May the Faithful Prove Prescient
Last night, standing amidst a small group of friends, including some to whom my host had just introduced me, holding a glass of champagne, one of the assembled suggested a toast.
“What should we toast?” asked another.
“How about Barack Obama?” said a third. Numerous eyes turned towards me—perhaps not the only McCain voter in the room, but likely the most vocal one (I do live in San Francisco, after all).
I shrugged and raised my glass:
“To President-elect Obama. May the faith that so many have placed in him prove fully warranted.”
All agreed that the toast was proper regardless of affiliation or preference.
It was more than simply a face-saving attempt on my part. It was—and is—heartfelt. We are finishing eight years that I characterize as having had incompetent governance and irresponsible opposition. It is time that we do better on all fronts. The country has chosen Obama as the person to lead us there, and I hope that he does.
Yet my reference to “faith” was a careful, deliberate choice. Though most Obama supporters spoke of hope, what I heard from them was more aligned with faith. Obama supporters—strong Obama supporters—have assured me that when the dust settles and he actually moves into office, he will: govern as a Clintonian centrist; galvanize a truly “progressive” agenda; end affirmative action and racial preferences and setasides; and elevate the status and standing of black leaders and leadership. At least some of these supporters will soon find themselves sorely disappointed. It is, as a friend noted, a testament to Obama’s genius that he could convince all of these believers that he is, at heart, one of them. I could not join them for the simple reason that I could not share their faith. My read on our President-elect remains that though he is certainly “the kind of guy with whom I hang out,” his policy instincts are protectionist, accommodationist, and redistributionist. Still, I concede that my lack of faith is based on little more than the faith of his supporters; his record is thin enough for many to see him as many things.
All of which leads to the next, and critical question: What cues might we—or more honestly, I—receive over the next couple of months? What might our President-elect do over the next few months to convert me into a believer? What steps might he take to move the Democratic Party back to where it was—or at least, where I believed it had been—for the many years in which I was an enthusiastic supporter? I have been pondering that question, and I’m beginning to devise answers.
The obvious steps upon which many are focused are unlikely to be enlightening. His first appointment—Rahm Emanuel—was a fine choice, but I can read it several ways. Unlike Obama (a CC ‘83 classmate whom I cannot recall meeting), I have met Emanuel on numerous occasions, mostly though not entirely though my work for the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC). I like Emanuel. He is extraordinarily competent, forceful, and loyal. I am certain that he will serve Obama well. But serve as what? In the Clinton White House, Emanuel championed many of the President’s best policies, and helped to usher them through a Republican Congress. As a leader of the Democratic congressional team, however, he was a partisan obstructionist. Taken together, his priorities seem to be on competence and loyalty, rather than on ideology. So will he return to his Clintonian policy roots? Perhaps. But if he does so, it is likely to be because that is where his new boss wants him to be. As a result, his selection as White House Chief of Staff is not particularly informative on matters of policy.
Beyond his immediate inner circle picks, Obama’s next announcement is likely to be a Secretary of the Treasury. While Larry Summers would be my top pick at this point (demonstrating that at least one Harvard grad understands the obscenity of that institution’s treatment of the best University President that the country has seen in decades), every name that I have seen on the short list is excellent. So…will I be satisfied if I hear an excellent Treasury chief announced soon? Yes and no. The current financial crisis creates some very tight constraints. The markets are nervous and jittery. They want an announcement soon, and they want to hear a known quantity. Obama thus has only two real choices: he can announce a reassuring name soon, or he can risk a further collapse in equity values. Were the Dow to drop another few thousand points between now and January 20th, the financial news would widely (and likely correctly) attribute it to transitional uncertainty. Obama would arrive owning part of the economic collapse—and fair or unfair, the attribution would likely stick. Everyone in his inner circle understands this analysis; it is hardly subtle. Given those choices, it is almost inconceivable that Obama would fail to reassure. Thus, while a delayed announcement or a poor choice would indicate a shocking faith-shattering policy orientation, an excellent choice may indicate little more than a bow to necessity. As a result, Obama can lose points by handling the Treasury announcement poorly, but he can’t yet gain points by handling it well.
So…what might convince me? I can identify four areas that I will be watching intently: (i) How the candidate first chosen by the anti-war left assembles his foreign policy team; (ii) Which parts of the Republican Party this postpartisan politician approaches with an outstretched arm; (iii) Whether assuming actual responsibility for U.S. policy converts the protectionist candidate into a free trader; and (iv) How our first African-American president deals with the African-American community. Let’s take them one at a time.
