McCain Our Churchill

John McCain seems suddenly Churchillian. Consider the resemblance. Both men came from a long line of public men, albeit of different sorts. Both distinguished themselves militarily when young, although differently. Both spent years in the legislature and in leadership positions there, Churchill as Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer and McCain as a prominent member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. If McCain is elected president, both will have come very late in life to executive leadership of their respective nations. Churchill was 65 when he became Prime Minister in 1940. John McCain will be 72 at the end of this month.

More substantively, both men were fairly isolated even within their own parties in their prescient opposition to looming tyranny in Europe. At a joint press conference in Slovenia with then Russian President Putin, President George W. Bush said "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country." In disagreement with this, Sen. McCain said "When I look into Vladimir Putin's eyes, I see three letters: a K, a G and a B." He has been advocating the expulsion of Russian from the G8 group of industrialized nations, a suggestion that obviously most have found unnecessarily provocative. Now if McCain had Obama's eloquence, the resemblance would be more convincing.

But Americans are not moved by associations with Winston Churchill. But events have opened the opportunity for McCain to step into the Reagan role. And his penchant for prudent confrontation with the Russians, despite fierce opposition from the Democrats, is Reaganesque. Putin's making explicit his imperial ambitions in Europe may clinch the election for McCain. Anything that reminds America that we are living in a dangerous world is a boost for McCain and daybreak to the Obama dream-sleep.

Two Sons: Proud Pup and Guard Dog

In a recent column, "Mr. Darcy Comes Courting," Maureen Dowd, after comparing her Barry Obambi to Jane Austen's Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice (but, as I have argued, inadvertently diminishing her candidate by the comparison), parenthetically casts John McCain as Wickham, "the rival for Elizabeth’s affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy’s character."

You can find a better contrast of characters in Jennifer Rubin's "The Ultimate Contrast" in Commentary. First she quotes from David Ignatius's column on McCain in The Washington Post ("McCain's True Voice").

McCain's triumph, finally, was that he got over Vietnam. He didn't fulminate against antiwar activists. ("I have made far too many mistakes in my own life to forever disparage people.") He accepted the ways America had changed in his absence. He didn't bear grudges. He had finally grown up. McCain wrote in a magazine article soon after his homecoming in March 1973: "Now that I'm back, I find a lot of hand-wringing about this country. I don't buy that. I think America today is a better country than the one I left nearly six years ago."

She then adds:

Given the current back-and-forth on The Ego and the examination of Barack Obama’s enormous self-regard, the contrast between the two candidates is breathtaking. McCain himself has seemed from time to time to hint at the same theme as he looked back at his callow youth and exaggerated self-regard, which in retrospect he saw as entirely undeserved. McCain’s reminiscence sets up implicit contrast with his opponent, whom McCain suggests, suffers from this very arrogance....That huge dichotomy between an accomplished, humble man and an arrogant, unaccomplished one is, I think, what McCain’s team is driving at.

In this election, we have an old candidate and a young one, an experienced and tested one and an inexperienced and untested one, a candidate whose virtues and vices are well known to us and one who is shrouded in mystery. One is curmudgeony and the other slick. Both men are profoundly influenced by their respective pasts and have written books about their respective fathers. There is a literary quality to these unfolding events. An intelligent design, one might even say. But the details are set forth in way to confront the American people with a clear choice between sober, adult government and downy, pop star make-believe.

On this same theme, you can read Rich Lowry's "The Audacity of Haughty," and see John Trever's cartoon (Albuquerque Journal) of a personified America coming to Obama's filling station, but finding only three pumps labeled "air."

Mac and the Bear

George Will recently reminded us of this great quip from a less than great British PM: "Asked in 1957 what would determine his government's course, Harold Macmillan, Britain's new prime minister, replied, 'Events, dear boy, events.'"

Many of us who follow political developments have been aware that the dynamics of the American presidential election could be radically changed if al Qaeda or Iran were to shake up world affairs. As with Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama's push for the White House depends on either a prevailing peace or a peace that ought to be. Now the Russian bear has started gnawing into the juicy little Republic of Georgia.

Suddenly Barack Obama's European concert tour looks especially silly, and the Democratic candidate resembles a little boy who has been playing fireman behind the wheel of a hook and ladder when suddenly the alarm sounds, and the man of flame-tested crisis experience lifts him aside and takes command. John McCain looks more the Commander-in-Chief now than he ever did.

Moreover, whereas McCain once seemed like the best we could come up with in this odd primary season, now he seems like the right man for the critical juncture in world history. The Russian invasion of Georgia may well be one of the most significant events of the twenty-first century, comparable to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, Hitler’s annexation of the Sudetenland in 1936 and Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in 1946 in response to Soviet activity in Eastern Europe. As the depth of the danger sinks in, Americans will ask themselves who the best man (or woman; that question's not settled yet) for the job is in its new dimensions.

