The failure of the so-called second two-party system (Whigs and Democrats) to address vexing questions during the 1840s and 1850s hastened the coming of the Civil War. Once labeled the "bumbling generation" for their inability to achieve a lasting compromise, the politicians of the ante bellum period too often pursued partisan and sectional loyalties over common sense. Notwithstanding that notable exception, the two-party system has, in actual fact, proved quite adroit at finding long-term solutions to an endless parade of crises and crossroads in the life of our nation.
However, we are currently in a period in which compromise and solution-oriented legislating seems increasingly rare and difficult. Predictions of an Impending Crisis of Civil-War magnitude are hyperbolic, but the extreme partisanship and self-interestedness of the current generation of statesmen is depressing.
The upcoming vote in the Senate on the Minimum Wage bill presents an instructive dilemma for the leadership of the Democratic Party. For years, Democrats have called for an upward adjustment in wages as a cornerstone in their program to achieve "fairness" for working people. This bill cements a healthy increase ($2.10 over three years). On the other hand, the legislation also includes a permanent reduction in the "estate tax," which Democrats have resisted just as vocally. With midterm elections drawing near, and the Democrats riding the wave of mass discontent with Republican governance, the opposition party seemed poised to organize a national campaign around the issue of the minimum wage. The dilemma: what to do now? Take the minimum-wage compromise? Or hold out for all (and risk achieving nothing) while preserving a promising wedge issue for November?
In today's Opinion Journal the WSJ editorializes:
"The bill needs 60 votes to defeat a liberal filibuster, and nearly all of the 55 Republicans are in favor. So we are about to find out if Senate Democrats are more interested in achieving the policy goals they claim to want, or merely in blow-everything-up obstruction."
This is obviously a tough call for Democrats. This will be a telling week.
However, we are currently in a period in which compromise and solution-oriented legislating seems increasingly rare and difficult. Predictions of an Impending Crisis of Civil-War magnitude are hyperbolic, but the extreme partisanship and self-interestedness of the current generation of statesmen is depressing.
The upcoming vote in the Senate on the Minimum Wage bill presents an instructive dilemma for the leadership of the Democratic Party. For years, Democrats have called for an upward adjustment in wages as a cornerstone in their program to achieve "fairness" for working people. This bill cements a healthy increase ($2.10 over three years). On the other hand, the legislation also includes a permanent reduction in the "estate tax," which Democrats have resisted just as vocally. With midterm elections drawing near, and the Democrats riding the wave of mass discontent with Republican governance, the opposition party seemed poised to organize a national campaign around the issue of the minimum wage. The dilemma: what to do now? Take the minimum-wage compromise? Or hold out for all (and risk achieving nothing) while preserving a promising wedge issue for November?
In today's Opinion Journal the WSJ editorializes:
"The bill needs 60 votes to defeat a liberal filibuster, and nearly all of the 55 Republicans are in favor. So we are about to find out if Senate Democrats are more interested in achieving the policy goals they claim to want, or merely in blow-everything-up obstruction."
This is obviously a tough call for Democrats. This will be a telling week.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Today's (Friday, July 28) RCP op-ed round-up is remarkable for the plentitude of Democrats supporting Bush (or, more accurately, critical of their own party's mindless opposition to the President, regardless of whether he is right, wrong or somewhere in-between).
Peter Beinert: "After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay."
Read all of "Pander and Run," (Washington Post). Note: Read all of this, if you can. Beinert is a thoughtful and strong voice on American foreign policy, and this essay is packed full of devastating (and quite funny) criticism of Democratic partisanship.
Alan Dershowitz: "...I believe that it would be a mistake at this time for the Democrats to hold the Bolton nomination hostage to this dispute. The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently vote based on what he has done at the United Nations and not based on documents related to his role as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
"What remains of last year's nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton's oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations' legal and moral authority."
Read all of "A Public Advocate for the United States" (Washington Times).
And, something of a stretch thematically, but because three is a good number, Ed Koch: "There are those who wishfully conclude that if Israel turns the other cheek and does not respond with armed force to attacks upon it, that such restraint will pay off with an ultimate peace treaty with its neighbors. That is ridiculous. I agree with those who believe that standing up to terrorism and never blinking is the only way to win that war."
Read his not-directly-critical-of-anyone-by-name, "Negotiations Alone Never Brought Peace" (RCP).
