Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Accidental Inactivist President
I was writing this up last night when I took a break and went tripping happily through my blogroll. One of the things that struck me was this very short post by Shawn Macomber. In it, he offers his unqualified support for the candidate who would embrace the “MAYBE We Can, But We Still Probably Shouldn’t” slogan. Of course, I laughed and agreed. In a way, that’s exactly what I’m arguing for (though I’m not sure Macomber would agree). The difference is that I want inactivity by design rather than by temperament--the candidate who would use that slogan won’t be winning the office, but we might maneuver a man into office who would be an accidental inactivist. Someone who might want to accomplish great things, but who will be so stymied by the political battles that he has to fight that he doesn’t end up doing much of anything.
This is a message for Republicans and libertarians who lean toward the conservative side of the fence. It’s a painful message, but it’s one that needs to be spoken so that we understand what we are fighting for in the upcoming election. Just as importantly, we can decide what we’re aiming for over the next presidential term.
We’re going to lose. We’re going to lose big. Even if we win the presidency, we’re going to lose. We’ll lose sharply in the House and in the Senate. Worst of all, we are losing the minds of the citizens of the United States of America. In fact: not only are we losing, but we have lost. That is not a defeatist message at all; it’s an honest assessment of where the supposed party of conservatism finds itself at the end of eight very tough years.
War was brought to our shores and the long struggle that followed is far from over. Katrina battered us even as it exposed the folly of trusting the government to solve the worst of our problems. While the economy is far from the disaster that Democrats submit (a group of people who obviously don’t remember the Carter years with anything resembling clarity), there is no doubt that our country’s fiscal policies are proving themselves short-sighted and potentially disastrous.
We have a lot of ground to make up. With the right strategies and the right leaders, the Republican party can find its way again. But it won’t be this year.
Let’s be honest, folks: the best we can hope for in 2008 is the inactivist president. The president that either by design, by necessity, or by the prodigious bureaucratic mess that is Washington DC won’t bring us any new big ticket items, won’t accomplish much of anything outside of holding the line on taxes and spending, and who will stay out of our way as we go about the business of living.
Just say no to universal health care. Just say no to fixing Social Security with huge tax increases. Just say no to expanded entitlement programs. Just say no. Inactivity in the Oval Office might allow us a moment to sit back, breathe a little, and figure out what to do next.
While conservatives think that their distrust of McCain is a sign that Americans are crying out for a renewed and truly conservative Republican party (as opposed to the big government “conservatism” of the Bush family), I don’t agree. People aren’t joining the Obama revolution because they want smaller government; they’re joining because they think that more government is the answer to their problems. That isn’t to say that we should sit back and accept bigger government and our new Democratic overlords; it’s to say that we need to be honest about what Americans are looking for right now and what our best hope for the next four years might be. Because the truth of the matter is that Americans are rushing to embrace the big government political alternatives right now, and that should make us a touch nervous.
McCain would be the accidental inactivist president--not particularly conservative, but not so hugely harmful as either alternative. Hell, if we’re really lucky, he might even cut a government program or two.
It is a damned shame that none of the remaining candidates is bound to bring us a good energy policy, Social Security privatization, significant decreases in government spending (far more important than tax increases right now), or even the kind of leadership that the United States could really use. Yep, it’s a shame, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to commit political suicide just because I’m cranky about my options. Unless he picks a VP who cannot be trusted that close to the White House--someone who actually makes McCain the worst possible option--then I’ll be voting for the guy who I believe can hold the line while we regroup.
Because we need to regroup. In the “marketplace of ideas,” right now, conservatism as a philosophy is losing. Moving forward, how does conservatism start winning again? Or are we starting a long, slow slide to the same level of public legitimacy as the Libertarians? Because as much as that crew is passionate about their beliefs, in the fabled marketplace of ideas, they have failed in a big, dramatic way for a very long time. While we find a way to avoid that fate, we need someone to stand up and take the hits while we work to persuade the country that the worst offenses of the Bush years weren’t representative of the philosophies of conservatism. I think McCain can be that guy and I think he’ll do the job in good faith.
The most important thing to remember right now is that McCain isn’t Obama. For all the over-the-top talk to the contrary, McCain isn’t Obama.
McCain, facing a phenomenally unfriendly congress, won’t be able to bully his way to big tax cuts, big spending decreases, or the kind of comprehensive immigration changes that red-meat conservatives are looking for--not that he necessarily would, but he certainly won’t be able to pull off any miracles. but he could well act as the only speed bump to an economically ruinous new universal health care mandate or Social Security “fix.” He could be the veto president, the guy who sits back, smiles, and says no.
