Today, 21 March 2011, marks the 150^th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton Stephens’ delivery of the Cornerstone Speech in Savannah, Georgia. On 20 December 1860, the state convention called by the legislature of South Carolina after the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency had voted for secession from the Union. By the beginning of February, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, George, Louisiana, and Texas had followed suit. And on 7 February 1861, these states joined together to form the Confederate States of America. Soon thereafter, Jefferson Davis was elected its President, and Stephens, its Vice-President.

In his Second Inaugural, looking back, Abraham Lincoln observed that, on the eve of the Civil War, “one eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern half of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war.”

After that conflict, southern apologists, such as the renowned classicist Basil Lanneau Gildersleeve, would insist that “the cause we fought for and our brothers died for was the cause of civil liberty, and not the cause of human slavery.” But the facts support Lincoln’s claim.

At the time of secession, for example, the state convention in Mississippi announced, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery,” and asserted, “There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union,” noting that “the hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory” and grew stronger in the succeeding decades.

No one, however, made the southern case with greater eloquence and force than Stephens, who had opposed secession in Georgia on prudential grounds and then rallied to its support once the decision had been made. When he returned to Savannah to address the George convention on 21 March 1861, this is what he said:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

(more…)

Inside the Obama administration, a debate is raging. In the face of the uprisings in the Middle East, Barack Obama has opted to sit on his hands. He has a talent for that. Robert Gates, who is extremely wary – one might even say, excessively wary – of commitments abroad, is happy about the President’s passivity; Hillary Clinton, who had hoped that we would act to tip the balance in Libya, is not. It would not be hard to imagine her resigning from the cabinet over this issue. The tensions are starting to mount.

In his comedy routine last week at the Gridiron Club, the President reportedly delivered remarks that had a certain edge. “I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders – though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” he is said to have remarked. “These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.” And in an interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, when Mrs. Clinton was asked four times whether she would agree to serve in any post under Barack Obama if he were re-elected in 2012, she responded on each occasion in the negative and refused further comment.

Here is what The Daily Caller reports: “Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

(more…)

Sad to say, what I wrote last year at this time is hardly less apt today:  “The State of the Union Address is ordinarily a bore. It generally consists of a laundry list of proposals, and the list nearly always seems interminable. If Barack Obama has moxie, however, tonight could be different. His State of the Union Address could be a real game changer.”

“Here,” I then wrote, “is how he could do it – if he was really intent on saving his Presidency and on turning a disgraceful performance in that office into something worthy of eulogy. This evening, after the usual formalities, he could say:

My fellow Americans, let me begin by stating the obvious. The state of our union is not good. We seem to be – we may be – coming out of a recession. But, if so, the recovery is not only jobless; it is accompanied by an increase in employment.

This is contrary to my expectation. When I became President, my economic advisers told me that the rate of unemployment would be considerably lower now than it is. They were mistaken, and I erred in taking their advice. The fault is mine. I may not have gotten us into a severe recession, but I advanced proposals and I pursued policies which have prolonged and deepened it. I am at fault.

(more…)

We were given fair warning on Tuesday when Robert Gates arrived in China. I doubt, however, that we will heed it. Liberal, commercial polities have a tendency to be caught flat-footed at the beginning of an armed conflict, and what is true for them is even more egregiously true for the modern democracies so aptly described as welfare states. War, defeat, and a profound loss of prestige are, I fear, the catastrophes that we are now courting – as the Chinese military ostentatiously indicated by brazenly test-flying their first stealth fighter, one larger than any in our larder, just a few hours before our Secretary of Defense sat down for discussions with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

