Dude, Give the Guy a Break

Drudge has posted a story claiming that Barack Obama has on occasion smoked cigarettes after quitting. How is this newsworthy? The man has been running for president for almost a year and a half and has been engaged in one of the most hotly contested presidential primary campaigns ever. He has been on the road constantly, under constant stress, maintaining a grueling schedule. Is it that unbelievable that under these conditions he might feel and possibly succumb to the urge to have a cigarette? Is it that unconscionable? There are plenty of legitimate issues to raise concerning Obama without getting into whether he occasionally engages in a legal, if socially looked-down-upon, activity.

I may not agree with him on much of anything, but at the end of the day I'd be more than happy to kick back and light one up with Barack Obama.

The Next Great Feminist Struggle

The right to kill the infidel.

HT: The Corner

Wright Was Right

In distancing himself from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was merely doing what he had to do as a politician.

Will He or Won't He?

The Jerusalem Post has an article reporting the Bush administration's denial of a report that the United States will attack Iran's nuclear program before President Bush leaves office in January. This story, and the subsequent denial of its veracity, is just the latest in a long line of stories that the President will not leave the problem of Iran's program to his successor. For my part, I suspect that had it not been for our setbacks in securing and stabilizing Iraq, the issue would have been long on its way to resolution, but Iran's disruptive activities in Iraq have forced the United States to concentrate on using its military resources to fight al Qaeda and the Shiite militias, both backed by Iran. Now, as time runs out for President Bush, he is faced with a question, does he take action in the waning months of his presidency, or does he let the diplomatic process continue to play out and hand the problem to his successor?

In an ideal world, I think the president would have liked to have dealt with Iran by the end of his second term, but now he doesn't believe the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan leave him in a position to take action without potentially compromising the gains in Iraq, and making the situation worse in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, all countries where Iran is highly active in undermining security. Thus, he would like to wait as long as he can before taking action in the hope that the situation on the ground will improve. Unfortunately, the only place where things are likely to improve in the remaining months of the Bush presidency is Iraq, where the al Qaeda in Iraq is nearly defeated. This means that an attack on Iran is likely to lead to a regional war launched by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, and ultimately involving Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and possibly Egypt. That is the meaning of Hamas' activity in Gaza and Hezbollah's brief uprising in Lebanon. It is also why the United States and Israel are propping up Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party in the West Bank, not because Fatah is interested in a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

So, what will happen? This depends on the political developments in Israel and the United States. If Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert falls, he is likely to be replaced by the hawkish Binjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu will likely pursue a much more aggressive policy in dealing with Hamas and will be unafraid to retaliate viciously to any attack on Israel by Hezbollah, where Olmert has proved weak and feckless.

The other key event will be the presidential elections in the United States this fall. President Bush trusts Senator John McCain's instincts on issues of national defense, and if McCain is elected, Bush would most likely be comfortable handing the problem over to him. The same cannot be said for Senator Barack Obama, as the dust-up over who wants to appease whom illustrates. Bush believes Obama's plans for dealing with Iran are dangerously naive, and should Obama win the election in November, Bush would be unlikely to trust him with the task of eliminating Iran's nuclear program. Therefore, he would almost certainly take action to resolve the issue, or at least retard Iran's progress enough to push the final confrontation either past the end of an Obama presidency or far enough down the road for Obama to be disabused of his supreme belief in his ability to persuade nations to act contrary to what they perceive to be their own self-interest by dint of his winning personality.

Liking McCain in Spite of Myself

I still have serious reservations about John McCain as president, but things seem to keep happening that make me like him more and more.

Hat tip: Drudge

More on Obama's Speech

Mark Goldblatt defends Obama, while Christopher Hitchens takes issue.* Meanwhile, Doug Kmiec, "a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents," endorses* Obama. I come down somewhere between Goldblatt and Hitchens, in large part because I think Goldblatt is wrong to dismiss Obama's policy prescriptions as "Obama being Obama", but right to be understanding toward Obama's refusal to disavow Wright (though Hitchens does make some compelling points).

If Obama is correct that federal education spending, economic protectionism, universal health care, and withdrawal from Iraq are the keys to racial reconciliation, then opposition to these policies are racist (unless there is some non-racist reason to oppose racial reconciliation that I'm missing). It follows from this that conservatives who want decreased government involvement in education and health care, support free trade, and believe it to be in the national interest to maintain our presence in Iraq are racists.

This is patently absurd. What's more, I don't think Obama believes this. But it does indicate, again, the discrepancy between Obama's rhetoric and his politics. Obama declares time and again that he wants to transcend our differences, to transcend not only race, but fundamental political and philosophical divisions as well, but his policies are of a decidedly left-wing bent. As I've said before, something has to give. Obama doesn't seem to think so:

"What I'm certain about is that people are disenchanted with a highly ideological Republican Party that believes tax cuts are the answer to every problem, and lack of regulation and oversight is always going to generate economic growth, and unilateral intervention around the world is the best approach to foreign policy. So there's no doubt the pendulum is swinging."

