Yay us

From Peter Boettke at Austrian Economists:

Lets be clear about something.  We did not just live through a 30 year period of laissez faire that has come to an end.  Government got neither smaller in scale or scope.  At best the growth of government slowed, but it was never reversed.

Fiscal policy has been irresponsible for at least two generations, monetary policy has been loose in an effort to minimize the short term pain of adjustment.  WE ARE CURRENTLY SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE VERY SAME POLICIES WE ARE NOW ADVOCATING TO FIX OUR PROBLEMS.  We didn’t have an era of complete deregulation and free trade, we had partial deregulations (and attenuated property rights) and managed trade agreements.  We have international agencies that promote administrative command/managed capitalism overseas and call it “free market”, we have politicians at home that engage in discretionary spending unheard of before who claim to be “fiscal conservatives”. …

The “Washington Consensus” and the so-called era of laissez faire following the Reagan revolution are in fact, lets face it, much closer in reality to the policy prescription of John Kenneth Galbraith than Milton Friedman.

Peter goes on to explain that Friedman’s monetary policy wasn’t entirely un-Keynsian (how’s that for circumlocution!) and ends with a call for us to revisit Hayek and Buchanan,

Give me Hayek and Buchanan, and perhaps if we followed their methodological, analytical, and policy prescription then perhaps economics could be revitalized as a scientific discipline and our economy could recover from the current malaise which statism has entrapped us.

Hear, hear! Buchanan, in particular, needs to be better understood. Public choice is important.

Which brings us back to Friedman for a moment. Another Post over at The Austrian Economists included a video clip, of which one segment was Milton Friedman on Donahue. It’s the end of the video that I want to emphasize, the “Where are these Angels?” segment:

The angel on most people’s mind, the political savior who will save us from ourselves, will be inaugurated on the 20th. Obama’s ability to inspire hope, optimism, and loyalty is impressive and potentially valuable, but it’s fundamentally a false hope.

Barack Obama can not and will not save us. He can not and will not get us out of the recession, and he can and will not improve our lives our or increase our prosperity. I say this not because I doubt his intentions, or because I believe he’s incompetent, I say this because these things are simply not within his power.

Obama is constrained by his office, constrained by the trappings and obligations that he owes to the people and the process that put him in office, and moreover, he’s constrained by the system itself.

Government cannot create prosperity.

At heart, Obama’s policy prescription calls for massive government spending to “revitalize” the economy. But he wants to increasing spending by increasing taxes (see Not a Tax Cut!). The only way government can spend money is to take that money from the private sector. Government then spends the money it collected, minus the cost of collection and the cost of administration. Left in the private sector, that money would have been spent (or capitalized) without the administrative overhead.

At best, a government stimulus package represents a net loss for the economy. When the interest on the money that we’re borrowing is added in, the proposed “stimulus” amounts to nothing more and nothing less than us borrowing prosperity from our children and our grandchildren. Yay us.

The Change™ that Obama promised is vaccuous. Spending increases, tax increases, deficit increases… this is all more of the same.

$1 Trillion

From Reuters:

President-elect Barack Obama’s team is considering a plan to boost the recession-hit U.S. economy that could be far larger than previous estimates and might reach $1 trillion over two years, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

Obama aides, who were considering a half-trillion dollar package two weeks ago, now consider $600 billion over two years “a very low-end estimate,” the newspaper said, citing an unidentified person familiar with the matter.

The final size of the stimulus was expected to be significantly higher, possibly between $700 billion and $1 trillion over that period, it said, given the deteriorating state of the U.S. economy.

Because the one thing we really, really need is $1 trillion in more debt.

See the following.

Brave New World

The election is tomorrow and it appears that Barack Obama will win. The only question that remains is how large his margin of victory will be.

While I can find little comfort in the thought of an Obama victory–and even less in the prospect of an undivided government–I don’t think that the world will come to an end on Jan. 20th if Obama is sworn in. I do, however, have several reservations about an Obama administration. For the sake of brevity, I’m only going to list my three biggest fears.

1) Obama and the Courts

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

I understand that desire. Indeed, I empathize with it. But empathy is not the critical requirement of a judge. In fact, I think that the ability to put empathy aside is the single hardest job that a judge has. In announcing his decision to vote against the confirmation of Justice Roberts, Obama said,

The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

I beg to differ. The principles of justice are not malleable in difficult circumstances. We most emphatically should not ask or judges to rule on the law, 95% of the time, but then, in “truly difficult” cases to ignore “precedent and the rules of construction and interpretation” and issue judgments based on their own “core concerns.”