The blunders that we are now making are by no means unprecedented. The first example that comes to mind is England under William III, which was arguably the first fully modern, fully commercial polity in human history. As Winston Churchill points out in his Marlborough: His Life and Times, England’s Dutch king fought vigorously to maintain in England in the wake of  the War of the League of Augsburg (1689-97) a standing army as a deterrent, but he was thwarted by a Parliament weary of war, unfriendly to taxation, and intent on harvesting a peace dividend. In the absence of an England capable of deploying on the continent of Europe an expeditionary force at a moment’s notice, when the last Hapsburg monarch of Spain died without issue, Louis ignored the terms of his marriage with a Spanish Infanta and connived in installing on the Spanish throne his grandson Philip, who was in line to inherit the French throne as well. Given their immense wealth and their holdings in the New World, the unity of France and Spain would have had as its practical consequence the establishment of a universal monarchy dominant over Europe. This was the very eventuality that the War of the League of Augsburg had been fought to prevent, and in response the English, the Dutch, and the Hapsburgs in central Europe launched the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-13), which the first two of these states were initially – thanks to the natural propensity of liberal, commercial polities – ill-equipped to fight.

Churchill – who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in part as a recognition of his remarkable accomplishment in Marlborough: His Life and Times – composed this magisterial study in the 1930s, and one cannot read it without realizing that writing this work was a central part of his intellectual preparation for becoming a wartime Prime Minister. Britain was caught in the toils of the Great Depression at the time, and he watched in horror and raised his voice in protest as Germany under Hitler rearmed and as Britain and France succumbed to wishful thinking and repeatedly chose butter over guns. The Second World War – and the casualties accompanying it – were the price that was paid for the improvident stewardship of the political leaders of Britain and France.

I mention these disgraceful examples because I suspect that we are following in their wake.

(more…)

Well, one thing is now clear. Barack Obama very much wants to be re-elected, and he is willing to do whatever it takes.

As I have already pointed out in anticipatory posts – first  here, then here – he could not hire William M. Daley as his new White House Chief of Staff without eating a substantial helping of crow. Among Democrats, no one was as critical in public of the course chosen by Obama, Nancy Pelois, and Harry Reid in 2009 as was Daley. The op-ed he published in The Washington Post on Chrismas Eve, 2009 – just a few hours after Harry Reid jammed through the Senate a bill burdened with provisions known as the Cornhusker Kickback, the Connecticut Compromise, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Florida Flim-Flam – predicted that, if the Democratic Party followed through on what it had already done, it would not only be routed at the midterm elections in November, 2010; it would lay the foundations for “electoral disaster . . . in many elections to come.” I doubt that President Obama will step forward and publicly admit fault. That, as far as I can tell, he does not have in him. But before Daley took the job, he must have heard the President whisper the familiar words that this son of one Chicago mayor and brother of another first learned as an altar boy: “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

In practice, this means that Daley will wield far more authority than was ever accorded to Rahm Emanuel. There are signs the he is already doing so. Reports indicate that Robert Gibbs’ departure is Daley’s doing and that Valerie Jarrett’s wings will be clipped. In these matters, Obama is utterly cold-blooded.  As William Ayers and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright learned not so long ago, when circumstances change, this would-be Messiah is not loath to dispense with those hitherto near and dear. One aide is quoted as describing him as “the most unsentimental man I’ve ever met.”

Daley’s arrival at the helm also means that Obama has decided to pivot and reposition himself as a budget-cutter and a friend to big business. The left within the Democratic Party is now in an uproar, which will help the President far more than it will hurt him. If he is to present himself as the Comeback Kid, he will have to ditch his party in much the same manner as Slick Willie from Arkansas. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will have to be ready to do business with one hand – while they are investigating malfeasance on the part of the administration with the other. Politically, we are in for a battle royal.

(more…)

There have been reports – here, here, and here– that Barack Obama has approached William M. Daley about becoming the White House Chief of Staff.  If true, these reports are very interesting, indeed.

You see: Bill Daley has a history. On Christmas Eve, 2009 – a few hours after the Democrats in the US Senate shoved through a version of Obamacare adorned with colorful provisions nicknamed the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Connecticut Compromise, and Gatorade (sometimes called the Florida Flim-Flam) – the gentleman in question published an op-ed in The Washington Post, warning his fellow Democrats that they were in danger of bringing about a realignment in favor of the Republicans.