This Russian imperial (what the Wall Street Journal calls "Bonapartist") land grab in Georgia is reminiscent of so many sad histories. In 1918, Imperial Germany lay prostrate after defeat in World war I. Less than 20 years later, Hitler's Third Reich annexed the Sudetenland in neighboring Czechoslovakia. And of course it did not end there. In 1990, the great Soviet Union, the mother of world communism, collapsed and its empire shattered across eastern Europe. Now, not even 20 years later, the bear is beginning to devour poor Europe again. Will the response in the West be any different?

I anticipate that President Bush will issue a declaration similar to that which his father issued after Saddam Hussein swallowed Kuwait. "This aggression will not stand." (He was provoked to this by Margaret Thatcher who, in a PBS interview, said "Aggressors must be stopped. Not only stopped, they must be thrown out!") Of course, expelling Russia is trickier business than expelling Saddam.

Now we see the different foreign policy approaches of the two candidates put to the test in real life crisis. Read John McCain's statement in response to the invasion.

He says, "Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America."

He made sure to mention his personal familiarity with the situation. "I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia."

Whereas Obama recently traveled through Europe "playing" president and talking about tearing down all sorts of metaphorical "walls," McCain draws our attention to a wall that could reappear in Europe if we mishandle these events. "Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors - such as Ukraine - for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics."

His plan is this:

• The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

• NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

• The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

• Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

• The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

• The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.

You should also read Barack Obama's statement on Georgia. It is hard to find a plan of action in the speech.

• We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence.

• There should also be a United Nations mediator to address this crisis, and the United States should fully support this effort.

• We should also convene other international forums to condemn this aggression, to call for an immediate halt to the violence, and to review multilateral and bilateral arrangements with Russia - including Russia's interest in joining the World Trade Organization. ... (Then he digresses on the irony of this happening during the Olympic celebration of peace and unity.)
  

• That means Russian peacekeeping troops should be replaced by a genuine international peacekeeping force, Georgia should refrain from using force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and a political settlement must be reached that addresses the status of these disputed regions. (This is stated more as a daydream than an actionable item.)

• Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a Membership Action Plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.

Whereas McCain provided a thorough (for a short speech) historical context for understanding the invasion, Obama says only, "The relationship between Russia and the West is long and complicated. There have been many turning points, for good and ill. This is another turning point." He calls repeatedly on Russia to "end the violence," but there is no reference to Russia's regional ambitions and their threat to the wider world.

And there is this puzzling statement. "There is also an urgent need for humanitarian assistance to reach the people of Georgia, and casualties on both sides." How is it our responsibility to give humanitarian assistance for Russian casualties? Surely the oil-rich aggressor state can handle that.

He thinks that flattery or verbal assurance that we are no threat to Russian greatness will make a difference. "We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation..."

Obama is good with metaphors. In dealing with steely, wall-building imperialists like Putin, he seems ridiculously unqualified.

Health Care Driven GOP Victory in November

President Bush's military success in Iraq may cast voter attention back to domestic concerns which, even the war notwithstanding, are considerable. The economy. Immigration. Health care. Of course, these are inter-related.

The conventional wisdom is that a domestic focus means a Democratic victory. In 2008, that is not so obvious. When the Democratic candidate want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, giving us the largest tax increase since World War II, when gas is over $4 a gallon and the Democratic candidate opposes tapping into American sources of oil and natural gas, and when he wants to (in effect) nationalize the health care system further inflating the deficit, crippling the economy and deteriorating the quality of health care, and when the Republican candidate advocates the opposite of these stands, an opportunity presents itself for the GOP to win on an domestic agenda. In other words, McCain's ticket to the White House is (1) keep taxes low, (2) drill for oil, and (3) reform the health care system with a market-driven approach.

In this month's issue of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, James C. Capretta will give you a comprehensive, clear and not numbingly detailed summary of the history of the issue and of the plans coming out of the two parties ("Health Care 2008: A Political Primer").

Capretta sees the audacity of hope on the Republican side, if Sen. McCain would only realize it and explain it convincingly to the American people. He concludes, "...we may well be witness this year to the emergence of the next great conservative reform effort. Indeed, health care reform just might turn out to be what tax reform was in the 1980s and welfare reform was in the 1990s: a platform for a focused conservative effort to achieve through market forces and economic incentives what the left has failed to do through government." Yes we can!

James C. Capretta is a New Atlantis contributing editor and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He also writes a health care policy blog, Diagnosis.

The Buzz on Critical Elections and Obama

When a remarkable presidential candidate emerges talking about "change," people start speculating about a "critical election" and "re-alignment." The theory of critical elections was developed by Walter Dean Burnham and you can read about it here. (Yes, you do the work.)