Peter Beinert: "After years of struggling to define their own approach to post-Sept. 11 foreign policy, Democrats seem finally to have hit on one. It's called pandering. In those rare cases when George W. Bush shows genuine sensitivity to America's allies and propounds a broader, more enlightened view of the national interest, Democrats will make him pay."
Read all of "Pander and Run," (Washington Post). Note: Read all of this, if you can. Beinert is a thoughtful and strong voice on American foreign policy, and this essay is packed full of devastating (and quite funny) criticism of Democratic partisanship.
Alan Dershowitz: "...I believe that it would be a mistake at this time for the Democrats to hold the Bolton nomination hostage to this dispute. The senators have had a year to observe and evaluate Mr. Bolton directly on his performance as our ambassador. They can intelligently vote based on what he has done at the United Nations and not based on documents related to his role as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.
"What remains of last year's nomination battle, though, is what I suspect to be the real reason that some Democrats oppose the Bolton nomination. That is, they felt uncomfortable with Mr. Bolton's oft-expressed and blunt skepticism over the United Nations' legal and moral authority."
Read all of "A Public Advocate for the United States" (Washington Times).
And, something of a stretch thematically, but because three is a good number, Ed Koch: "There are those who wishfully conclude that if Israel turns the other cheek and does not respond with armed force to attacks upon it, that such restraint will pay off with an ultimate peace treaty with its neighbors. That is ridiculous. I agree with those who believe that standing up to terrorism and never blinking is the only way to win that war."
Read his not-directly-critical-of-anyone-by-name, "Negotiations Alone Never Brought Peace" (RCP).
This week the American Bar Association issued a report from its "Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine." The report expresses alarm, and makes five recommendations, regarding the presidential practice of attaching accompanying commentary and administrative instructions to bills signed into law.
Thinking Out Loud:
While I have only skimmed the ABA report (and seen a few interviews with task force members and Michael Greco, ABA president), several thoughts occur to me:
1. The Preservation of the Separation of Powers is a noble pursuit.
2. I am pleased that the ABA, the press and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating and engaging the executive on this important development in the relationship between the branches.
3. The Task Force offers five resolutions that strike me, for the most part, as common sense recommendations.
4. The Task Force claims bipartisanship (and I recognize Bruce Fein and Mickey Edwards as members ostensibly disinclined to associate themselves with an anti-Bush lynch mob). Nevertheless, There are enough red flags to make me suspicious. Feel free to attach any relevant commentary on the composition of this committee.
5. Debatable Interpretation of History.
Thinking Out Loud:
While I have only skimmed the ABA report (and seen a few interviews with task force members and Michael Greco, ABA president), several thoughts occur to me:
1. The Preservation of the Separation of Powers is a noble pursuit.
2. I am pleased that the ABA, the press and the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating and engaging the executive on this important development in the relationship between the branches.
3. The Task Force offers five resolutions that strike me, for the most part, as common sense recommendations.
4. The Task Force claims bipartisanship (and I recognize Bruce Fein and Mickey Edwards as members ostensibly disinclined to associate themselves with an anti-Bush lynch mob). Nevertheless, There are enough red flags to make me suspicious. Feel free to attach any relevant commentary on the composition of this committee.
5. Debatable Interpretation of History.
Today Okie Gardener posted two oustanding pieces, "Small Government," which equates big government with hubris and original sin, and "The Mask is Off," which speaks to the latest installment of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East (I also encourage you to read the comments section for some cogent and provocative analysis and invite you to contribute to the discussion).
The two posts, ostensibly unconnected, actually speak to the two great dilemmas of our times, which are inextricably linked.
First, here is a more practical question: what happened to the party of small government? Ronald Reagan came to Washington convinced that people were basically good--but big government made them do bad things. For Reagan, and a generation of conservatives, government was the problem. The Bushies came to town seemingly convinced that big government would be just fine as long as it was in the hands of the right people. And, of course, that philosophy brings us back full-circle to FDR-LBJ-style liberalism, which began the whole conservative counter-revolution.
The Progressive Experiment has worked extremely well in the short term, but we will need to make some tough decisions in the coming years to save ourselves. Can we continue to live our lives of extraordinary luxury and excess without paying a price? The Progressive golden goose killed the republican wise ant. Now we are working the goose at maximum capacity. How long can we endure?