After alluding to the announced retirements of four centrist Democrats in the House and to Parker Griffith’s switch to the Republican side, Daley argued that “the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.”

The political dangers of this situation could not be clearer.

(more…)

The experts charged with determining when recessions begin and end tell us that the latest of these unpleasant events ended a while ago. Technically, they are no doubt right. But that does not mean that the economic crisis we have been facing is over. I suspect that we have thus far only seen its first act. The drama to come may be far, far worse. To see why, one must recognize that economic downturns come in two different forms.

The economists who study recessions tend to think about them in turns of the business cycle – and rightly so, for in most cases it is the business cycle that produces the downturn. In the course of such a cycle, boom builds upon boom and bust upon bust. It is a bit like a game of crack the whip. Downturns occasioned by the business cycle are caused by overproduction. When businesses have more stock than they can sell, they stop producing and lay off workers. The workers laid off and no longer getting paychecks cut back on their consumption, and this in turn reduces the demand for goods and services and causes other businesses, which find their products and services no longer as much in demand, to curtail their efforts and lay off another set of workers. And so the recession grows, building on itself, until some businesses find that they have underproduced or underprovided for the services in demand. Then, the same process takes place in reverse with stepped-up production and a stepped-up provision of services requiring stepped-up employment, which occasions more consumption requiring another round of stepped-up production and provision of services and a further increase in employment and so forth – until production and provision once more overshoot demand. In the absence of perfect knowledge, human beings living in commercial societies are fated to suffer from an oscillation of this sort – between boom and bust.

When Barack Obama became President, his economic advisors appear to have been on automatic pilot and to have taken it for granted that this was the sort of recession that they were up against. And so they opted for a remedy that – if applied in the proper fashion, at the proper time, and  in the proper amount – might serve to hasten an economy’s recovery from a recession occasioned by the business cycle. That is, they sought to prime the pump – to increase consumption by artificial means, to borrow money from the future, put it in the pockets of certain citizens, and hope that they would spend it right away and thereby put others back to work.

Such was, at least, their pretense. In practice, of course, the so-called “stimulus bill” was a targeted measure – a massive pay-off designed to reward the public-sector employees and unionized workers involved in infrastructure construction who make up core constituencies within the Democratic Party and to do so at the expense of those whose taxes the Democrats intended in the future to raise. Obama’s advisors did not worry much about the manner in which the “stimulus” was to be applied, its timing, and amount, however. For they took it for granted that the expenditures would do no immediate damage to anyone and that the economy would bounce back quickly in any case, as it always does when the downturn is caused solely (or at least primarily) by the business cycle.

(more…)

A bit less than a year ago, I posted piece entitled Is Barack Obama a One-Trick Pony? I raised this question with an eye to three thumbsuckers that had recently appeared – one on Politico by veteran commentator Elizabeth Drew; another, entitled Amateur Hour at the White House, written by Leslie Gelb for The Daily Beast; and a third, drawing on the remarks of these two well-known Democratic scribes, published in The Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan.

Noonan had two things to say – first, that no one among her liberal acquaintances really loved Barack Obama the way so many Democrats had loved Bill Clinton; and, second, that the Democrats were wrong to think that passing his healthcare reform would help him. In her view, the passage of “such a poor piece of legislation” would, in fact, do him almost irreparable harm. Moreover, she added, “There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demand baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end.”

To this, I added, “The Democrats are getting what they asked for.”

In 2004, they tried a trick. If we nominate a man who won the Purple Heart in Vietnam, they thought, we will win. Never mind that John Kerry disgraced himself in the aftermath of his service in Vietnam, making unjust charges against his brothers-in-arms and resolutely thereafter refusing to apologize to those whom he had slandered. Never mind that he had no executive experience. Never mind that, as a US Senator, he was – to say the least – undistinguished. They wanted to win; and they gave not a thought to what sort of President he might be.