In "Our Robed Rulers," James Stoner's review of Keith Whittington's Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History in the Claremont Review of Books, Stoner mentions critical elections but neither of the candidates by name. Presidents are either reconstructive, affiliated or pre-emptive. This theory began with Stephen Shrowronek's The Politics Presidents Make (1993) and Whittington refines it. The reconstructive ones are transformative leaders, like Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR "who changed the terms of political debate, modified the structure of the state and its activities, and, yes, realigned the people's partisan identification." The affiliated ones follow the reconstructive ones and perpetuate their changes. George Bush relative to Ronald Reagan. The preemptive ones, like Eisenhower and Clinton, merely interrupt but do not fundamentally challenge the "regime" established by the reconstructive predecessor. And he applies all of this to the struggle since the Founding between the judicial supremacists (Federalist, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas) and departmentalists (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln) in American jurisprudence.

The day after reading this is in the CRB, I was treated to John Steele Gordon's thoughts on critical elections in his Wall Street Journal essay, "2008: A Watershed Election?" (July 10, 2008).

Is the 2008 election likely to be a repeat of 1932 and 1980, remaking the political landscape in the process? That's unlikely. For one thing, while the incumbent is unpopular, he is not running. And the economy, while certainly dicey right now, is a long way from the desperate problems of 1932 or the very serious ones of 1980.

Gordon finds parallels with 1896, an election that does not come up even in learned conversation as often as, say, 1960 or 1980. That was William McKinley (R) versus William Jennings Bryan (D).

McKinley too was a genuine war hero (distinguished service in the Civil War) who then entered politics. He served several terms in the House and became chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. In 1891 he was elected governor of Ohio. His opponent's political résumé was a lot thinner, with only two back-bencher terms in the House. But at the Democratic convention of 1896, Bryan electrified the crowd with his "Cross of Gold" speech. It instantly became an American classic and propelled him to the nomination at just 36 years old, by far the youngest man ever nominated by a major party. Like Mr. Obama, Bryan promised a new politics aimed to benefit the common man, not the capitalists.

Of course, young William Jennings Bryan lost to old McKinley who convinced America of the value that experience brings and that the young fire brand would ruin the economy. And, of course, Obama is Bryan and Ole John McCain is McKinley (who, if this is true, should stay out of Buffalo).

Read the whole article. (I know when you don't follow the links. I have secret ways of seeing these things.)

It's the Price of Gas, Stupid!

I just filled up my Honda Odyssey here on Long Island...$71! Gas is not just over $4 a gallon. That was a few weeks ago. At $4.23, it is now well over $4 and heading swiftly toward $5. The candidate who squarely and convincingly addresses this issue will be the next President of the United States. It's as simple as that.

Message to John McCain. Do not just concede that drilling is likely okay now. Call for drilling and make a big point of it.

In fact, call for rapid expansion of our nuclear and oil refinery capacity as well. The last time a license was issued for building a nuclear power plant was 1973. That was 35 years ago. Actually McCain has recently said that he wants 45 new reactors by 2030 to supplement the 104 that currently supply 20% of our national electricity needs (New York Times 6/19/08). In 2005, the Christian Science Monitor reported, "In 1981, the US had 324 refineries with a total capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day, the Department of Energy reports. Today, there are just 132 oil refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million b.p.d., according to Oil and Gas Journal, a trade publication." In real terms, the economy has tripled in size since then.

If John McCain hammers at this issue unrelentingly and with passion ("American Energy Means Prosperity and Security"), and if Obama's high principles and tender conscience (and powerful environmentalist lobby) will not allow him to soften his stern opposition to these measures, the Republicans will win the White House in November.

Charles Krauthammer, "McCain's Oil Epiphany" (Washington Post, June 20, 2008), is puzzled by McCain's half measures on nuclear plants and utterly perplexed over his refusal to support drilling in the 0.01% of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) that contains those billions of barrels of oil.

Paul Krugman thinks drilling, whether off-shore or in ANWR, will have an insignificant impact on oil prices, even in the long run, and that the suggestion that it will is a con. Keep it up, Paul.

Michael Barone suggests that the Democrats have their heads buried deep in the sands of unreality, not only on this issue but also on the war in Iraq ("The Facts in Iraq Are Changing"). Even the Washington Post is telling them to wake up on Iraq. When a candidate, Obama in this case (for ideological reasons, perhaps also for party political reasons), is stuck on a major narrative that is years out of date and the obsolescence of which most voters can see plainly, it is hard to imagine that he could win the election.

McCain Should Tap Schundler For Veep

www.schundler.org

David Brooks has reminded us that, "recent vice presidential nominees haven’t had any effect on key states or constituencies. They haven’t had much effect on elections at all, except occasionally as hapless distractions." But conservatives have serious questions about how faithful John McCain will be to conservative principles and how competent he will be in handling issues relating to the economy. (Of course, competency in economic policy necessitates fidelity to conservative principles.) So I think it is fair to expect that McCain's choice of running mate will send a valuable signal to conservatives regarding his stewardship of the Gipper's revolution, and to the nation regarding how seriously he takes domestic economic concerns. We don't want grumpy conservatives staying home this November.

My suggestion is Bret Schundler, the former three term mayor of Jersey City. Schundler is a bona fide conservative of the sort that we were searching for in this election cycle but could not find.