As I intimated, the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats in this regard. For a while I thought the Democrats were self-destructing, with their political correctness, America-bashing and defeatists default positions. But now I am not so sure. They are making a comeback as the only alternative to Republican flatulence. This election will be telling.
No matter, regardless of what happens in the next few election cycles, the Republicans show every sign of moral confusion. Lord Acton's maxim seems especially true with the Republican Party. God help us if they ever achieve supreme power.
I have previously praised the grand and healthy American tradition of "throwing" entrenched politicians out of office. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." Ruling cliques come and go. Fresh ideas and optimism constantly replenish good government, pushing out the generation gone stale. To that end, the ruling Republican majority is the perfect example of a party that entered with bright promise but now needs to go. Although I like many of the principals in the Republican coalition, the log-rolling, posturing, incontinent GOP-controlled Congress of 2006 is completely bereft of the spirit of 1994.
But wait, there is a problem. These are sober times. For all the infuriating shortcomings of the GOP, they are at least serious in facing the threat of the terrorists. We are in an unenviable position, to say the least, in which we are afraid to jettison the corpulent ruling party in fear that the opposition party has not the stomach for the dire times in which we live. For this particular development, perhaps even more than any of his other diabolical deeds, I hate Osama bin Laden. 9/11 so changed the calculus of American politics.
Madison assured us in "Federalist #10" that a far-flung republic could not only survive--but succeed. The far-flung, multi-media, micro-focused America of the twenty-first-century, threatened from without and decaying from within, will provide the ultimate test for that prediction. God Bless America. God save the Republic.
The two posts, ostensibly unconnected, actually speak to the two great dilemmas of our times, which are inextricably linked.
First, here is a more practical question: what happened to the party of small government? Ronald Reagan came to Washington convinced that people were basically good--but big government made them do bad things. For Reagan, and a generation of conservatives, government was the problem. The Bushies came to town seemingly convinced that big government would be just fine as long as it was in the hands of the right people. And, of course, that philosophy brings us back full-circle to FDR-LBJ-style liberalism, which began the whole conservative counter-revolution.
The Progressive Experiment has worked extremely well in the short term, but we will need to make some tough decisions in the coming years to save ourselves. Can we continue to live our lives of extraordinary luxury and excess without paying a price? The Progressive golden goose killed the republican wise ant. Now we are working the goose at maximum capacity. How long can we endure?
As I intimated, the Republicans are not much better than the Democrats in this regard. For a while I thought the Democrats were self-destructing, with their political correctness, America-bashing and defeatists default positions. But now I am not so sure. They are making a comeback as the only alternative to Republican flatulence. This election will be telling.
No matter, regardless of what happens in the next few election cycles, the Republicans show every sign of moral confusion. Lord Acton's maxim seems especially true with the Republican Party. God help us if they ever achieve supreme power.
I have previously praised the grand and healthy American tradition of "throwing" entrenched politicians out of office. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that "the great advantage of the Americans consists in their being able to commit faults which they may afterwards repair." Ruling cliques come and go. Fresh ideas and optimism constantly replenish good government, pushing out the generation gone stale. To that end, the ruling Republican majority is the perfect example of a party that entered with bright promise but now needs to go. Although I like many of the principals in the Republican coalition, the log-rolling, posturing, incontinent GOP-controlled Congress of 2006 is completely bereft of the spirit of 1994.
But wait, there is a problem. These are sober times. For all the infuriating shortcomings of the GOP, they are at least serious in facing the threat of the terrorists. We are in an unenviable position, to say the least, in which we are afraid to jettison the corpulent ruling party in fear that the opposition party has not the stomach for the dire times in which we live. For this particular development, perhaps even more than any of his other diabolical deeds, I hate Osama bin Laden. 9/11 so changed the calculus of American politics.
Madison assured us in "Federalist #10" that a far-flung republic could not only survive--but succeed. The far-flung, multi-media, micro-focused America of the twenty-first-century, threatened from without and decaying from within, will provide the ultimate test for that prediction. God Bless America. God save the Republic.
29/06: Rallying Around the Flag
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I recommend Peggy Noonan's column in the Opinion Journal today in its entirety: "Stop Spinning: Contrarian thoughts on Hillary, flag-burning, the Times and 'The View.'" It is brilliant and a must-read from start to finish.