In 2008, the Democrats did the same thing. They had on their hands an inexperienced, recently minted US Senator from Illinois who was – as Joe Biden put it in a candid remark that typifies his propensity for speaking his mind without first thinking about the consequences – “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Never mind, they thought, Obama’s long-standing connections with William Ayers, the unrepentant mastermind of a domestic terrorist bombing campaign in the 1970s. Never mind Obama’s close association with the racist demagogue Jeremiah Wright. Never mind his lack of executive experience, his unfamiliarity with the private sector, and his ignorance of the ways of Washington. With the help of the pliable press, he could be sold – and the Americans would congratulate themselves on their lack of racial prejudice if they voted for him.

“Now,” I then wrote, “comes the reckoning. That is one problem. The other is that Obama’s one trick cannot often be played. As we have seen over the last few months, as he has tried to play this trick over and over and over again, the more we see of him, the less we are impressed. Franklin Delano Roosevelt never held his fireside chats more than three times a year. How many times has Obama demanded airtime from the networks in the last ten months? I shudder to think.” And to this, I added,

(more…)

The election is now over and the results are in – except in Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and a congressional district here and there. And one by one the usual suspects are weighing in with their comments. Most of these are utterly predictable, and some are downright mendacious, as one would expect.

When President Obama denied that the biggest Republican victory since the 1920s was a referendum on the policies embraced by his party and his administration, he was either lying or deep in denial – and the same thing can be said about The New York Times, which opined yesterday in an utterly predictable manner that – while “Tuesday’s election was indeed a ’shellacking’ for the Democrats, as President Obama admitted after a long night of bad news” – it “was hardly an order from the American people to discard the progress of the last two years and start over again.”

Mr. Obama was on target when he said voters howled in frustration at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. To borrow his running automotive metaphor, voters threw the keys at Republicans and told them to drive for a while, but gave almost no indication of what direction to drive in.

To believe this, one would have to be convinced that the voters were unaware that the Republicans were committed to repealing and replacing Obamacare, to extending the Bush tax cuts, and to reducing federal expenditures to the level of 2008. To argue its truth, one would have to ignore the Pledge to America – which is, of course, what our President and our erstwhile newspaper of record did.

(more…)

“There is,” Shakespeare’s Brutus said to Cassius, “a tide in the affairs of men.”

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Such, I suspect, were the musings of Hillary Rodham Clinton last night as she watched the election returns from a safe and distant perch in an East Asian hotel, and her thinking was no doubt in accord with what was going through the mind of William Jefferson Clinton as well.

As expected, judgment day came on the first Tuesday in November, and the Democrats suffered an historic defeat. In the House, they lost at least sixty seats, and they lost at least six seats in the Senate as well. Their share in the overall vote fell well short of that accorded the Republicans.

Of course, the liberal media will go to great lengths to deny the obvious – first, that this constituted a fully conscious repudiation of the agenda pursued by the administration of Barack Obama and by its Democratic allies in Congress and, second, that William Daley – former Secretary of Commerce, brother of the Mayor of Chicago, and mastermind of the Daley machine – was correct when, on Christmas eve, he warned his fellow Democrats that “the political dangers of this situation could not be clearer,” explaining, “Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.” But no one will credit their spin, and Democrats everywhere will quietly and privately begin to rethink their relationship with Barack Obama.

Those Democrats who survived the Republican tsunami and retained their House seats this year may be apt to suppose that they will survive in 2012 as well. But Senators up for re-election in that year will be inclined to think other thoughts.

(more…)

Over the last twenty-two months, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have sown the wind. Today – if the polls are any indication – they will reap the whirlwind.