It is certainly true that the Republicans dropped the ball when they were in power on a whole host of issues, and they deserved to lose in 2006. It does not follow from this that conservatives are looking to abandon their belief in limited government and muscular foreign policy just because the Bush administration and Republican Congress were inept at implementing these conservative principles. Kmiec himself makes this point when he points out that his endorsement of Obama does not imply an abandonment of his conservative principles. He has made the bet that Obama's rhetoric will trump his policy proposals (except on the war in Iraq, where Kmiec and Obama are in agreement). I hope he's right, but I refuse to abandon my principles for Obama's dreams, no matter how audaciously he may hope otherwise.

*Hat tip: The Corner
**Hat tip: Drudge

No Iran-al Qaeda Links Either

That whole Sunni-Shia split kind of precludes that. Except that it's a load of bunk. Groups with major differences have historically worked together to when both sides believe it will be to their benefit. Think of Cardinal Richelieu siding with Protestant forces against the Holy Roman Empire to increase the power of France, or the United States and Great Britain making common cause with the Soviet menace to defeat the National Socialists. More relevantly, think of the Ayatollah Khomeini working accepting the aid of French radicals opposed to the Shah of Iran before stabbing them in the back. While each side will try to turn the outcome of events to its own advantage, there is no reason to believe that their sectarian differences will prevent them pursuing a common goal. Indeed, the evidence indicates the exact opposite.

Paging Jack Lynch

You might want to exploit this in your Congressional run. Then again, it might go over pretty well in the Ann Arbor area.

Obama's Speech

In light of recent events, Senator Barack Obama has given a speech explaining his views on racial issues, specifically as they relate to his firebrand of a pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As far as I'm concerned, he hit all of the right notes on Wright, condemning what Wright said without throwing him under the bus, and offering a human, if not exactly logically coherent, explanation for some of the things said and done by Wright. As long as Obama told the truth about his relationship with Wright and what he did and didn't hear Wright say. the issue is settled for me.

Obama then goes on to expand on what he thinks has to be done to bring about racial reconciliation, including making some points that conservatives have been making for years, such as blacks "taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to
despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny." But this is also where Obama's speech starts to get worrisome. Just prior to this he had stated that

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family.

He immediately goes on to say that "embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change." Assuming for a minute that this is true (it isn't), is simply believing society can change enough, or does someone actually have to do something to bring this change about? If so, who is that someone? Because the speech is political above all else, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the responsibility for changing society falls to the state, particularly the federal government. And what ought the federal government do to bring about this momentous change in society? Obama sets down the outlines of his program to bring about racial reconciliation, and it looks remarkable like embracing the typical progressive slate of programs.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

Obama continues

In this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas
for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

So, according to Obama, racial reconciliation must be grounded in massive increases in federal education spending; economic protectionism (leaving the whole NAFTA issue aside for the moment); government-provided health care; and fighting the perennial bogeyman, Washington special interests. So, apparently the key to reconciliation is recognizing that our social problems stem from the fact that the government isn't taking good enough care of us. Implicit in Obama's narrative is the idea that all social tension stems from economic hardship. More to the point, Obama seems to believe that national unity requires that the nation rally around a program of massive government action for the common good, defined in strictly economic terms and grounded in socialist principles.

Never mind the question of whether Obama's policy proposals would be efficacious if enacted, this is yet another example of how Obama's soaring rhetoric is at odds with his politics. He proclaims himself a transcendent figure capable of bridging the divisions in American society, but for large segments of the population, embracing his politics on social, economic, and national security issues means abandoning their own principles. Obama is not coming to meet them by offering some new political synthesis that eliminates the contradictions between the principles of the left and right, he is demanding that they bridge the divide by sacrificing their principles in the name of unity. Obama's nods to conservatism are in areas where no policy implications can be drawn, while an examination of the actual positions he has taken in the Senate show him to be to the left of all other Senators.

Obama's politics can be summed up by this line from his speech:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Simply put, Obama seems to be preaching statolatry, the worship of the state and the belief in its salvific powers. I say seems because it is possible to read just about any position you want into what he's saying, including libertarianism, but a perusal of his policy proposals gives the impression that the libertarian reading of Obama's speech is unlikely to be correct. Instead, he believes in the power of government to alleviate the human condition and bring about a peaceful and harmonious society. The problem with this is not that government has no role to play, but that the role Obama would assign it would have an infantilizing effect on the population. When people become dependent upon the government for their well-being, especially in the realm of providing for their material needs, they cease to view themselves as moral actors because they lose sight of what was their major obligation: providing for themselves and their families. Obama recognizes this when he speaks of "A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and
frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family,
contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare
policies for many years may have worsened." But he misses the point. When the state guarantees you a certain standard of living, you have no incentive to work for it. You only have incentive to work if you want your standard of living to be higher than the one provided by the government and want it badly enough that you're willing to go out and work for it. If the government is paying you enough to get by, a life of leisure looks pretty good, and idle hands do the devil's work.

But instead of getting government out of the way, Obama wants more of it, and this is largely anathema to conservatives (which is one reason why Mike Huckabee didn't gain much traction outside his evangelical base and John McCain has work to do to shore up his base). It is still the height of naivete to assume conservatives will abandon their principles for the sake of political unity when their raisson d'etre is to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop!"

Once Again, Class

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.