My fear is that Obama will not face any serious resistance to his judicial nominations. Unlike the Bush nominations, in which more radical nominations faced difficult confirmation battles, there will be no such tempering of the process in an Obama administration.

2) The Economy

Obama’s proposed domestic policies are economically disastrous.

I don’t think, even with a Democratic Congress that even half of Obama’s proposals will pass. Obama will face growing deficits, a devalued dollar, the constant threat of inflation, and a slowing economy. Given those constraints, he simply won’t have enough money to do everything he wants to do.

But even half of what he wants to do is bad enough. Raising taxes in the teeth of a recession is dangerous and coupled with his animosity to free trade, potentially disastrous. He has already indicated a desire to pursue an aggressive agenda in his first 100 days in office and I fear that he sincerely wants to emulate the first 100 days of FDR’s first term. Obama has never indicated any inclination to trim the size or scope of government, but rather has proposed rafts and rafts of new policies, agencies, and proposals that will further restrain the economy and increase government spending.

My fear is that Obama’s protectionist, redistributive leanings will dominate throughout his administration and that the current economic problems will be exacerbated rather than alleviated and that we will all end up much, much less prosperous than we should otherwise be.

3) Foreign Policy

The challenges for the next President will not come from Iraq. They will come from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia.

In Iraq, we’ve essentially won. We’re losing in Afghanistan and it’s not clear that there’s a strategy to victory there. I think the best we can hope for is a kind of tense stability in Afghanistan and for that, we desperately need a strong diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. Obama’s saber rattling in that regard has not been helpful.

Iran is a growing threat and will undoubtedly work to destabilize the American presence in Afghanistan. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to provide material aid to anti-Israeli terror groups and the next President will have to find tough diplomatic solutions to Iran’s growing belligerence and Saudi Arabia’s growing dominance in the region.

Russia has rediscovered a zeal for regional aggression and the recent joint military operations they conducted with Venezuela are a distinct threat to Columbia and South American trade. Obama has been decidedly lukewarm in his support of free-trade with Columbia, and his tepid non-response to Russia’s invasion of Georgia does not inspire confidence. The latter is especially troubling considering he favors admitting Georgia into NATO.

China is a growing economic force and the lure of their emerging market will do much to blunt American opposition to their regional aggression. Obama will feel pressure from his base to press China on human rights violations in Tibet, an issue on which China has not traditionally been very receptive to criticism. Additionally, China’s relationship to Taiwan is as strained as ever and could grow more belligerent if it senses ambivalence in U.S. foreign policy.

My fear is that Obama’s philosophical background will cripple his foreign policy. His domestic policy ambitions will likely be built with corresponding cuts in defense. Combining radical cuts (Barney Frank has asked for a 25% cut in defense spending) with Obama’s national service ambitions in an increasingly unstable world is a recipe for complete disaster. Regional conflicts in South America, the Caucasus, and East Asia are all likely. We are already heavily engaged militarily in Afghanistan and the Middle East and simply do not have the resources or the active forces to handle another conflict if it should demand our attention.

I hope that my fears are not realized. I hope that I am grossly wrong in my assessment of Obama’s ideology and ambitions. It may be audacious, but I Hope™ that, despite all the evidence of his voting record and political history, he will bring Change™ to Washington.

Obamatarian

Reason did a piece, “Who’s Getting Your Vote?” in which they asked a bunch of sort-of-celebrities who they were voting for. It’s long and predictably full of pithy humor and yuck-yuck jabs at the candidates. It’s also chock full of anger and a omnipresent desire for vengeance; far, far, too many of the respondents answered that they’d be voting for Obama because they want to punish the Republican party.

The idea is that we should punish the Republicans for abetting the Bush administration. The Bush administration’s failures in this regard (there are many, so let’s be specific) are the militaristic foreign policy, the huge increase in entitlement spending, the rise of the deficit, the funding of sectarian religious organizations, and the erosion of individual liberty. All granted.