I am posting and associating myself with her remarks on the flag amendment. She says what I have been thinking. I have held my fire on this issue over the last few weeks (a more apt analogy, perhaps, is that I "could not get a shot off"), but, nevertheless, Peggy Noonan gets it exactly right with her comments.
Noonan:
"The flag burning amendment is a bad idea, and will not prove, in the end, politically wise or fruitful to any significant degree. Three reasons. One is that the American people can sense, whether they support a constitutional ban or not, that they're being manipulated. They know supporters are playing with their essential patriotism for political profit. They know opponents are, by and large, taking their stand for equally political reasons. They can sense when everyone's posturing. It's not good, in the long term, when people sense you're playing with their deepest emotions, such as their love of country.
"Second, nobody thinks America is overrun with people burning flags, so the amendment does not seem even to be an exotic response to a real problem. There are a lot of pressing issues before the Congress, and no one thinks this is one of them. Voters know it's hard to do a risky thing like define marriage as a legal entity that can take place only between an adult human male and an adult human female. That actually would take some guts. It's easy--almost embarrassingly so--to make speeches about how much you love the flag.
"Third, Americans don't always say this or even notice it, but they love their Constitution. They revere it. They don't want it used as a plaything. They want the Constitution treated as a hallowed document that is amended rarely, and only for deep reasons of societal or governmental need. A flag burning amendment is too small bore for such a big thing. I don't think it will come up as a big issue every even numbered year. I think it's going to go away. There's too much else that's really needed."
On the other hand, I was also impressed (but not swayed) by the arguments of one of my favorite public servants, Orrin Hatch, who did very well in explaining the legislative and judicial history of this issue, as well as the principle at stake:
Hatch :
"[U]nelected judges have mistakenly concluded that it is the courts that have exclusive dominion over the Constitution. This was certainly the case in 1989, when a severely divided Court reversed 200 years of jurisprudence and overturned the considered judgment of the American people in almost every state.
"For generations, the American people provided protections for their flag. On June 20, 1989, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia had statutes that protected the flag from physical desecration. On June 21, 1989 all of those statutes were unconstitutional.
"How did this come to pass?
"One vote on the Supreme Court switched. That’s it. One vote, and the will of the people was overturned in nearly every state. For many years the Court well understood the obvious and compelling interest of political communities in protecting the American flag from desecration."
I am posting and associating myself with her remarks on the flag amendment. She says what I have been thinking. I have held my fire on this issue over the last few weeks (a more apt analogy, perhaps, is that I "could not get a shot off"), but, nevertheless, Peggy Noonan gets it exactly right with her comments.
Noonan:
"The flag burning amendment is a bad idea, and will not prove, in the end, politically wise or fruitful to any significant degree. Three reasons. One is that the American people can sense, whether they support a constitutional ban or not, that they're being manipulated. They know supporters are playing with their essential patriotism for political profit. They know opponents are, by and large, taking their stand for equally political reasons. They can sense when everyone's posturing. It's not good, in the long term, when people sense you're playing with their deepest emotions, such as their love of country.
"Second, nobody thinks America is overrun with people burning flags, so the amendment does not seem even to be an exotic response to a real problem. There are a lot of pressing issues before the Congress, and no one thinks this is one of them. Voters know it's hard to do a risky thing like define marriage as a legal entity that can take place only between an adult human male and an adult human female. That actually would take some guts. It's easy--almost embarrassingly so--to make speeches about how much you love the flag.
"Third, Americans don't always say this or even notice it, but they love their Constitution. They revere it. They don't want it used as a plaything. They want the Constitution treated as a hallowed document that is amended rarely, and only for deep reasons of societal or governmental need. A flag burning amendment is too small bore for such a big thing. I don't think it will come up as a big issue every even numbered year. I think it's going to go away. There's too much else that's really needed."
On the other hand, I was also impressed (but not swayed) by the arguments of one of my favorite public servants, Orrin Hatch, who did very well in explaining the legislative and judicial history of this issue, as well as the principle at stake:
Hatch :
"[U]nelected judges have mistakenly concluded that it is the courts that have exclusive dominion over the Constitution. This was certainly the case in 1989, when a severely divided Court reversed 200 years of jurisprudence and overturned the considered judgment of the American people in almost every state.
