jeremiah half-Wright and the bitter irony of Obama’s win

Barack Obama’s long-time pastor, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., is correct that there is a white-launched, white-sponsored plot afoot to eradicate the American black population. It’s quite a successful plot, too, having already reduced the size of the black community in this country by a significant percentage; if left unchecked, given the reasonable continuance of other demographic trends (such as Hispanic immigration), the political power of the black community will be gone within a generation or two. One could make an argument that this election was not only the first in which electing a President of African heritage was a real possibility—if Sen. Obama had lost, it might conceivably have been the last. That’s how successful this cunningly-laid, long-established plot has been.What the Rev. Dr. Wright doesn’t say is that he supports this plot, and the organizations which are (perhaps unwittingly, at this point) carrying it out.The name of this plot? Planned Parenthood, founded by enthusiastic racist and eugenicist Margaret Sanger, and the abortion industry, which has become an instrument of a quiet black genocide. Abortion has taken the lives of over twelve million Americans of African descent since 1973, and the abortion rate among black women currently stands at nearly 50%; and while statements like Sanger’s crass assertion that “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated” have now been replaced by academic language, we still have people arguing that this is a good thing.

Given that homicide rates of black youth are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions.

The great irony is that the racial genocide Sanger advocated is now largely self-inflicted, and in fact actively supported by prominent black leaders. Once, Jesse Jackson made the pungent point that

the privacy argument used to justify the Roe decision was—as he put it—”the premise of slavery.” Relating the right to abortion to the right to keep slaves, Jackson noted that “one could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned.”

But when his position came into conflict with his presidential ambitions, Jackson abandoned it, and a generation of black leaders with political ambitions followed suit; and so now the first American president of African descent will also be the most pro-abortion president in American history, and thus an enabler of his own ethnic community’s slow political self-destruction.

A geopolitical reconsideration of the Council of Elrond

Have you ever wondered whether it was wise of Elrond to commit the Elves to the coalition fighting the Global War on Sauron? Given the results for the Elves, might it not have been better to hold themselves back from the GWOS and seek a negotiated peace? After all, unlike those hasty, testosterone-poisoned Men and militaristic Dwarves, the Elves had the historical perspective to understand Sauron’s rightful grievances; shouldn’t they have accepted their duty to meet with Sauron without preconditions in an effort to hear his concerns and reach a solution with which everyone could be happy? Certainly, the Elves had the historical perspective to see the longstanding racism and other deep-seated sins of their coalition partners, and of their own community as well; how could they commit themselves to such bloodshed for the sake of such a thoroughly flawed set of societies when the path of peace was available to them?If these considerations have ever bothered you, or if you’re sufficiently open-minded to give them their proper weight, know that you are not alone; a distinguished panel of geopolitical experts recently sat down to discuss them. Their conversation merits serious attention from all thoughtful students of international relations and the history of warfare.

Sign of the times

Though I knew I wasn’t going to like the outcome, I’ve still been looking forward to having this election over with. I’ve especially been looking forward to the cessation of political ads, but I’ve been almost as glad at the thought of no more yard signs. Unfortunately, those haven’t disappeared; actually, it’s amazing how many are still up. And then, driving home from work yesterday, I saw that a new one had joined the others:

(My apologies for my shadow in the corner; I took this shot this morning, since I wanted to be sure I got the pictures before someone takes this sign down, and the lighting conditions were far from optimal.) I saw that yesterday, and I just about drove off the road, I was so surprised. But then, heading back the other way for Wednesday night stuff at the church, I saw the other side (again, my apologies for the lighting):

Now, I’m not posting these photos because I endorse their sentiment. Far from it, actually—this is the equal and opposite error to Joe Biden suggesting the DoJ should put Bush and Cheney on trial, and I have no use for the criminalization of politics, in any direction. Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid have done this country no good, I believe, but they haven’t done anything to merit impeachment (as far as is publicly known, anyway), and Barack Obama hasn’t done anything at all. (I suppose if you wanted to criminalize doing nothing in the U.S. Senate, you’d have a case, but then you’d have to indict about half the body, which wouldn’t be an improvement.)Rather, I’m posting these photos because this sign worries me. Not a lot—it is, after all, just one isolated sign in one town in northern Indiana—but as with letters to the editor, you have to figure that one person doing something like this probably speaks for a number of other folks who feel the same way; and I don’t know how many people that is, how widely held this attitude might be, or—the real concern—how it might spread if things start getting rough too soon for the new administration. This isn’t a fire conservatives should start playing with. We’ve put up with enough of this garbage directed at the Bush 43 administration, and we knew it was wrong then—we should remember it’s wrong and not be tempted to start pelting the Obama/Pelosi administration with it. Policy disagreement is a political matter, not a criminal matter, and we need to keep it that way.