Schundler is a political conservative. He believes that in order for power to be responsive to the people, government should be kept as local as possible and that people should have as much control over their own affairs as possible. That is Reagan conservatism. But it is a conservatism that is genuinely concerned about the suffering poor and, like Ronald Reagan, believes in their ability to improve their own lives when freed to do so. As mayor, Schundler empowered parents through a school choice program. With vouchers, he multiplied the number of private and public options available to parents. In politics, money is power, and so these vouchers put parents in charge of the schooling services by giving them the power to choose which school was likely to provide their children with the best education.

Schundler is an economic conservative. He believes, and demonstrated as mayor, that competition should be introduced wherever possible to increase government efficiency and reduce government corruption. He introduced reforms that reduced the cost of school construction by 80%. In doing so, he significantly increased the funds available for education without raising a nickel of taxes. He privatized the management of the city's water utility. Water purity levels became among the best in the nation while water rates went down 25%.

Schundler is a moral conservative. He is pro-life and committed to everything that contributes to healthy families and a wholesome community life.

Schundler is a conservative evangelical, but not the goofy kind a la Mike Huckabee or the spooky kind a la Pat Robertson. He is an evangelical who lives and has succeeded in Jersey City, not Virginia Beach or Arkansas.

I expect he would work very well with the nominee. In addition to being a disarmingly likable fellow...

Like John McCain, Schundler has a record of working across the political aisle. He was elected mayor with a slate of Democratic council members committed to fighting corruption and empowering ordinary people. He also crosses the aisle electorally. He won in Jersey City which was overwhelmingly Democrat (were there any Republicans?), 30% black, 30% Hispanic and 10% Asian. He was re-elected in 1993 with 70% of the vote.

Like McCain, Schundler's opposition to corruption is in the marrow of his bones. He is as honest as the day is long (to coin a phrase).

In 1999, Bill Buckley told us to watch for Bret Schundler as the Republican nominee in 2008. John McCain could fulfill that prediction by tapping Schundler as his running mate. Then we would also have a very Reaganesque candidate for the White House in 2012 regardless of the outcome in November.

(Bret Schundler presently teaches Policy In Depth at The King's College, and runs The Policy Center there. He just spent several days in Albania promoting the principles of liberty and explaining how to reduce corruption in government.)

McCain and the Church of Global Warming

Larry Thornberry has the relevant question of the day:

If Republicans are going to be stampeded by phony environmental alarms and propose terrible public policies in the name of these scams, what the hell do we need Democrats for?

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13211

Bjorn Lomborg, one of the few sensible environmentalists alive today, has a cost/benefit analysis of Kyoto here: hint--it's throwing dollars into the wind for pennies in return.

UK Guardian: Money for Nothing - Björn Lomborg

And David Limbaugh, brother to Rush, gets to the nub:

It is not Earth's ecosystem that hangs in the balance, but America's future. Those whose vision isn't blurred by green-colored glasses and the temptation to win accolades from the leftist-dominated culture can see that the global push to "save the planet" is more about destroying capitalism, private property and Western culture than sound, science-based environmental stewardship. Never mind the staggering contradiction that free market economies produce cleaner environs.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2008/05/new_column_john_1.html#more

McCain Bags the Health Care Issue

Despite all the polling and social science, political life continues to be intriguingly unpredictable. So, with a generally unpopular war in Iraq, a shaky economy and a very unpopular sitting Republican President, the Democrats should be way ahead in the polls and the Republicans deep down in the dumps. Instead, it is looking better and better for Republican John McCain if he just plays his cards right.

Over at National Review Online, in "The Right Rx," he plays precisely the right card on Health Care policy. This should be a Democrat vote getter. But with this consumer-driven health care solution, McCain will walk away with it.

The Obama and Clinton response to these problems is to promise universal coverage, whatever its cost, and the massive tax increases, mandates, and government regulation that it imposes. But in the end this will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly. We’ll have all the problems, and more, of private health care — rigid rules, long waits, and lack of choices, and risk degrading its great strengths and advantages including the innovation and life-saving technology that make American medicine the most advanced in the world.

I have a different approach. I believe the key to real reform is to restore control over our health-care system to the patients themselves. To that end, my reforms are built on the pursuit of three goals: paying only for quality medical care, having insurance choices that are diverse and responsive to individual needs, and restoring our sense of personal responsibility.

For more in this consumer-driven approach, see my previous post on Regina Herzlinger's address at The King's College, "Hope for the Health Care Mess."

Islamic Demands, McCain Balks

Tony Blankley recently had a fine column on the increasing clarity of the mortal danger we face as a civilization with the influx of Muslim immigrants. ("Rising Euro-Muslim Tensions.") The situation is far advanced in Europe. We should learn lessons from their experiences.