But in what universe does voting for Obama signal to anyone that those ideas are wrong? Obama has opposed the Iraq war, but he’s been surprisingly militant about Afghanistan, Iran and Darfur. Obama promises to expand existing entitlement programs and create new ones. He’s proposing tax increases and spending increases in the middle of a recession and seems unable to find a single government program that needs to be cut. He’s promised to maintain funding for faith-based programs. He promises to undermine property rights, is opposed to free trade, and his health plan is a disaster.

Voting for Obama signals to Republican party that you want more government and less individual liberty.

In a much more thoughtful piece at Reason, “Is There Any Hope For this Man?” Richard Epstein makes the point,

Unfortunately, on the full range of economic issues, both large and small, I fear that [Obama's] policies, earnestly advanced, are a throwback to the worst of the Depression-era, big-government policies. Libertarians in general favor flat and low taxes, free trade, and unregulated labor markets. Obama is on the wrong side of all these issues. He adopts a warmed-over vision of the New Deal corporatist state with high taxation, major trade barriers, and massive interference in labor markets. He is also unrepentant in his support of farm subsidies and a vast expansion of the government role in health care. Each of these reforms, taken separately, expands the power of government over our lives. Their cumulative impact could be devastating.

Voting for Barr would send a message to the Republican party. Voting for Obama would not. (I think it would cost us far, far too much to deliver that message.)

Todd Zywicki has a good post at Volokh,

And from what I can tell none of those libertarians or conservatives who are Obama supporters are attracted to because of his positions (other than those who care strongly about the Iraq war and foreign policy), but rather because of who he is. Obama is a compelling personality. But in reading these encomiums to him, I haven’t seen any explanation as to how Obama’s policies on tax, trade, spending, or regulatory would be friendlier to individual liberty than what is likely to be McCain’s (as weak as those will be). As someone observed somewhere recently, this is about the first time in history that you have endorsements from people who endorse Obama on the hope that he won’t do what he says he’ll do rather than because of what he says he’ll do.

Now, if you agree with Obama, then by all means, vote for him! But there is no plausible universe in which anyone can coherently argue that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for free-markets, free trade, property rights, or fiscal discipline.

Obama and the Court

After watching the debate last night, one of my first comments was that Obama’s answer to the question about judicial nominations was quite frightening.

Obama said,

If a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that’s the kind of judge that I want.

Orin Kerr at Volokh cites a recent Rasmussen poll on this issue:

Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

On this issue, it looks like the candidate and his supporters are very much on the same page.

The problem is that the court’s responsibility is not to make law, but to interpret law. In the specific case that Obama cited, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the statute in question clearly indicated, “A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” The Court held that because Ledbetter’s suit was brought after the 180 period had elapsed that she could not sue under that statute.

Obama would prefer that the Court ignore the law in question and instead issue a judgment based on some necessarily obscure sense of social fairness. But that way lies disaster.

Perhaps the most important application of the rule of law is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with established procedural steps that are referred to as due process. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance, whether by a totalitarian leader or by mob rule. Thus, the rule of law is hostile both to dictatorship and to anarchy. (Wikipedia)

If we wish to seek a remedy for issues of social fairness, then we must look to the legislature. The legislature writes law. When we seek a remedy under the law, we look to the courts to apply the law as it is written, not as we might hope it may have been written.

The remedy for Lily Ledbetter lies with Congress to amend the law in question and extend the window of grievance. That Congress failed to amend that law may be failure, but the Court’s application of the law that Congress wrote is not.

If there is any principle of sound governance that I would hope we can all agree on it is the idea that the law should strive, at all times, to be clear, unambiguous, and applied without prejudice.

Suddenly Sarah

I’ve been struggling with what to say about the conventions and the VP picks….

Obama had a good convention, but not a great one. His stump speech was good, but Bill Clinton’s was better. The speeches were all good, but they had to be good to recover from the worst mistake that Obama has made in the last 18 months: Joe Biden. Biden is a career politician in the way that fungus is career mold. He represents everything that Obama was running against. It would have been hard to imagine him picking a Democrat who less represented Hope™ and Change™ or who was more Old White Guy.™

But if Biden was a bad choice two weeks ago, he’s a near disaster now.

The Sarah Palin selection was simply, utterly, fantastically, amazingly brilliant.