The portents have been there for a very long time. It all began on 19 February 2009 with a rant on CNBC on the part of Rick Santelli, which struck a nerve and occasioned the birth of the Tea-Party Movement. That the tide might be beginning to turn was made evident in mid-April of that year when the adherents of that movement successfully mounted demonstrations across the entire country, and the Democrats and their minions in the media began denouncing them as Astroturf, Nazis, racists, and tea-baggers. And to anyone who cared to notice, the seriousness of the opposition and the depth of their concern was made manifest that August when constituents confronted their Senators and Congressmen in town halls throughout the land and shouted them down. It was on 2 August 2009 that I first suggested that, if the Republicans embraced the Tea-Party Movement and articulated the grievances that had occasioned its emergence, a genuine political realignment might be in the offing.

As it happened – and it was by and large an accident – the Republicans were well-positioned to take advantage of this political opening. In January, 2009, many of the House Republicans and not a few of their colleagues in the Senate would have been willing to cooperate with the Democrats in promoting the agenda of the Obama administration. In 2008, they had received a drubbing at the polls, and they were appropriately cowed. But, campaign rhetoric aside, no one on the Democratic side was seriously interested in bipartisan accord. They had won the election; they persuaded themselves that they had a mandate; and though President Obama had presented himself to the voting public as a moderate, he and his fellow Democrats had not the slightest intention of seeking the middle ground. In the House, it would not have taken much to swing a sizable group of Republicans behind the Democrats’ program, but Nancy Pelosi was intent on revenge. So, when the so-called “stimulus” bill came up for a vote, she made sure that there were within it no earmarks for the Republicans, and out of pique nearly all of them voted against the measure.

(more…)

Scott Rasmussen now predicts that the Republicans will pick up fifty-five seats in the House. Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia still has the pick-up at forty-seven but says that, if forced to tweak the numbers right now, he would increase his estimate of Republican gains by single digits – which is to say, he agrees with Rasmussen.

There are pollsters out there who are playing games, as a glance at the polls for the Senate race in West Virginia should make clear – and, of course, it is easy to play games. If one wants to encourage the Left and discourage potential Republican voters and donors, all that one has to do is to base one’s poll on the presumption that the percentage of self-described Democrats within the voting public in 2010 will be equal to the percentage in 2008.

Sabato and his associates and Rasmussen are not, however, among the gamesters. Both are aiming at accuracy. Sabato and company have a reputation to uphold (and, in the academic world, that is all-important), and Rasmussen is a nonpartisan pollster who attracts clients by way of demonstrated precision. Neither outfit can afford to make a fool of itself.

I nonetheless think that both are greatly underestimating the size of the Republican surge. Both have reason to be cautious. For understandable reasons, neither is going to climb out on a limb; and both are basing their estimates on recent electoral history. If something is in the offing that exceeds the range of political oscillation in recent decades (including, notably, 1994), if we in American live in something other than normal times, they will miss the size of the surge.

It is good to remember that not a single Sovietologist predicted the collapse and dismemberment of the Soviet regime. History has a way of lulling us into sleep. What has been in recent times we tend to think will be in the foreseeable future. Then, every once in a while, suddenly, out of nowhere, a political earthquake arrives – and only in the aftermath do the experts notice that there were ample warning signs.

(more…)

Back in mid-June, Leslie Gelb floated an idea in an op-ed piece that he published in The Wall Street Journal. After the midterms, he argued, when Robert Gates resigned his position as Secretary of Defense, Hillary Clinton should be given the job in preparation for making her the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2012. As a booby prize – Gelb spoke, of course, in more flattering terms – Joe Biden could be made Secretary of State.

Apart from fact that it requires one to suppose that a man known as “loose lips,” notorious for blurting out the first thing that comes into his mind, would make a decent Secretary of State, Gelb’s suggestion made a certain amount of sense. President Obama was no longer popular; Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill had a considerable following that would be far more likely to come to the polls in 2012 if she were on the ticket; and it had long been obvious that Barack Obama held his Vice-President in contempt.