But radicalized Islam places little value on the individual, while holding up for supreme value the interests of the group, particularly their view of the group called Islam. And it is this aggressive, assertive insistence by radicalized Muslims in the West to subordinate our inherent rights to their collective demands that slowly and more or less quietly is forcing Westerners to take sides in the radicals' demands. The resolution of this developing conflict -- if not managed by the elites in Western countries on behalf of indigenous Western rights -- inevitably will result in unnecessary violence.

Muneer Fareed, head of the Islamic Society of North America, has given us a stateside example of this illiberal bullying. He is "demanding" that John McCain refer to radical Islamist terrorists as "criminals" rather than as "Islamic." Says Blankley, "McCain, being as tough as nails, has said he has no intention of submitting to Fareed's demand and will continue to use "Islamic" to describe Islamic terrorists. But it will be interesting to see what the two Democratic candidates for president choose to do about this demand."

In a comment over on my Townhall version of this blog (Hugh Hewitt tells me that this practice is called "double breasting"), "Buck" writes:

Having lived in Muslim countries for many years, I will tell you that anything anyone says about Mohammed, Islam, or anything pertaining to that religion is a no no. When a Muslim immigrates to a western country, he brings his stupidity with him. Anyone in a western country who dares to impune anything about Islam will be targeted for death or mayhem. Western countries be warned. If they allow Muslims to immigrate to their country, they had better make sure that they do not admit any crazies.

A word to the wise.

McCain's Legacy Precedes Him

Does the US Constitution mean anything anymore? The Founders' wisdom displayed in its construction appears an increasingly thin barrier between us and the sort of soft despotism of which DeTocqueville warned us. Encouragingly, no new breaches have yet occurred under Chief Justice Roberts, and several existing ones have been repaired. Yet there is abroad in this land of ours an impulse to throw it off, as if it actually were, in the immortal words of William Jefferson Clinton to his Euro interlocutors, "that damned constitution", an 18th century institutional relic still impeding the bright future the left has in mind for us all. One such inconvenience for liberals-in-hurry is the First Amendment's prohibition of government restrictions on free political speech.

It is a measure of the pathology of the times that this bedrock principle, once enshrined as sacrosanct, has been dealt a significant blow by the tag-teaming effort of all three branches of government in passing into law the McCain-Feingold atrocity, somehow sidestepping the actual words, meaning, and intent of the constitution, which to many startled and alarmed observers thought impossible to misinterpret--does "no" mean "no" only in the context of sexual harrassment? John McCain, George Bush, and the five Supremes whose pretzel logic delivered that serious blow to our first amendment privileges, especially deserve the opprobrium, even the hot anger, of all liberty-loving citizens.

George Will points to the kind of brush fires springing up across the land, typified by the outrage in my home state of Colorado. Residents of Parker North, a conclave of some 200 houses, were surprised to find that their public objections to being annexed by the larger town of Parker ran afoul of McCain Feingold. Under the umbrella and instruction of the federal government in its expressed intent to regulate political speech despite the constitution's clear language denying that authority, many state and local officials, mimicking their constitutional elders, are driving their various regulatory trucks through the hole blasted in the constitution's walls by his eminence John McCain. Thanks, Senator.

The residents of Parker North are being assisted in a federal lawsuit against their local commissars by the Institute for Justice. Perhaps this important suit will make it to the attention of the Supremes, and with their new majority will remedy this egregious, and dangerous, deprivation of liberty. Read the Will piece here,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/the_parker_six_beat_mccainism.html

and consider donating to the Institute for Justice here: http://www.ij.org/.--they are doing the Lord's work here and in many areas of constitutional incursion by governments intent on taking from YOU the liberties the fundamental law of the land guarantees to US citizens.

We're Still at War. McCain Wins in '08.

I am up to my eyebrows in grading, but I do not want to leave the blog "dead." So I will be selecting some interesting posts from the archives for any who wasn't among the dozen or two readers of Principalities and Powers had when they first appeared. "Wartime Means a Republican President" first appeared on July 19, 2007. I was favoring Fred Thompson at the time, so just substitute the name "John McCain." Of course, McCain was nowhere in sight at the time, completely written off by just about everyone.

Note that in last Wednesday's debate, Hillary Clinton reaffirmed that she would withdraw our troops from Iraq within sixty days of taking office regardless of conditions on the ground and regardless of advice from the military leadership. Barack Obama would give it sixteen months.

Yogi Berra once said, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future” (or something like that; I can't find the original source). Political science purports to be a predictive science, but because the variables are innumerable the future is not ascertainable and fortune is ultimately unconquerable. "Black swans" will often confound our political expectations (See The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb or the review in The Economist).

Nonetheless (ah, the fool's word), it is such irresistible sport to predict elections.

People are saying that the unpopularity of the war in Iraq guarantees a Democratic victory in 2008. Rasmussen reports that 53% favor troop withdrawal within 120 days. The Democratic candidates favor early withdrawal, the Republicans do not. Next question please. But this is irrelevant.