"For generations, the American people provided protections for their flag. On June 20, 1989, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia had statutes that protected the flag from physical desecration. On June 21, 1989 all of those statutes were unconstitutional.
"How did this come to pass?
"One vote on the Supreme Court switched. That’s it. One vote, and the will of the people was overturned in nearly every state. For many years the Court well understood the obvious and compelling interest of political communities in protecting the American flag from desecration."
John Adams purportedly told his son, JQA, that considering all the blessings and advantages that his family and Providence had bestowed upon the younger Adams, it would be his fault alone, if he did not become president of the United States. Although that statement has always struck me as incredibly harsh, perhaps it is the appropriate key in which to begin a discussion of the political life and times of Albert Gore, Jr.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
The Harvard-educated, senator’s son and ambivalent Vietnam veteran sampled divinity school, law school and journalism before he won election to Congress from Tennessee’s fourth district in 1976 and then a senate seat in 1984. He ran for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 1988 and lost. He ran for vice president in 1992 and won. He ran for president in 2000 and lost (although he won the popular vote).
During the 1980s, he absorbed criticism (mostly directed at Tipper) from First Amendment advocates who charged that the Gores favored censorship of recording artists. His 1988 campaign for the Democratic nomination seemed to lack purpose and definitely wanted for charisma.
During his tenure as VP, he acquired a national persona as the wonkish, stiff and boring but loyal Clinton sidekick (although he countered that perception with a humorous, self-deprecating comedy bit). But no matter how hard he tried to blend his Southern Evangelical Populist lineage with his Washington-insider and Eastern-educated acculturation, the public never embraced him as much more than a parody of himself. Even the “liberal” media seemed reluctant to give him a fair shake (regularly laughing at him—and only occasionally with him).
In 2000, he ran for a Clinton-Gore “third term” and failed. He came close (only losing by 537 votes in Florida and one vote in the United States Supreme Court); but, nevertheless, he lost, squandering a good political hand.
Then, Gore seemed to slip off the face of the earth during the first few months of the Bush administration and, especially, after 911. He grew a beard. He grew fleshy. He seemed completely dislocated from politics and reality. Even Democrats seemed relieved that he was not president during the unexpectedly pivotal period in American history.
But, just as suddenly, Al Gore is back.
07/06: Senate Hypocrisy
While the opponents to the President's Federal Marriage Amendment stand in the well of the Senate and decry the political cynicism of the Republicans and enumerate all the issues purportedly sacrificed in order to debate this issue, they are filibustering the resolution. That is, instead of calling the question, which all parties seem to acknowledge lacks the necessary two-thirds for passage, the opponents cravenly block a vote that would put their opposition on record.
As many of you know, I am a filibuster defender. I love the image of Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) talking himself hoarse in defense of principle. I believe that the filibuster represents the spirit of James Madison, who envisioned the Senate as a slow-moving, consensus-building department of government.
However, this is not a filibuster born out of principle. This is an attempt to CYA. Either call the question and vote, or stop the hypocritical rhetoric.
As many of you know, I am a filibuster defender. I love the image of Jefferson Smith (Jimmy Stewart) talking himself hoarse in defense of principle. I believe that the filibuster represents the spirit of James Madison, who envisioned the Senate as a slow-moving, consensus-building department of government.
However, this is not a filibuster born out of principle. This is an attempt to CYA. Either call the question and vote, or stop the hypocritical rhetoric.
28/05: Bush and the Judiciary
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
On Friday, noting that the President had a great week, I mentioned the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a circuit court judge. A Washington Post article today recaps the confirmation but does not indicate the bipartisan support Kavanaugh garnered. It turns out that a friend of the Bosque Boys played a role in this confirmation debate as a signatory to a letter (one of twenty-five Yale Law "aluminaries") to the Judiciary committee leadership. (Click here for the PDF, which was released by DOJ.)
The letter begins:
"We are a bipartisan group who were classmates with Brett Kavanaugh at Yale Law School in the Class of 1990. Many of us have kept in touch with him ever since and value his friendship greatly. We write in support of his confirmation to the United Slates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
and later this:
"Many of us disagree—occasionally strongly—with policy views Mr. Kavanaugh holds. But those disagreements do not diminish our conviction that Mr. Kavanaugh is a fair-minded and reasonable man who would, as ajudge, interpret and apply the law fairly. Based on our years of knowing Mr. Kavanaugh, we are firmly convinced that his allegiance as a federal judge would be only to the Constitution and laws of the United States and not to anypartisan interests."