With these facts in mind, in a post back in July, I noted the criticism leveled at President Obama by erstwhile supporters of Hillary Clinton such as Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and James Carville. And I then raised the possibility that President Obama might seize upon the occasion of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding to catch her father at a time when, as everyone knows, a man from Arkansas can deny no one a favor and that he might then close the deal suggested by Gelb and get the husband of his Secretary of State to call off the attack dogs unleashed by the Clinton family.

Soon thereafter, however, I learned that Chelsea and her intended – the son of a former Congressman convicted on 31 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud and known to law enforcement agencies as Fast-Talkin’ Eddie – had chosen not to invite the current President of the United States to their wedding. In an update to my post noting this ominous fact, I speculated that this might mean that Slick Willie, Fast-Talkin’ Eddie, and the Ragin’ Cajun were planning to go to the mattresses.

(more…)

There is a brief story by Jim Carlton in the weekend edition of The Wall Street Journal entitled “Fiorina Stays Away from Middle Road,” and in the cover story for the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes describes Carly Fiorina’s campaign against Barbara Boxer as “the most important race of 2010.”

I am not sure that I agree with the extravagant claim advanced by Barnes. But if Fiorina does, in fact, put an end to Boxer’s career, his assertion might well prove to be right – for, as Barnes shows in detail, the title of Carlton’s story is apt.

Carly Fiorina is not a squish. She is anti-abortion, and she makes no bones about the fact that she thinks Roe v. Wade a travesty. She is hostile to Obamacare, and she wants it repealed. She thinks that a tax increase at this time would be counter-productive, and she means to stop it. She thinks the deficit a threat to American prosperity and power, and she intends to see to its reduction. She favors offshore drilling, and she supports Arizona’s attempt to stop illegal immigration. She does not pander; she does not retreat. She makes her case. And if she wins – and she may well win –  in California of all places, it really will be the occasion of a political earthquake. More important, from my perspective, even if she loses, we win.

If our aim were a mere partisan victory, my claim would be ridiculous. A vote in the Senate is, after all, a vote in the Senate. But if there is something more at stake – if a partisan victory predicated on an abandonment of principle is a devastating, demoralizing defeat – then it is far, far better to lose a close race while making a principled argument, as Abraham Lincoln did in his senatorial campaign against Stephen Douglas in Illinois in 1858, than it is to win by way of cowardice, collapse, and compromise.

To grasp what I mean one must look beyond November.

(more…)

On Thursday, in Detroit, a federal district judge named George Caram Steeh ruled Obamacare constitutional. On Friday, Mike Pence, a Republican Congressman from Indiana, expressed his confidence that the Supreme Court will declare key sections of the bill unconstitutional.

I believe that Pence is right – and for three reasons: one principled, one personal, and one practical and political. The first is easy to grasp.

At stake, Pence asserts, is “whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not.” With this description of what is at issue, Judge Steeh, who was appointed to the court by William Jefferson Clinton, is in wholehearted agreement. As he puts it in his ruling,

The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.

It is his view that – since our “decisions” to buy or not buy insurance have an impact on the market – the federal government can make these decisions for us.

(more…)

A lot has been written on this site and elsewhere concerning the Pledge to America that the Republicans unveiled on Friday. For the most part, bloggers have been critical. Some have argued that it will not do the Republicans any good in November. Others dismiss it as milquetoast. Emily Esfahani Smith has done a good job collecting the comments.

I think the critics are wrong, quite wrong – and for two reasons. First, those who drafted the Pledge took great care to ground everything that they had to say in first principles. They drew the attention of the nation to the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution. Then, they pointed to our departure from these principles in recent years, asserting that the Democrats bear prime responsibility for this, but acknowledging Republican failures as well.

And, finally, they spelled out the corrective measures that are most pressing – a repeal of Obamacare (not a collection of minor adjustments); a reduction of federal expenditures (apart from those devoted to national defense) back to the level of 2008; and an extension of the tax cuts introduced by George W. Bush.