Since 1964, Americans in times of war, including the Cold War, have elected Republicans in general and convincing commanders-in-chief in particular, to the executive office. In the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater, the Republican, came across as unstable and unfit to have his finger "on the button." In 1968, Lyndon Johnson had us deep into an unpopular war in Vietnam, and Nixon, the Republican, was a more convincing commander-in-chief than Humphrey. 1972, Nixon. No contest. In 1976, it took Watergate, Ford's pardon of Nixon and Ford's inexplicable assertion that "there is no Soviet domination in Eastern Europe" to put the Democrat, Jimmy Carter, into the White House. It helped that Carter was a naval officer. Carter proved to be utterly incompetent. The "debacle in the desert" sealed his single term presidency. Reagan was the unflinching hawk: two terms followed by Bush. In 1988, Michael Dukakis broadcast his unfamiliarity and discomfort with military affairs by riding in a tank with his clownishly helmeted head peeping out of the top, accomplishing just the opposite of what he has hoped. In the 1992 and 1996, we were at peace, so the Democrat, Bill Clinton, was given charge. In 2000, we were still at peace, but George W. Bush won only on account of the electoral college system. Most voting Americans chose Al Gore, the Democrat (or thought they did). By 2004, we were back in a wartime situation and we chose the incumbent Republican candidate.

That brings us to 2008. In a Thompson-Obama race, Thompson wins because Obama has no foreign policy experience or even executive experience at the state level. He barely had time to find the bathrooms in the Senate building before he went off on the campaign trail. In a Giuliani-anyone race, Rudy wins. I wouldn't mess with him. Neither should Osama. In an anyone-Hillary race, anyone else will win. She is too widely perceived as being disingenuous, instinctively disinclined to support the measures necessary to prosecute the terror war (wire taps, firm handed interrogation techniques, etc.) and too willing to sacrifice national security for personal political gain. I don't know where they get these ideas.

Regardless of what people think of the Iraq situation, the terror threat still confronts us and Americans will not elect someone who is less than convincing as a defender of our national security. The one who takes the oath of office in 2009 will be the one whom Americans will have recognized as being a true or at least plausible commander-in-chief. That will be a Republican because the Democrats, with one eye on their far left base and another on the polls, are all playing the pacifist in one form or another. This outcome will be all the more certain if al Qaeda to blows up something or cut off a head at an appropriate moment.

But then there are always Black Swans.

E Pluribus Unum in 2008

We live in a time of greater political division than we have seen in generations. Today’s college student has known nothing else. The fact that people have responded so positively to Barack Obama’s call for a new politics that is trans-partisan and post-racial and that will bring the country together shows that people are hungry for the unity that healthy political life requires. His likely opponent in the fall, John McCain, himself places a great deal of emphasis on collective patriotic self-sacrifice over against selfish individualism.

But liberal democracy is not about unity. The ancient republics sought to foster civic unity around a shared understanding of virtue, the best way of life, and perhaps even what we would now call national greatness. The American Founders deliberately rejected this model in favor of the uniquely modern republic. Liberal democracy, that modern innovation, is about recognizing and managing disunity in a civil manner. Anything else, especially in an age of modern technology and the efficient apparatus of the modern state, will tend swiftly in the direction of totalitarianism.

Unity of the sort that people long to experience in politics can be found only in the body of Christ. Paul exhorts the church at Ephesus “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:1-6 ESV).

Unity of the sort that political leaders promise us from time to time requires either a liberty crushing political cult (North Korea is an extreme example, but a fair one) or humility and gentleness on a scale that the limitations of the flesh will simply not allow. Such good and pleasant fraternal peace is rare enough in the congregation of the redeemed.

Beware of political promises that mimic the promises of Christ.

For a prior reflection on our successful management of political disunity, see my previous post, Democrat Anger Management.

McCain's Classical Republic

We've known for a long time who Hillary Clinton is and I think we have finally established who this unknown and unaccomplished young Barack Obama is (a socialist America hater), but despite his twenty years in the United States Senate, do we really know this John McCain?

Matt Welch, author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), argues in "John McCain Wants You" (New York Times, March 26, 2008), that the organizing principle informing McCain's decisions and fuelling his passions is the priority of the res publica and thus the virtuous subordination of individual liberty to the patriotic concern for American greatness. Welch sees "a decade-long attack on the individual" that "reflects a worryingly militaristic view of citizenship."

McCain speaks of "serving a cause greater than self-interest." In a candidates' debate, he distinguished his military leadership from Romney's in the corporate world, snapping, "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit!" In the 200 campaign, he lamented, "We are fast becoming a nation of alienating individualists, unwilling to put the unifying values of patriotism ahead of our narrow self-interests.” He added that, “cynicism threatens to become a ceiling on our greatness.” In these statements, there is a pattern of denigrating the enlightened self-interest on which our economy and politics have been founded from the time of the Founding and on which our political institutions are premised. In their place appears to be a "call to elevate national greatness" that Welch says is throughout the five books McCain has authored. (I would note that this is the same calls to "collective duty and Washington rejuvenation over whatever individual roads we might be pursuing" is the same as Obama's call for unity, but in McCain, a genuine centrist with decades of experience in government, it is plausible.)

