It was President McKinley who invented the modern presidency by converting the executive office from a largely ceremonial institution into an active branch of the U.S. government. Primarily in foreign policy, McKinley shaped the presidency for the 20th century.
With his "visionary" approach to the presidency, Barack Obama apparently wants to take the president's hands off the grinds of daily politics. The question is whether he is envisioning a figure-head presidency or is trying to reinforce the teamwork trend that has been underway for some time already.
The teamwork presidencies of Bush-Cheney, Clinton-Gore and Reagan-Bush have been very active. The president has been directly involved do a large degree in the day-to-day issues of politics. Getting the vice president involved, and having strong, active secretaries at, e.g., the State Department has been necessary in an increasingly complex political context.
It appears unlikely that Obama is going to follow that trend. More likely, he is going to revert back to the pre-McKinley tradition and leave Congress more room to set the stage for daily politics, especially on the domestic scene. The problem with this model is that both the economy, the needed reforms in the big welfare systems and foreign policy all call for an active presidency.
Others in Obama's incoming administration see this. If Obama tries to take a figure-head role it is more than likely that strong individuals in his administration will set the tone on their own. This is especially likely in foreign policy with a secretary of state who ostensibly has presidential ambitions for 2012.
Whichever way Obama wants to go, he needs to clarify his presidential philosophy in much more detail, and do it soon, in order to avoid a policy vacuum as the Bush administration phases out.
Nov 30, 2008
Nov 20, 2008
Palin Bashing Is Lack of Focus on Real Problem
Those in the Republican party who are bashing Sarah Palin for the lost election not only fundamentally misunderstand her role in the campaign, but they also show a lack of insight into why McCain lost. The senator, despite his long service in Congress, is no issues guy. He cannot explain why he is for or against any specific reforms, especially in the ideologically charged areas like health care.
Sarah Palin is clearly ideological, and that appeals to conservatives and many Americans who are not particularly ideological but seek clarity in differences. With the sharp left turn that the country will take under Barack Obama and a heavy Democrat majority in Congress, Palin's ideological stance will become increasingly popular.
America needs free-market reforms in just about every area of public policy, and the need will grow with each year of the Obama administration. If the GOP fails to recognize that the party's future is bleak at best. The safest way for the party to avoid a future in the shadow of the Democrats is to show confidence and ideological fervor at the state level. With 50 different jurisdictions there is plenty of room for Republican-led states to set good limited-government examples, especially in areas that are a heavy burden on taxpayers: health care and education.
Republicans who push for free-market solutions in health care will be able to show that more freedom, not less, will expand health insurance coverage. Two simple steps can help: remove the state coverage mandates that force people to buy narrowly tailored insurance packages that they cannot afford and will not use; and give small businesses in the state the ability to pool together and buy insurance nationwide, again without having to pay for in-state coverage mandates.
A strong, concerted effort to bring school choice to all families, not just the Obamas and other wealthy parents, will also help strengthen the Republican credentials.
Sarah Palin is clearly ideological, and that appeals to conservatives and many Americans who are not particularly ideological but seek clarity in differences. With the sharp left turn that the country will take under Barack Obama and a heavy Democrat majority in Congress, Palin's ideological stance will become increasingly popular.
America needs free-market reforms in just about every area of public policy, and the need will grow with each year of the Obama administration. If the GOP fails to recognize that the party's future is bleak at best. The safest way for the party to avoid a future in the shadow of the Democrats is to show confidence and ideological fervor at the state level. With 50 different jurisdictions there is plenty of room for Republican-led states to set good limited-government examples, especially in areas that are a heavy burden on taxpayers: health care and education.
Republicans who push for free-market solutions in health care will be able to show that more freedom, not less, will expand health insurance coverage. Two simple steps can help: remove the state coverage mandates that force people to buy narrowly tailored insurance packages that they cannot afford and will not use; and give small businesses in the state the ability to pool together and buy insurance nationwide, again without having to pay for in-state coverage mandates.
A strong, concerted effort to bring school choice to all families, not just the Obamas and other wealthy parents, will also help strengthen the Republican credentials.
Nov 14, 2008
Russia, China Challenging Obama
Cuba has once again become a hot spot of international politics. Both Russia's and China's presidents are scheduled to visit there soon. Ostensibly their goals are to strengthen their respective nations' ties to the island, 90 miles from U.S. shores, which could include a military build-up. This would add to Russian ties already being strengthened to Venezuela.
A hypothetical scenario is a Russian naval base in Venezuela or Cuba, with a permanent presence of Russian navy within landing distance of mainland U.S..
If Russia's goals are increased military presence in the Western Hemisphere it is likely that the Chinese will want to play one-upmanship with the Russians for increased military presence in the region.
Should Russia strike a deal with Cuba or Venezuela to build a permanent naval base in either country it would be a tremendous challenge to the U.S., equivalent to the international crisis that Joe Biden mentioned during the election campaign. Obama's response, he said, would not be the one we would want, which in this scenario would mean a passive, accommodating policy that concedes part of the Caribbean to the Russian and/or Chinese military.