As the blue haired bridade’s tight, wrinkly grip on Social Security and a buffet of government subsidized drugs goes so far to prove, once the politicians start handling one of our needs it is nearly impossible to pull us away from their “generosity.” That is to say, once we have a health care mandate or a nationalized program of some kind, government control of health care will only grow and expand until citizens are at the mercy of Uncle Sugar’s limited resources. I want a president who won’t let that happen and I happen to like McCain’s ideas on the subject far more than I do Obama’s or Hillary’s.
This dream of the inactivist president is one that we accomplish by design, though, not by luck. Luck could bring us President Obama with the friendliest House and Senate that a president could ask for--not to mention the good will of an indulgent main stream media who might be more likely to overlook the foibles and follies of a messianic Obama than even a resurgent Hillary. Luck is funny that way.
My old mentor, a Special Forces medic and a hell of a good man, used to say that luck is no substitute for good planning. So let’s get to planning.
It’s strange to say this, the GOP needs John McCain right now. At least, as Americans and as conservatives, we need him far more than we need either an Obama or a Clinton presidency. For all that we yell, scream, and gnash our teeth, his bravery could serve us well as a bulwark against the tide of social programs, spending, and general mayhem that will come with President Obama. He may not accomplish much, but McCain may well save us from the worst of the left--and that would be no mean achievement.
It’s time to pull together and find a way to win this election; once that’s done we can look forward to the next mid-term elections and do our best to find ways to make up some ground. We need new leaders who will not only act well on our behalf, but will ably bring our message to the rest of the citizenry. McCain can give us, in the most hopeful way that I can express, four years to start identifying those leaders. Even better, he’ll make it a little easier to fight the battles that are coming up--important battles that we would have almost no hope of winning with the kind of political power that comes from a Democrat in the White House, Democrats in strong control of congress, and a media fawning over the president.
Barr isn’t going to win and neither is Ron Paul; vote for them if you need to, but don’t imagine that they will end up winning the office. McCain can win and offers the only hope that we have to avoid what I imagine would be a nightmare presidency: an activist president backed up completely by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Comments & Trackbacks
the best we can hope for in 2008 is the inactivist president. The president that either by design, by necessity, or by the prodigious bureaucratic mess that is Washington DC won’t bring us any new big ticket items, won’t accomplish much of anything outside of holding the line on taxes and spending, and who will stay out of our way as we go about the business of living.
This is EXACTLY why I will vote for Obama. McCain isn’t going to win. People are too afraid of Bush Part 3 to vote for him. Clinton is so radical, so over the top left, that people will gravitate to her because she speaks of BIG CHANGE. Overhaul. The Soviet Union. She scares me more than Bush. She has clout, has an IN with the Reid’s and the Peloski’s of politics.
Obama, however, is a newbie. He doesn’t have the ties they does. He doesn’t have anything to prove. Just as Bush tried to make up for daddy’s soiled rep, Clinton has a husband to justify. A smeared presidency to rectify. A goal, and a mission, that was squashed by “the man” when she was first lady (which, and I don’t care WHO you are, you have to admit were some damned fine ideals that she never got to see forward i.e. SCHOOLS). Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, yo.
I truly believe that Obama just wants to level this shit out. I think he thinks he’ll pull out of Iraq, but I think (maybe more, like, pray) that he has or will be shown enough common sense to realize what a horrifyingly bad choice that would be. He’s moldable. He doesn’t have anything to make up for. He is the least Politician of the group, and I think he’ll have a more balanced cabinet than either of the two other choices. Who might temper him a bit. Once he gets out of this cloud of Racing for the Office, once he has a chance to really think about what is BEST for this country (staying the course, mending health-care without scraping it and starting over) I think he might just shine.
McCain seems, to lefty little me, to be trying a bit too hard to prove himself on the right, and Hillary has just lost her fucking mind. Let’s get some new blood in there, someone reasonable, someone who will LISTEN to the people and not to the agendas of those before them.
That’s just my opinion. and I don’t know what I’m talking about. I just know that Obama scares me the least.
Thanks for the shout out, and I am there with you, per usual.
For anyone looking for an eye opening account of how new and out of step with our heritage the president-as-savior idea is, check out Gene Healey’s The Cult of the Presidency. By the time you’re done with it, you won’t want to vote for ANYONE. (My interview with him, I’ll shamelessly add, should be up later this week, early next.)
Shawn!
I still subscribe to the Zaphod Beeblebrox mentality of presidencies. Which is why George Bush is the Greatest president in this nation’s history.
How does Barack Obama become messianic when others are just charismatic?
As soon as I see anything like these paintings and magazine covers about one of the others, I’ll start calling them messianic, too. Besides which, I wouldn’t much use charismatic to describe Hillary Clinton and I suppose, only reluctantly, would I use it to describe McCain.