Unlike Biden, Palin reinforces McCain’s brands. She’s a Maverick™ and an Outsider.™ She projects the same no-nonense Straight-Talk Express™ that McCain has built his career on, and more importantly, she’s not an Old White Guy.™

Her selection as the VP gave McCain a viable shot in the general election. The early polls now show McCain with a slight lead over Obama, and I expect that trend to continue for at least the rest of this week.

Palin absolutely dominated the convention cycle. The Republican convention was the smaller of the two, was accompanied by a smaller media footprint, and the conventional wisdom leading up to the conventions was that the GOP would be swamped by the Obamathon in Denver. Palin ended up swamping Obama. (Her speech was seen by more people than Obama’s.)

Palin did everything that McCain needed and then some. She energized the Republican base in a way that McCain never could. The conservative base will come out and vote for McCain/Palin in a way that they never would have for McCain/Romney. But beyond that, her selection really does look to be the single most important moment in the general election.

And beyond this cycle, Palin will be a political force for years. If McCain loses this year, expect Palin to run again in 2012–for the top spot.

The best measure of Palin’s impact is the degree to which she has induced PDS, Palin Derangement Syndrome. Charlie Martin has a roundup of the worst examples of that syndrome here. Martin debunks most of the worst Palin rumors (book banning, affairs, hidden pregnancies, etc…)

The big question, of course, is how well will the very conservative Palin actually appeal to independent voters and dissafected Hillary supporters?

On this question, I’m a bit more skeptical than many. I think that Palin’s choice to run with a special needs infant will fail to resonate with some women and I think that she’ll likely remain anathema for ideological liberal voters. She is fundamentally a conservative Christian woman, and for many women voters, that’s simply a non-starter.

However, Palin will appeal to a great many voters. Her appeal will be particularly strong among independent male voters.

From Will Wilkinson, (read the whole thing!)

First, let me just get it out of the way: I think she is a tremendously sexy woman. How this will effect the race, I have no idea, but it’s just got to. It’s not an issue of glamour so much as a kind of Paglian chthonic sexual power. Set in that context, her unabashed embrace of her fecundity and motherhood as a kind of qualification makes a lot of sense. Megan O’Rourke’s post on Palin’s political eros has it right, and I think she may even be on to something when she says we got a “glimpse of a novel problem for a presidential candidate: sexual tension with his VP.”

But she’ll also appeal to many women:

Tammy Bruce,

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.

Virtually moments after the GOP announcement of Palin for vice president, pundits on both sides of the aisle began to wonder if Clinton supporters – pro-choice women and gays to be specific – would be attracted to the McCain-Palin ticket. The answer is, of course. There is a point where all of our issues, including abortion rights, are made safer not only if the people we vote for agree with us – but when those people and our society embrace a respect for women and promote policies that increase our personal wealth, power and political influence.

Make no mistake – the Democratic Party and its nominee have created the powerhouse that is Sarah Palin, and the party’s increased attacks on her (and even on her daughter) reflect that panic.

As for me, this says it best:

From Robert Bidinotto (who is very enthusiastic about Palin):

I therefore need to reiterate emphatically that my only reason for supporting the McCain ticket — especially now that Palin is aboard — is that national-greatness progressivism represents a far-less-damaging and more mixed alternative to the utterly destructive, anti-American, left-Wilsonian “progressivism” of Obama. This is especially the case on the paramount issues of national security and energy production. Sadly, in this political environment, stopping Obama requires us to sign on to a philosophically chaotic and often damaging Republican candidate. The Palin pick indicates that free-market, limited-government influences at least will have a seat at the table in a McCain administration, tending to blunt his worst inclinations.

Things to do in Denver?

Well, it appears that my prediction of a Hillary victory was incorrect. Obama seems to have secured the Democratic nomination. Barring some unexpected turn of events (like the appearance of the mythical “Whitey” video), the DNC will nominate Barack Obama for the office of President of The United States of America.

Much has been made of the contest between an African-American and a Woman, but little has been said about the real battle lines that this contest represented: hard-left vs. middle-left. 16 years ago, Bill Clinton moved the Democratic party to the middle. Obama promises to move the party to the left. Way left. Way, way left.

Way, way, way left.