A hypothetical scenario is a Russian naval base in Venezuela or Cuba, with a permanent presence of Russian navy within landing distance of mainland U.S..
If Russia's goals are increased military presence in the Western Hemisphere it is likely that the Chinese will want to play one-upmanship with the Russians for increased military presence in the region.
Should Russia strike a deal with Cuba or Venezuela to build a permanent naval base in either country it would be a tremendous challenge to the U.S., equivalent to the international crisis that Joe Biden mentioned during the election campaign. Obama's response, he said, would not be the one we would want, which in this scenario would mean a passive, accommodating policy that concedes part of the Caribbean to the Russian and/or Chinese military.
Nov 11, 2008
Obama's National Security Force
Congressman Broun's warnings about authoritarian tendencies in the coming Obama administration are not to be dismissed. Broun points to the fact that Obama has called for a "national security force", as well armed, trained and funded as the U.S. Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. Not only would this effectively be the build-up of a parallel military in the United States, but it would also, ostensibly, require a doubling of military expenditures.
Alternatively, Obama has in mind a cut by 50 percent of Pentagon's budget. Either way, the talk of a national security force is reminiscent of what authoritarian regimes around the world have done to solidify and perpetuate their hold on power. In this view, Obama's remark comes across as reckless, especially since he alleges that this national security force would take some national security burdens off the military. But the United States already has a domestic national security force, namely the National Guard. Therefore, he must come clean on what he is referring to.
Obama has already, effectively, created a third party within the Democrat party. He has close ties to Acorn for voter registration/mobilization. A national security force created to his design and his desires would only add to the impression that Obama is trying to become a ruler, not a president. He must turn the tide on those impressions quickly, or else he risks hurling America in to political turmoil.
Alternatively, Obama has in mind a cut by 50 percent of Pentagon's budget. Either way, the talk of a national security force is reminiscent of what authoritarian regimes around the world have done to solidify and perpetuate their hold on power. In this view, Obama's remark comes across as reckless, especially since he alleges that this national security force would take some national security burdens off the military. But the United States already has a domestic national security force, namely the National Guard. Therefore, he must come clean on what he is referring to.
Obama has already, effectively, created a third party within the Democrat party. He has close ties to Acorn for voter registration/mobilization. A national security force created to his design and his desires would only add to the impression that Obama is trying to become a ruler, not a president. He must turn the tide on those impressions quickly, or else he risks hurling America in to political turmoil.
Nov 5, 2008
Republican Comeback a Grassroots Project
Republicans lost Washington because they blurred the differences between them and Democrats. If McCain had said no to the bank bailout he would likely have won. As it was now Obama captured the maverick status and McCain got stuck with a Washington insider chain around his ankle.
Obama is no maverick - he is a socialist in the European sense of the word and will govern as such. He has very far reaching plans for America but will be advised by Podesta and others to go easy, or else the Democrats risk another 1978 or 1994. They know that the only two times they have taken the White House from the Republicans in the last 40 years they have gone too far to the left, too fast. The American people have reacted resoundingly. Therefore, Obama will turn up the heat more slowly.
This will make a Republican comeback a bit more difficult, although there will be numerous opportunities for Obama to make mistakes and expose either his inexperience or his radicalism. But more importantly, Republicans need to re-connect with America's middle class. They have lost that connection, which president Reagan gave them.
The best way to re-connect with America is to do it at the state level. By showing that they can govern conservatively both as governors and as legislators, state Republicans can demonstrate their firm commitment to limited government in practice. This is something they have not been able to do, or interested in doing, over the past few years.
There are a number of state-level reforms that can drive a Republican re-connection effort. The overarching goal must be to restore state independence, cut taxes and liberate people of government regulations. But this must be done with the clear purpose to bring tangible improvements to people's lives.
Governors Palin and Jindal are two examples of a new generation of Republicans who can set healthy governing examples and bring the Republican party back into the conversation with the American people.
Obama is no maverick - he is a socialist in the European sense of the word and will govern as such. He has very far reaching plans for America but will be advised by Podesta and others to go easy, or else the Democrats risk another 1978 or 1994. They know that the only two times they have taken the White House from the Republicans in the last 40 years they have gone too far to the left, too fast. The American people have reacted resoundingly. Therefore, Obama will turn up the heat more slowly.
This will make a Republican comeback a bit more difficult, although there will be numerous opportunities for Obama to make mistakes and expose either his inexperience or his radicalism. But more importantly, Republicans need to re-connect with America's middle class. They have lost that connection, which president Reagan gave them.
The best way to re-connect with America is to do it at the state level. By showing that they can govern conservatively both as governors and as legislators, state Republicans can demonstrate their firm commitment to limited government in practice. This is something they have not been able to do, or interested in doing, over the past few years.
There are a number of state-level reforms that can drive a Republican re-connection effort. The overarching goal must be to restore state independence, cut taxes and liberate people of government regulations. But this must be done with the clear purpose to bring tangible improvements to people's lives.