The others are not necessarily presidential candidates. I think the messianic references are more from detractors than supporters. I saw one reference that think blacks think of him in that way, just because Oprah said “he’s the one”, not knowing that reference has to do with Moses. That Obama is “the” leader. Those magazines covers were chosen by the editorial boards to continue to foster that notion.
You are too young to imagine the adoration that John F. Kennedy had an no one ever fixed their lips to call him messianic. To Call Barrack Obama that also implies that he may also be suspect as a messenger of God, the anti-Christ. This is a Presidential election and it has bothered me that has had so many religious references. The trashing of his minister, his ties to Islam, the instant theologians who read a few articles and a couple of books and are now experts on Islam and the theology of liberation.
VRB,
I completely agree. I think people who are against him are dancing around every subject they can to avoid the Race Card. Calling him the Messiah, dragging the freaking Holocaust into it (see http://www.worldwiderant.com). We have a separation of church and state clause for a good reason, but historically, we’ve never been able to adhere to it well.
Sometimes I am really glad that Pokemon is on at the same time as the evening news. I don’t know how much more bull I can listen to.
Wait. So I’m somehow avoiding talking about race because I said this:
Sorry, but I don’t see it. With the way some people are treating him, I think that’s an accurate term. It’s a little creepy to me.
I think that the people who support him have painted him in messianic terms (see those covers) and it says far more about them than it does about him and certainly more than it says about me as a detractor. When supporters are painting and portraying him as the messiah, I think that’s fair game for mockery.
I also think that the lofty expectations will hurt him if he wins the elections: when you’re merely a man and people expect you to deliver them from all the evils of the world, it’s hard not to disappoint. If he’s elected and he manages to bring about world peace, prosperity for all, and that halo-esque glow becomes more easily visible to even me, I’ll stop mocking the religious fervor that some people are bringing to their support of him.
I use the term not because I’m uncomfortable with his skin color but because I’m uncomfortable with painting any politician in that kind of light. No, I don’t like his ideas (we can slug that out at the summer Bash), but that has nothing to do with race.
I would vote for pretty much anyone regardless of race or religion if I agreed with their character and their policies. I won’t touch liberation theology (because I don’t know anything about it), but I completely think that some of Rev. Wright’s statements are worthy of note and condemnation. I haven’t and won’t make an issue of any connections to Islam because, firstly, I don’t even know if there is one, and, secondly, it would only be notable to me because he’s apparently trying to hide it. Aside from that, I don’t really care.
Also of note: I always thought that the cult of Kennedy was creepy, too. I didn’t live through it, so, no, I don’t know what it was like from first-hand knowledge. But I know that the glow must have been pretty impressive to cover the sins of Teddy so many decades later. Just sayin’.
As for separation of church and state, I don’t even think that factors into it. People can vote or not vote for a person for whatever reason they want (religion, policies, party loyalty, whatever) and it doesn’t in any way constitute the formation of a state religion even if the vote is cast because the voter liked or disliked the candidate’s religion. Voters don’t have the same restrictions on that front that the state has.
Nonono, I phrased that wrong. I meant the radicals who are slinging all kinds of mud against him. Just as I as sure there are people on the left grasping at whatever straws they can to fling crap at McCain (like him confusing groups in the middle east.) Fortunately, Hillary is making it easier for everyone to find ammo. She’s exceptionally good at sticking her foot in her mouth. Makes you wonder why Bill needed to wander, what with her impressive deep throat skills. I think these little bickerings are an easier assault than coming out and saying, Hey, dude’s black, yo. Or Not Black Enough. Or whatever. I don’t that’s ALL of it, because honestly I can see how he leaves MUCH to be desired, and I am sooo not sold on him, but I imagine that’s a pretty strong factor for some.
My concern with the religious aspects of the election were merely meant to echo what said; “This is a Presidential election and it has bothered me that has had so many religious references.” OF COURSE Americans will factor religion into their vote. We all are voting for who speaks loudest to US.
See? This is why I don’t talk politics. It comes out all wrong and you think I’m insulting YOU. SO not. You know I respect your political opinion over almost all others. I’ll shut up now.
You don’t have to shut up; I just wanted to clarify.
“We all are voting for who speaks loudest to US.”
Yep.
Yup, indeed. Which is exactly why I don’t think I’m voting. Honestly, I think they’re ALL wrong, but a very very long shot, and I am tired of casting the lesser of two evils vote. Which is really depressing. I imagine I will go with whomever states emphatically that they won’t be pulling us out of Iraq in a few months. I dunno.
Messianic? Indeed - he’s the kwisatz haderach.