Should they have gone further? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is a document devised for three purposes. It is aimed at winning an election, at preparing a party now in opposition for legislative hegemony, and at initiating an enduring partisan realignment. In such circumstances, two things are necessary. A simple straightforward set of principles needs to be announced, and the most pressing concerns need to be directly addressed.

(more…)

Can we trust the current polls? I do not mean to level any accusations. I think that, with rare exceptions, the pollsters are doing their best to assess the trends. If nothing else, they know that accuracy pays off – that a pollster who gets things right will get a lot of business down the road.

What I have in mind is something else. I suspect that there is something afoot which the pollsters do not yet know how to measure. There is evidence that seems to me to be dispositive. No one predicted Joe Miller’s victory in the Alaska primary; no one predicted Christine O’Donnell’s defeat of Mike Castle – and let’s face it: in neither case was the margin of victory small. My bet is that in November the Republicans will take every single race – for the House, the Senate, or at the state level – in which the pollsters (including Rasmussen, the best of the lot) report that the race is even remotely close.

On 2 September, I posted a piece suggesting that the Republicans would pick up more than 70 seats in the House and would take the Senate. I now think that they will do even better than this – at least in the House. As Peter Wehner and Paul Mirengoff have noted, when Glenn Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies ran a survey recently for the American Action Network, he made a discovery of great interest:

The generic ballot shows Republicans leading 44%-39%. Besides all of the usual regional crosstabs, we also broke it out by the type of district. We looked at the sample in the 66 Democratic INCUMBENT districts that Charlie Cook lists as either toss-up or leaning Democratic at the time of the survey. In that key crosstab of Swing Democratic Incumbent Seats, the Republican lead grows to 49%-31% on the generic ballot. That is a very powerful crosstab that says the wave is coming.

Among the remaining Democratic districts (Likely/Safe Dem, and open seats), the generic ballot is an unsurprisingly 33% GOP/51% Dem — a sign that the historically safe Dem seat will remain so, while the swing seats will be a bloodbath. By the way, in all of  the GOP held seats, the generic is the reverse of the base Dem seats — 52% GOP/32% Dem. Very few, if any, Republican incumbents will be defeated.

Likewise, President Obama’s numbers with likely voters are similar to the national average — 46% approve/51% disapprove. However, in the Swing Democratic Incumbent Seats. he has a much worse 40% approve/57% disapprove. (Keep in mind, many of these Swing Seats are held by Democrats despite the fact that John McCain either won the district in 2008, or, even if losing, outperformed his national result.

On 2 November, there is going to be an electoral revolution. I doubt that it will exceed the shift which took place in 1894 – when, in the wake of the Panic of 1893, Grover Cleveland’s Democratic Party split between its goldbug Bourbon wing and the populists who would later unite behind William Jennings Bryan and, in the midterm elections held that year, the Democrats lost 125 seats and the Republicans had a pickup of 130. But it may exceed the largest shift in the 20^th century, when 101 seats changed hands in 1932.

(more…)

Congressman Mike Pence spoke at Hillsdale College Monday night at the invitation of the Young Republicans. I attended the dinner held in his honor before the talk, briefly chatted with him, and listened with care and interest to his talk – which had as its subject “the Presidency and the Constitution.”

Pence, who has represented Indiana’s ninth district in Congress since 2001, attended Hanover College not far from Madison, Indiana – where my grandfather once owned a dry goods store. There, I knew, he had studied with my friend G. M. Curtis. On that ground alone, I figured that he might be worth hearing.

Pence is exceptionally articulate. Before entering Congress, he had done a six-year-long stint as a talk-radio host. In Congress, he emerged quickly as a conservative leader. To his great credit, he voted against two initiatives pressed by George W. Bush – No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug benefit – and, in 2005, he was unanimously elected the chairman of the conservative Republican Study Group.

In 2006, Pence ran against John Boehner for the post of minority leader in the House, calling for the Republican Party to return to its “small-government ideology,” and he lost. Two years later, however, in a move suggestive of Pence’s stature and of Boehner’s wiliness, the new minority leader recruited his onetime rival to head the House Republican Conference Group. For this office, Pence ran unopposed.