First, foreign policy. I’ve never been bashful about my foreign policy stances: they lie somewhere between those of the Democratic faction called “liberal internationalists” and the Republican faction called “neoconservatives.” (For the record, these are the folks who long called themselves neocons, not the absurdly extensive list of every Republican that the press despises). Such folks have played important, though typically second-tier, roles in several administrations (notably Reagan, Clinton, and GWB—not Carter or GHWB), but they have never run the show. The only true member of this group to ever assume a cabinet level position was George Schultz—and that was twenty years ago. Fortunately, Obama has some excellent candidates on his side of the aisle. Richard Holbrooke was far-and-away the foreign policy star of the Clinton administration, and would make the finest Secretary of State that either party could plausibly choose. And Sam Nunn’s name has long been forwarded as a potential Defense Secretary; he too would be excellent. The duo of Holbrooke and Nunn in the cabinet would be electrifying. It would, in my opinion, be the strongest Foggy Bottom/Pentagon pairing that I have ever seen. That step alone would be enough to convince me that I was mistaken—and convert me into one of the faithful before inauguration day.
Regrettably, nothing that I have heard suggests that this teaming is even under consideration. The names that I have heard bandied about—beginning with John Kerry—are uniformly disappointing. Many believe that multinational institutions—including the UN—should often direct U.S. policy. Some even spend their time apologizing for the role of the U.S. in the world. The best among them are likely ineffectual but prominent—a group that has already given us such top diplomats as Warren Christopher and Colin Powell. Foreign policy also offers a possible window into my second inquiry. Many commentators have suggested that some of the realist Republicans who crossed the aisle to support Obama (e.g., Hagel or Powell) might find themselves in his cabinet. I agree. They certainly might. But “reaching out” to Republican who reached out first is hardly postpartisan courage, and the Republican realists have long been among my greatest stated reasons for shunning their party. An Obama decision to integrate Republican realists into his governing inner circle would be highly informative: it would tell me that I was absolutely right in leaving the Democratic Party and in supporting McCain.
So where in Republican territory should our next president reach? My preference would be a group typically called “Western libertarians,” though more accurately described as “Blue State libertarians.” Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Ridge, and Michael Bloomberg, all come to mind. Folks in this group are typically social libertarians, recognizing both the constitutional right to privacy and the gender and sexual orientation rights that flow from it. They are also relatively green as a group. But they are staunch supporters of fiscal responsibility, believe in applying the law without coddling criminals, and typically oppose racial setasides. An AG chosen from this Republican faction would send a clear signal of postpartisanship—and set the stage for critical judicial appointments who recognize that though the Ninth Amendment (or a bizarre penumbra, if you will) does grant a right to privacy, the U.S. Constitution is not an elastic document bendable to the policy whims of the moment. That, too, is the sort of signal that could instill some faith in this poor, unbelieving soul.
Trade poses some pretty easy tests. If a president can get one—and only one—policy right, free trade should be it. It is literally that important. Free trade impels global integration and economic growth. It is the single greatest aid to global social mobility, poverty reduction, and development. It focuses people on peaceful pursuits, and impels us to promote education, innovation, entrepreneurship, and high-end development. Candidate Obama ran a shockingly protectionist campaign, that including slandering the Colombian government. Free trade deals with Colombia, South Korea (and possibly a few others that I can’t recall off the top of my head) are pending. Will president-elect Obama drop his opposition and help usher them through? If so, my faith in him would grow. If not, watch out. We will have just elected a president whose policies will ensure a long and painful economic downturn.
Finally, it is hard to see how the election of an African-American president could fail to alter the relationship between the federal government and the African-American community. The only question—and it is a real one—is how. Along those lines, I have but one small suggestion: Secretary of Education William H. Cosby, Ed.D.
And yes, I am very serious about that one.
So there you have it. A few things that I will be watching to see what President Obama will make of the Democratic Party—and of America. My first choice? That he restores the party to its historic commitment to promoting freedom, opportunity, and liberal values throughout the world and here at home—and that he then uses that party to lead the nation into an era of increased global peace and prosperity. The first few clues will unfold soon. I’ll be watching.
The trackback URL for this entry is: Trackbacks are disabled for this entry
Trackbacks:
No trackbacks yet.Comments:
No comments yet.Next entry: Change I Could Believe In
Previous entry: An Independent's Endorsement: Vote for McCain