Two points on this:
1) If I ever decide to go to law school, remind me to go to Yale. Those guys have supreme confidence in their institution to produce movers and shakers, and they stick together. They seem to have the great ability to put politics aside and support service and competence. Well done.
2) Kudos to the President, who continues to put highly qualified conservative judges before the Senate. Kudos to his staff and the DOJ (Harriet Miers deserves a little belated recognition as well) for finding candidates so eminently qualified that the hackneyed partisan criticism (e.g., Ted Kennedy, a Harvard man, called Kavanaugh a "political operative" and the "youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades") eventually withers in the face of their white-hot credentials, superior training, judicial temperments and fine intellects.
The letter begins:
"We are a bipartisan group who were classmates with Brett Kavanaugh at Yale Law School in the Class of 1990. Many of us have kept in touch with him ever since and value his friendship greatly. We write in support of his confirmation to the United Slates Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit."
and later this:
"Many of us disagree—occasionally strongly—with policy views Mr. Kavanaugh holds. But those disagreements do not diminish our conviction that Mr. Kavanaugh is a fair-minded and reasonable man who would, as ajudge, interpret and apply the law fairly. Based on our years of knowing Mr. Kavanaugh, we are firmly convinced that his allegiance as a federal judge would be only to the Constitution and laws of the United States and not to anypartisan interests."
Two points on this:
1) If I ever decide to go to law school, remind me to go to Yale. Those guys have supreme confidence in their institution to produce movers and shakers, and they stick together. They seem to have the great ability to put politics aside and support service and competence. Well done.
2) Kudos to the President, who continues to put highly qualified conservative judges before the Senate. Kudos to his staff and the DOJ (Harriet Miers deserves a little belated recognition as well) for finding candidates so eminently qualified that the hackneyed partisan criticism (e.g., Ted Kennedy, a Harvard man, called Kavanaugh a "political operative" and the "youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades") eventually withers in the face of their white-hot credentials, superior training, judicial temperments and fine intellects.
Most American evangelicals today are "premillennialists." That is, they believe that the return of Jesus will usher in a time of peace and harmony on earth. ("pre" Jesus must return before the "millennium" the 1000 year period of righteousness.) It has not always been so. In the mid-nineteenth century most American evangelicals were "postmillennialists." That is, they believed that the spread of the gospel under the power of the Holy Spirit would usher in an age of peace and righteousness prior to the return of Jesus. ("post" Jesus would return after the "millennium") Most of these nineteenth-century postmillennialists believed that the founding and growth of the United States was a God-ordained event as part of God's plan to establish the millenium. As American influence and freedoms (and the gospel) spread around the world, peace and harmony would prevail. Twentieth-century events such as the evangelical loss of influence over American culture, development of atomic weapons, and secularization of Europe helped shift American evangelicals from a postmillennial to a premillennial position.
Listening to President Bush's speeches, especially his most recent State of the Union address, leads me to conclude that the president is a postmillennialist, whether he realizes it or not. In his view, we (the United States) are at work doing God's will to bring liberty to the oppresed of earth. Once the world is democratized, we will have peace and safety (the millennium). The recent electoral victory of Hamas in the PA does not seem to have dented his enthusiasm for democracy as a cure-all.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that GW is out of step with a big part of his evangelical base. It will be interesting to see if American evangelicals will follow his lead on the establishment of peace on earth through the spread of democracy. For another thing, it means that GW probably does have a sense of being a part of God's plan for the world. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Many of our leaders have felt something like that. Of course, it is harder to compromise when you see the world as the arena of conflict between God and the devil.
Listening to President Bush's speeches, especially his most recent State of the Union address, leads me to conclude that the president is a postmillennialist, whether he realizes it or not. In his view, we (the United States) are at work doing God's will to bring liberty to the oppresed of earth. Once the world is democratized, we will have peace and safety (the millennium). The recent electoral victory of Hamas in the PA does not seem to have dented his enthusiasm for democracy as a cure-all.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means that GW is out of step with a big part of his evangelical base. It will be interesting to see if American evangelicals will follow his lead on the establishment of peace on earth through the spread of democracy. For another thing, it means that GW probably does have a sense of being a part of God's plan for the world. Not that there is anything wrong with that. Many of our leaders have felt something like that. Of course, it is harder to compromise when you see the world as the arena of conflict between God and the devil.