And that will be his biggest problem in the general election. Obama is the farthest left of every other Senator. There is simply no other politician on the national stage who is farther from the center than Barack Hussein Obama. All of the controversies that will surround Obama in the coming months; his relationships with unrepentant former terrorists, his willingness to meet with dictators and terrorist sponsoring tyrants, his desire to bomb allies, his refusal to acknowledge progress in Iraq, his steadfast refusal to even consider listening to military commanders in the field before making far-reaching strategic war-time decisions, his relationship with the worst parts of the black segregationalist movement, and his seeming inability to muster any reasonably authentic display of pride in America all spring from the same well: his deeply progressive political ideology. Jeremiah Wright isn’t the problem for Obama, it’s the ideology that makes Wright possible.

To make matters worse, Obama is inexperienced as a politician. Compared to McCain, Obama’s lack of experience is comical. To combat that lack of experience, Obama will argue — as he has been — that he has better judgment. But when his history is littered with the likes of Ayers, Wright, and Rezko, when his major foreign policy decisions have ranged from the simply ludicrous: bomb Pakistan, to the simply wrong: the surge won’t work, to the simply awful: unconditional meetings with Iran and North Korea, his judgment seems to be rather powerfully flawed. All those lapses in judgment spring from the same well: his deeply progressive political ideology.

Obama needs to move to the center, and he needs to move quickly. To win the general election, Obama needs to win over independent and moderate voters in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. He needs to appeal to the exact same voters that voted for Bush over Kerry. And he needs to win them back. That bears repeating, because while it’s the line that Clinton has been singing to the superdelegates, it’s a line that hasn’t gotten much play in the major media. To win in the general election, Obama needs to win over the white suburban women who voted for Bush instead of Kerry.

Will making Hillary his VP help bring those voters over?

Or will those voters turn to a politician with decades of experience and a strong commitment to national defense? As Victor Davis Hansen put it, the Democrats have nominated the only candidate they had that could lose this election and the Republicans have nominated the only candidate they had that can win it.

Things to do in Denver?

Obama and Race

I’ve been reading a number of responses to Obama’s Big Speech; in particular, I thought Timothy Sandefur’s comments were excellent. I also liked Jeff Jacoby’s response in the Boston Globe.

I was as offended as a lot of people when Obama tossed his Grandmother under the bus, and I found his later “conciliatory” remarks about her being a “typical white person” equally troubling. I, like a lot of people, noticed that Obama’s refusal to denounce Wright–or leave the church–significantly undercut the strength and force of his repudiation of the Rev’s comments. And I was certainly not the only person to have noticed the essential difference between Wright and Obama’s poor Grandmama: that where Grandma’s racism is instinctive, unreflective, and surely tinged with at least some degree of remorse, Wright’s venom is the product of considered thought and careful deliberation, and more importantly, was delivered for the express purpose of moving his congregation to further hate, and is clearly remorseless.

Obama’s defense of his relationship with Wright came down to this: He’s a good but misguided man; I disagree with him on many things, but the strength of our shared beliefs is strong enough to counter our disagreements. Yes, he may have appalling views, but a lot of good people have appalling beliefs and we can not exclude them from the national conversation. Just as we don’t choose our family, we don’t choose our national polity. That, after all, is the point of a national “conversation on race.” If there is a racial divide and a racial wound that needs healing, then we should come together as a broad national polity. The problem is that Obama doesn’t ask for that.

Where he understands that any meaningful “conversation about race” has to involve the full participation of the black community and a full acknowledgment of that community’s legitimate grievances, he fails to see that a corresponding understanding of the white community’s grievances is equally necessary. To be sure, he pays lip-service to concerns about the fairness of racial preferences and issues of basic justice, but ultimately he ends up rejecting those concerns while ignoring legitimate problems. Now, I know how absurd–and offensive–it is to assume that there is anything like a unified “black” or “white” community, but these are the divisions that Obama referenced in his speech. Obama’s rhetoric plays into the inevitability of the racial divide and he certainly implied that the two communities were largely uniform and separable; in other words, this is his vision.

The failing in that vision, is that regardless of how civil or informative this supposed “conversation about race” could possibly be, he’s already drawn his conclusions–and they’re the same boilerplate progressive conclusions that the have been policy and law for the last forty years; more racial preferences, more set-asides, and more wealth transfer. Nowhere is there any semblance of change or any reason to hope. (They’re also exactly the same conclusions that Hillary Clinton draws, by the way).