I have been excusing his McCain-Feingold assault on first amendment freedoms as merely an emotional reaction to his Keating Five experience and thus an exception to what will otherwise be a conservative defense of liberty. Apparently not. In response to concerns over restrictions on free speech in the sixty days prior to an election under McCain-Feingold, the Arizona Senator said, “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote ‘First Amendment rights’ are being respected that has become corrupt.” Yikes! Welch claims that this understanding of McCain makes sense of his concern for steroid use in professional sports, betting on professional sports, our treatment of terrorist suspects in our custody, and his original immigration bill.

McCain's politics are essentially a pagan, classical republican view of citizenship, but supplemented with the intrusive power of the modern state. The danger is this: the classical view of citizenship enabled by modern technology and by the modern state moves politics in the direction of totalitarianism.

This return to a more civic spirited view of citizenship seems like an attractive antidote to narrow individualism, but its exercise is too informed by McCain's personal understanding of "greatness." The danger of this remedy for the politically unhealthy elements of individualism is that it opens the door to all manner of statist intervention wider than it already is, and even establishes it explicitly as a political priority.

This is a certainty: the next President will be one of the two Democratic candidates or it will be John McCain (ceteris paribus). Casting your vote for a third party candidate or staying home won't change that. Given the importance of Supreme Court appointments, national security, abortion and consumer-driven health care reforms, it is the wiser course simply to contend with any McCain-driven greatness legislation that comes along--which will be the easier to do with these other benefits that will comes with a McCain presidency.

We are not electing a king. McCain would be restrained by his own party. By contrast, there is nothing in the Democratic party to restrain either Obama or Clinton. In addition, despite these references to American greatness, there is an all important modesty in McCain's politics that is missing in the that of the two Democrats, as William Kristol summarizes in "It's All About Him" (New York Times, Feb. 25, 2008):

"It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”"

Huck Wins South, Bested by 7-year-old

It seems clear now, if it wasn't before, that the Republican nominee will be John McCain, and that the Republican ticket will be McCain-Huckabee...alas. (Oh, stop that.)

Regent University's Charles Dunn at The Chuck Dunn Report explains why in "The Key That Unlocks The White House Door." Since Nixon, no one has won the White House without a strong appeal to the South. Of the nation's five regions, the South has by far the most electoral college votes (189, followed by the Midwest at 124). The winner must appeal to southern concerns and demonstrate at least a credible Christian religiosity. Of the seven southern states that have held primaries so far, Huckabee has won five (all five that were in contention yesterday on Super Tuesday: AL, AR, GA, TN, WV) and come second in one (SC). The other two states (FL, SC) McCain won on his own. Huckabee clearly also appeals to Evangelical Christians.

Nonetheless, this Evangelical remains unimpressed by the southern Evangelical candidate. I always have the impression from Mike Huckabee that he is talking down to me. Seven year old Aleya Deatsch from West Des Moines found the same thing, according to the New York Times.

“Who is your favorite author?” Aleya Deatsch, 7, of West Des Moines asked Mr. Huckabee in one of those posing-like-a-shopping-mall-Santa moments.

Mr. Huckabee paused, then said his favorite author was Dr. Seuss.

In an interview afterward with the news media, Aleya said she was somewhat surprised. She thought the candidate would be reading at a higher level.

“My favorite author is C. S. Lewis,” she said.

I happen to know this girl, and if Mr. Huckabee had known that he was dealing with a homeschooled Orthodox Presbyterian, he might have said at least John Bunyan, if not John Owen.

Romney is Nice, But No President

Last night, at the final Republican debate before the Super Tuesday primaries, John McCain and Mitt Romney sparred over whether Gov. Romney advocated timetables for withdrawal from Iraq after the Republican Congressional defeat of 2006. Drunk with victory at the polls, the Democrats were speaking incessantly about bringing the troops home and establishing "timetables" for doing so. In that context, both ABC and CBS asked Mitt Romney for his views on withdrawing troops from Iraq. McCain rebuked his opponent for not giving the simple and decisive answer, "No!" Romney countered quite emphatically, and with visible irritation, indignation and even frustration as the charge kept returning, that he was speaking of various other timetables such as in fact we have.

The statements in question were these. From ABC News, "Romney Embraces Private Iraq 'Timetables'," whose Robin Roberts asked "if he believes there should be a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq"

Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about, but those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police and the leadership of the Iraqi government.

On CBS's "Early Show," Romney said:

Well, I wouldn't publish [a timetable] for my adversaries to see. [Instead he advocates] a series of milestones, timetables as well, to measure how well they're doing. But that's not something you publish for the enemy to understand, because of course they could just lay in the weeds until the time that you're gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly.

ABC then made this interesting observation: "While Romney's Tuesday call for 'milestones' is nothing new, he has mostly shied away in the past from employing the more politically charged terminology of 'timetables.'" They also included a statement from a Romney official explaining what the candidate meant. In other words, the controversy was immediate, not something John McCain has invented.