Pence’s lecture Monday night was impressive.

(more…)

Today marks Constitution Day. On 17 September 1787, in Philadelphia, the Framers of the American Constitution added their signatures to the document they had produced, and soon thereafter it was dispatched to the Continental Congress for consideration by the states. On this day, it is appropriate that we, their heirs, reconsider their handiwork and ask whether ours is still a constitutional government.

In their deliberations, the Framers confronted one great question, and it was largely on this question that the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the ratification period turned. Can one establish an enduring republic on an extended territory? This is the question that Americans in this crucial period wrestled with.

As I have argued in earlier posts here and here and, in much greater detail, in my recent books Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty and Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift, the Americans had reason to worry. In the late eighteenth century, it was almost universally agreed that what they were attempting could not succeed. Such was the argument that Montesquieu advanced in the first part of his authoritative book The Spirit of Laws, and he had grounds for advancing such a claim. Athens and Sparta were situated on territories of no great size, and the same could be said for early Rome and for Lucca, Florence, and Venice in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

Of course, late republican Rome was an exception to the rule. Under the late republic, nearly everyone in Italy was a citizen, and that polity ruled the Mediterranean and beyond. But – as both Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy and Montesquieu in his Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline and Spirit of Laws had pointed out — Rome was also the exception that proved the rule. It was a small republic that, by dint of conquest, came to be situated on an extended territory; and soon after it had expanded, it collapsed. The Framers of the American constitution faced a great challenge, and this they and their opponents among the Anti-Federalists knew all too well.

(more…)

We have come a long way in the last twenty months. The President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the United States Senate have done for the Republican Party what no Republican could have accomplished. Just as rigor mortis was about to set in, they brought the old corpse back to life. For their efforts on our behalf, we should be forever grateful.

It is easy to lose perspective. It is easy to forget the dire straits in which the Republicans found themselves in and for some time after November, 2008. On the first Tuesday of that month, they were soundly defeated. The Democrats controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress. In time, when Al Franken was seated and Arlen Specter turned coat, the Democrats would attain El Dorado – a commanding majority in the Senate capable to bringing a filibuster to a screeching halt.

The Republicans initially thought that to get along they would have to go along. Had Nancy Pelosi thrown a little patronage their way when the so-called “stimulus” bill was being put together, had Barack Obama intervened to insist that she include earmarks for compliant Republicans in the House, a great many of them would have voted for the measure. It is to her that we owe their solidarity on the occasion of the vote. She is responsible for the fact that on that occasion they presented themselves to the world as a party of principle. If the Tea-Party Movement, which sprang up in the immediate aftermath of the bill’s passage, was not as resolutely hostile to the Republicans as it was to the Democrats, it was because Pelosi and her minions wanted vengeance, sought it, and got it.

Even when the Tea-Party Movement had emerged, the Republicans were not quick to realize what was in the offing. On 2 May 2009, some six months after the election, Jeb Bush emerged from a meeting with Mitt Romney and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor to announce that it was time for the Republicans to give up “nostalgia about the past” and to leave Ronald Reagan and all that he stood for behind. “You can’t beat something with nothing,” he observed, “and the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that.”

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor may have been slow to grasp what was going on, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are dopes. It was not until early August in that year that I was willing to admit to myself that a political realignment in the Republicans’ favor was a serious possibility; and, as I noted in a piece posted in the aftermath of the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association in early September, I was even then almost entirely alone. At that convention, I had attended a panel on Barack Obama’s first year as President at which not one of the distinguished students of American politics on the panel had in their prepared remarks even mentioned the Tea-Party Movement. And when I asked a question about it, I received a perfunctory answer. It was odd, my interlocutor remarked, that such a movement had emerged in the absence of institutional support. It was, I thought, very odd, very odd, indeed.

Now, thanks to Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, the Republicans appear to be on the verge of an historic victory.

(more…)