Governors Palin and Jindal are two examples of a new generation of Republicans who can set healthy governing examples and bring the Republican party back into the conversation with the American people.
Nov 2, 2008
The Consequences of an Election Litigation Battle
If the popular vote tends toward Obama but the electoral college tilts in McCain's favor the Obama campaign is likely going to mount a massive legal battle to charge election fraud. The tactic will ostensibly be to surf on a perceived public wave of support to try to win by judicial fiat. This could tie down the transition process and delay the actual result even longer than was the case in 2000.
If it comes down to litigation the structure around Obama will likely try to create public unrest as an alleged show of support for Obama. This bullying tactic has been used in countries with politicians that Obama view favorably, such as Odinga in Kenya and Chavez in Venezuela. If Obama wins in the wake of his support structure employing such bullying tactics he will see it as a victory through bullying. That would not bode well for the future and would require a new generation of Republican leaders to stand up even more forcefully against an Obama administration.
Sarah Palin has already been criticized and abandoned by some traditional Republican leaders. Under the aforementioned scenario she would be one of the natural leaders of the GOP in opposition. If the old Republican leaders are not willing to back her up, it would mean a significant weakening of the GOP's ability to launch an active, forceful and successful containment strategy vs. Obama. She has very strong support among Republican grassroots, but without the organizationals and financial backing from old Republican leaders it will take time to build a containment strategy. Such loss of time is not something America can afford, especially if Obama would win by judicial fiat.
If it comes down to litigation the structure around Obama will likely try to create public unrest as an alleged show of support for Obama. This bullying tactic has been used in countries with politicians that Obama view favorably, such as Odinga in Kenya and Chavez in Venezuela. If Obama wins in the wake of his support structure employing such bullying tactics he will see it as a victory through bullying. That would not bode well for the future and would require a new generation of Republican leaders to stand up even more forcefully against an Obama administration.
Sarah Palin has already been criticized and abandoned by some traditional Republican leaders. Under the aforementioned scenario she would be one of the natural leaders of the GOP in opposition. If the old Republican leaders are not willing to back her up, it would mean a significant weakening of the GOP's ability to launch an active, forceful and successful containment strategy vs. Obama. She has very strong support among Republican grassroots, but without the organizationals and financial backing from old Republican leaders it will take time to build a containment strategy. Such loss of time is not something America can afford, especially if Obama would win by judicial fiat.
Oct 28, 2008
Obama's Third Party Plans
With polls and some other indicators showing an increased possibility that McCain-Palin will win this election, there is also an increased risk that, come Wendesday next week, Conservatives will sigh with relief and forget about Obama. That would be a grave mistake. Obama will have hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash that he has not spent, and will certainly continue to raise large amounts.
Obama's cash on hand will not be available for the Democrat party to tap in to. It will be Obama's own political war chest. He is going to use it to create his own party within the Democrat party. Knowing that every presidential candidate who loses an election runs a big risk of becoming history, Obama will strenuously fight to stay in the political spotlight. He will build a political base by supporting his allies for offices in local governments, state legislatures and even for Congress. Then he will run again in 2012, with an even stronger organization behind him.
The big question is how the Democrat party responds to this. They can discard him and reduce him to another Kerry, which would mean that they would try to re-direct the party in a more moderate, centrist direction. That would leave the left flank of the party wide open for Obama's "third party" structure within the DNC. That will cause rising tensions in the Democrat party, especially in the midterm elections in 201o.
They can also choose to stick with Obama. In that case the Obama "third party" structure will become the core of the Democrat party. That would permanently park the Democrat party way out to the left. Should that happen there will likely be a drainage of moderate Democrats in to the Republican party.
Either way, Obama will remain a strong, radical force on the left in American politics. He is a man who keeps grudges, which makes him even more dangerous as president, should he lose this election and win in 2012.
Obama's cash on hand will not be available for the Democrat party to tap in to. It will be Obama's own political war chest. He is going to use it to create his own party within the Democrat party. Knowing that every presidential candidate who loses an election runs a big risk of becoming history, Obama will strenuously fight to stay in the political spotlight. He will build a political base by supporting his allies for offices in local governments, state legislatures and even for Congress. Then he will run again in 2012, with an even stronger organization behind him.
The big question is how the Democrat party responds to this. They can discard him and reduce him to another Kerry, which would mean that they would try to re-direct the party in a more moderate, centrist direction. That would leave the left flank of the party wide open for Obama's "third party" structure within the DNC. That will cause rising tensions in the Democrat party, especially in the midterm elections in 201o.
They can also choose to stick with Obama. In that case the Obama "third party" structure will become the core of the Democrat party. That would permanently park the Democrat party way out to the left. Should that happen there will likely be a drainage of moderate Democrats in to the Republican party.
Either way, Obama will remain a strong, radical force on the left in American politics. He is a man who keeps grudges, which makes him even more dangerous as president, should he lose this election and win in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