As head of the executive branch of government, the President's chief responsibility is to defend the lives and liberties of the people against enemies both foreign and domestic. The two chief threats to the lives of people in this country are Radical Islam (primarily al Qaeda) and abortion. All the remaining candidates are square on the abortion question. But this remark just over one year ago under the pressure of fashinable thinking and voter anxiety shows that Mitt Romney does not possess the mettle and judgment to be commander in chief of the armed forces which is fully one half of the job.

I have tried to see the merits of this fellow. He did a good job last night of defending his record as Governor of Massachusetts. He was almost Reaganesque in his warmth. My guard was coming down. But in his altercations with the smiling and self-possessed McCain, he showed none of Reagan's executive fierceness. At no point did his words, tone, or manner suggest, "Don't mess with me."

Of the four men, there was only one President among them, and that was John McCain. The questions for Republicans is: who do you want confronting the deadly international evil that threatens us in Iraq, Iran, North Korea and in sleeper cells here at home and who do you want making the next two appointments to the Supreme Court: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain. The stakes are too high for a "sit this one out" strategy.

Perhaps McCain...but Not If Huck's Coming Too

Among my other reservations about John McCain as president (the McCain-Feingold assault not just on free speech, but on political speech at election time!; the Gang of Fourteen; etc.), there is also this fondness that he and Mike "Yet-Another-Man-From-Hope" Huckabee have for one another and the likelihood which that presents of a McCain-Huckabee ticket. Having the Huckster just a heartbeat away from the Oval Office (bullet, stroke, bout with cancer--McCain is 72) is off-putting, to say the least.

Peter Augustine Lawler (Berry College, author of American Political Rhetoric: A Reader as several other fine books) reports this sober defense of Mitt Romney over at No Left Turns.

Oh, and here's Ann Coulter speaking for Romney and flailing the darlings of the Democratic Party who are his closest rivals for the GOP nomination. Go on. You'll have fun.

A Word In McCain's Defense

Adrian Wooldridge's recent attempt in the New York Times to convince conservatives that John McCain is their man in 2008 ("Mr. Right - Don't Be Fooled: McCain is No Moderate," Jan. 17, 2008) caught my eye because of his fine 2004 book, The Right Nation, Conservative Power in America which he co-authored with John Micklethwait.

The concerns that Mark Levin lists in "The Real McCain Record" are real and weighty. But just as I would expect Evangelicals to focus on the practical essentials in the event of a Giuliani nomination (which at this point seems highly unlikely--but then this is politics), Wooldridge points "movement conservatives" to McCain's conservative core.

Mr. Huckabee would tilt the party away from people who look like Mr. Romney and toward people who look like himself — blue-collar social conservatives. Pragmatists like Mr. Romney argue that they could stitch the coalition back together and then manage it better. Mr. McCain offers a third way for conservatives: stick to the core principles while feuding with movement barons like James Dobson and Grover Norquist....Mr. McCain is more likely than any of his rivals to offer conservatives what they want: a vigorous pursuit of the fight against terrorism, the appointment of conservative judges, retrenchment and reform of government.

When the party finds it this difficult to settle on an acceptable candidate, and when the candidate on whom the party settles is considered by many as simply "acceptable," you can expect a Democratic victory.

What to Remember About John McCain

When your party's presidential primary presents you with a uniformly compromised selection of candidates, it is hard to keep all the pluses and minuses straight and balanced.


Mark Levin reminds us of John McCain's dark side, which is deep and scary, in "The Real McCain Record" (NRO, January 11, 2008).


Oh, fudge! Just when I was beginning to get enthusiastic.


In the grand scheme of things, the ultimate meaning of events such as these does not pertain to politics, but to the Lord Jesus Christ, his redemptive purposes, his glory and his kingdom. Perhaps the Lord is turning the eyes of our hearts away from the glory of men to the Glorious One who directs the affairs of men and the courses of empires, and brings good out of evil for his people who love him.

Closing the Deal: Obama Didn't; McCain Must

Karl Rove on "Why Hillary Won" (today's Wall Street Journal--check out their improved OpinionJournal page).

1. She got the beer drinkers; Obama got the more affluent, educated white wine drinkers. There are more beer drinkers.
2. The weepy moment connected with women.
3. The substantive attacks on Obama's record, his lack of a record, and his general lightness.
4. Obama fails to close the sale by adding substance to inspirational rhetoric.

Speaking of closing the deal, Kenneth Blackwell argues in today's New York Sun ("How To Seal the Deal") that this is precisely what McCain has yet to do with the conservative Republican base, and must do if he is to win not just the nomination but also the election in November.

1. He must be the agent of change (earmarks, entitlements, energy, health care).
2. He must reach out to conservatives and show that he will be helpful to their causes.
3. Follow Giuliani's lead by highlighting what good appointments he will make to the judiciary.

These measures will "energize the right without angering the center."