He implored the black community to spend more time with children, to read more, and to remain optimistic. He said that the White community must address the legacy of discrimination “not just with words, but with deeds” by investing, providing and enforcing. Essentially, Obama asked the black community to become more responsible and he asked the white community to foot the bill. He also exempted the black community from any requirement to action.

What kind of responsible change is Obama asking of the black community if he continues to associate with and support the kind of considered hate that Rev. Wright trades in? Obama’s refusal to leave Wright’s church and his refusal to disown Wright was a telling symbolic gesture. He showed the black community that no matter how outrageous, provocative, or hateful any of its members become, they will be tolerated, embraced and sheltered.

Obama talked about the anger that roils in the black community. He advised us that, “the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.” He’s right. The anger is real and it’s pervasive. Reverend Wright’s sermons are not philosophical outliers in the black community–they’re not the marginal rantings of an obscure minority: they’re mainstream. The anger that drives Wright’s vision of the world is of a piece with the anger that drives the celebration of the gangsta’ lifestyle, it’s the same anger that fuels a crippling anti-intellectualism, and it’s the same anger that drives the deep and virulent misogyny and racism in rap and hip-hop music. The anger that Obama referred to has–unfortunately–become the cultural and political anchor of the black community.

Obama did not, as other prominent black figures have done (Bill Cosby) roundly denounce this ridiculous celebration of anger in black culture, rather he appeared–especially in the context of his association with Wright–to accommodate and validate it. He told us that to turn his back on the source of that anger would be to turn his back on himself. Obama was telling us, in no uncertain terms, that unfocused and hotly passionate anger has become an essential part of the modern black political identity. Far from renouncing the debilitating anger of the black community, Obama embraced that anger and made it a part of himself. This is not a call to responsibility and progress, but is in fact is a refusal to accept responsibility.

In any honest conversation on the state of race relations in America, two things must be openly and honestly discussed: 1) The enduring legacy of slavery and systematic discrimination that polluted centuries of American history, and 2) That black American culture has quickly become the single greatest obstacle to black advancement.

Barack Obama had an opportunity to defy racial categories–the promise of his campaign was largely that; he was a candidate that happened to have dark skin. But no more. He had an opportunity to renounce the corrupt and debilitating prejudices that Rev. Wright embodied, but he did not. He had an opportunity to embrace a real conversation on the merits and dangers of wealth transfers and dependence, but he did not. He had an opportunity to ask everyone to take a principled stand for responsibility and change, but he did not. He had a unique opportunity to transcend race himself, to not phrase the conflict as one between “us” (blacks) and “them” (whites), but he did not.

Instead, he asked Americans to ignore naked racism and hate. Instead, he begged us all to become victims. Instead, he asked that we further define ourselves as pieces of the black community or the white community.

Race is now the issue for Obama, and he ultimately has only himself to blame for that.

Update: Christopher Hitchens has an excellent article up at Slate. His conclusion:

To have accepted Obama’s smooth apologetics is to have lowered one’s own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith. Mark my words: This disappointment is only the first of many that are still to come.

Obama vs. Truth

The problem with pandering during a campaign is that it gets easier the more you do it, and if you do it often enough, you’ll eventually discover that you’ve made conflicting promises. And if you’re not careful, the people you’re making those promises to might suddenly begin to doubt your sincerity. This is the problem that Obama suddenly finds himself in. He’s been trying hard to be all things to all people and it’s beginning to make him look like a kind of a sleazebag.

First, he told the voters that he’d pull out of NAFTA if he couldn’t win certain concessions from the Canadians. But of course he knows that pulling out of NAFTA would be insane and impossible so his campaign goes to the Canadian embassy to assure them that he doesn’t really mean what he’s been saying to the voters. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.

Obama promised to pull out of Iraq within 16 months if he’s president. Now I think that’s nuts. Committing yourself to a military strategy 24 months in advance, with absolutely no idea of what the situation will be like when you take office is clearly insane. But Obama was courting the fringe left and had to distinguish himself from Hillary, so he made the 16 month commitment. But maybe not…. his campaign adviser, Samantha Power, said this:

“What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president,” Power says.

The host, Stephen Sackur, challenged her:”So what the American public thinks is a commitment to get combat forces out in 16 months isn’t a commitment isn’t it?”

“You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009,” she said. “He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president. So to think – it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, ‘Well, I said it, therefore I’m going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.’”