15/04: More McCain
Two columns this morning discuss the appeal of John McCain as an opponent to Hillary. One is from Charlie Cook, the election guru, and the other from veteran Iowa political analyst, David Yepsen. Both of these pieces reinforce my contention that McCain is likely "the one" (I have once again included my "Why McCain" piece from last month here for review).
Yepsen, writing in the Des Moines Register today, asserts that the conventional wisdom that McCain cannot win in Iowa is off base:
"As with much conventional wisdom, it's wrong. John McCain could easily win the Iowa caucuses and the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for one reason: Hillary Clinton.
"He may be the only Republican who can both win a GOP presidential nomination and then defeat the New York senator, who is anathema to Republican activists. That fact won't be lost on them as they trudge out on a cold January night to pass an early judgment on their party's presidential candidates."
"Here's how it could work: Republicans are likely to take a bath in the 2006 elections. Strategists differ over just how bad, but if it happens, it will spook the GOP and give Democrats the momentum in the race for the White House in 2008. Right now, Clinton leads in polls of the Democratic contest. Many general-election matchups show there are only two Republicans who can defeat her — McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
"But Giuliani can't win the GOP nomination. Too liberal. He might not even run. That leaves McCain, who is actually a lot more conservative than his image.
"Whatever quibble the party's right may have with him over old issues and slights will melt in comparison to their fears of President Hillary Clinton picking Supreme Court justices."
Cook makes a similar point and, like Yepsen, also notes that important GOP power brokers are starting to move in the direction of McCain:
"McCain isn't the only one doing the moving. The Republican establishment is showing unmistakable signs of edging his way. When you see Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi taking McCain down to the Gulf Coast to look at hurricane damage and fawning over him at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, while vying with Mississippi Gov.Haley Barbour to see who could suck up to McCain more, you know something is up."
Of course, the reality is that McCain has much to overcome with the GOP base. I continue to hear much more anti-McCain commentary than positive statements among Republican stalwarts. These columns today make a good point: McCain needs Hillary to emerge as the presumptive nominee. Only then will the GOP feel desperate enough to bury the hatchet and embrace the "maverick" senator out of necessity.
Yepsen, writing in the Des Moines Register today, asserts that the conventional wisdom that McCain cannot win in Iowa is off base:
"As with much conventional wisdom, it's wrong. John McCain could easily win the Iowa caucuses and the 2008 Republican presidential nomination for one reason: Hillary Clinton.
"He may be the only Republican who can both win a GOP presidential nomination and then defeat the New York senator, who is anathema to Republican activists. That fact won't be lost on them as they trudge out on a cold January night to pass an early judgment on their party's presidential candidates."
"Here's how it could work: Republicans are likely to take a bath in the 2006 elections. Strategists differ over just how bad, but if it happens, it will spook the GOP and give Democrats the momentum in the race for the White House in 2008. Right now, Clinton leads in polls of the Democratic contest. Many general-election matchups show there are only two Republicans who can defeat her — McCain and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
"But Giuliani can't win the GOP nomination. Too liberal. He might not even run. That leaves McCain, who is actually a lot more conservative than his image.
"Whatever quibble the party's right may have with him over old issues and slights will melt in comparison to their fears of President Hillary Clinton picking Supreme Court justices."
Cook makes a similar point and, like Yepsen, also notes that important GOP power brokers are starting to move in the direction of McCain:
"McCain isn't the only one doing the moving. The Republican establishment is showing unmistakable signs of edging his way. When you see Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi taking McCain down to the Gulf Coast to look at hurricane damage and fawning over him at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Memphis, while vying with Mississippi Gov.Haley Barbour to see who could suck up to McCain more, you know something is up."
Of course, the reality is that McCain has much to overcome with the GOP base. I continue to hear much more anti-McCain commentary than positive statements among Republican stalwarts. These columns today make a good point: McCain needs Hillary to emerge as the presumptive nominee. Only then will the GOP feel desperate enough to bury the hatchet and embrace the "maverick" senator out of necessity.