“It’s a best-case scenario,” she said again. (Politico.com)

So, Obama was pandering, we all knew he was pandering… right? I mean, he got caught in a bit of electoral shenanigans right? What Power lays out is reasonable and understandable, right?

Maybe not. Power resigned and apologized (although she resigned and apologized for calling Hillary Clinton a monster, not for trying to be reasonable about foreign policy).

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe disagreed Friday with the suggestion that it would be responsible to leave “a little wiggle room” when establishing the date by which all U.S. combat troops should be out of Iraq.

“He has been and will continue to be crystal clear with the American people that if and when he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in – as he said, the time frame would be about 16 months at the most where you withdraw troops. There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity,” said Plouffe. (ABC News)

OK! Finally! So Power was out of line! “There should be no confusion about that with absolute clarity,” that seems pretty hard and fast, right? Well…..

“And you pull out according to that time table, regardless of the situation? Even if there’s serious sectarian violence?” CBS’s Kroft asked.

“No, I always reserve as commander in chief, the right to assess the situation,” Obama replied.

Ahhhh…… clarity.

Hillary Wins

CNN won’t do it, and neither will Fox. I’m going to scoop all the major news outlets. I’m calling the Democratic nomination. Hillary will win. All she has to do is stay in the race.

It won’t be decided until the convention and the super delegates will certainly play a deciding role, but I don’t think the floor fight will be very bitter. Obama will struggle initially but will graciously accept the inevitable–especially if he’s given the VP nomination. Here’s my thinking:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination received more than just a reprieve yesterday after winning both the Texas and Ohio primaries. Although Clinton didn’t make much headway in the delegate count, the margin of her victory in Ohio gives her hope that she can win Pennsylvania by as wide a margin, and continue to chip away at Obama’s delegate lead in the coming months.

Of course, the conventional thinking says that the math is just too difficult, that the margins that Clinton would need to win by are impossible. But I think that’s misleading. First, Clinton demonstrated in Ohio that she can win by large margins, and if she can continue to carry the larger states, she’ll continue to cut into Obama’s delegate lead. She may not erase it entirely, but she can reduce it.

And remember — there’s still Michigan and Florida. Clinton won Michigan handily (Obama wasn’t on the ballot) and she won Florida handily as well. She’d likely do very well in both states even if they both voted again. And even if they delegates aren’t seated (which I think is unlikely), Clinton will argue that the Super Delegates should take the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries into consideration (after all, the nominee will have to win Florida in the General election). But ultimately, Clinton can argue that the voters in Michigan and Florida should not be disenfranchised. Whether the states violated party rules or not, the argument to intentionally and deliberately disenfranchise millions of voters is not an argument that the Obama campaign will want to make very strenuously. The Michigan and Florida delegates will be seated at the convention and Hillary will have a significant majority of them.

Finally, there’s still seven weeks till the Pennsylvania primary. Then more weeks and months after that as every possible delegate is fought over tooth and nail. While the length of this primary campaign initially worked in Obama’s favor, allowing him to surprise a complacent Clinton campaign, that’s not the case anymore. Obama can only be hurt by a prolonged campaign at this point. The Rezko trial is just starting and we haven’t heard the last about NaftaQuiddick.

The NAFTA gaffe–the campaign’s assurances to the Canadian Embassy that Obama didn’t really mean what he was saying in the primaries–will continue to haunt Obama. It’s the kind of mistake that has the potential to completely unravel his campaign. After all, if Obama is a lying, sleazy politician, what makes him any different?

Obama is also a young, inexperienced campaigner. Hillary isn’t. Obama will make more mistakes over the coming months than Clinton will. All Clinton needs to do is sit tight, stay on message, smile, and slowly pick away at Obama. She doesn’t need to dazzle, she doesn’t need to shine, she just needs to stay the course–and get Michigan and Florida. Obama, on the other hand, does need to dazzle because when Michigan and Florida are counted, Obama is the one who’s trailing.

So, Hillary will win the nomination (as long as she stays in long enough to get Michigan and Florida seated and in). That’s my prediction, for what it’s worth. (Not much.)

Of course, the cost of the extended primary may be devastating to the democratic ticket in the general election. If I were John McCain, I’d start laying the groundwork for the general campaign, but I’d stay well out of the spotlight for a few months.