The Bosque Boys

15 April 2008:

Back in February of 2007, I reissued an economic-historical post from the summer of 2006. At the risk of going to the well a few times too often, I am convinced that this thought deserves reconsideration today:

[FROM FEBRUARY 2007:] In light of the Stock Market uncertainty [2008: and banking crisis, slight up-tick in unemployment and bankruptcies, housing sales, and food riots in foreign lands],
I am reprising this analysis piece from the summer [of 2006]:

From July 2006:

I refuse to push the panic button on the economy, and I hate Vietnam parallels, but a growing chain of events gives me cause for concern.

2008: It is now most likely an appropriate time to voice concern over the economy--although I am still not pushing the panic button.

The stagflation and misery of the 1970s arrived, in part, as a result of the belief that we could have "guns and butter" without sacrifice. During an extended and expensive overseas military expedition, the US attempted to leverage the Vietnam War and the Great Society with little concern for revenue. At the same time, American manufactures suffered from an increased period of competition from emerging industrial nations. And, finally, the American economy, heavily dependent on foreign oil, suffered mightily from the rise of OPEC, which attempted to punish the United States for its support of Israel.

I firmly believe that history does not repeat itself--but sometimes the present is eerily reminiscent of the past.

We are in the midst of a protracted and expensive military engagement, a huge event on which we are divided but strangely detached. We continue to run-up budget deficits to pay for the war and our pampered national lifestyle. Our manufacturers are in much worse shape than thirty-five years ago, evidenced by our ever-increasing trade deficits and changing labor reality. Add Israel and oil to this equation, during a time when we are more dependent on foreign fuel than ever before, and there are serious reasons for concern.

2008: Although Israel seems fairly pacific these days (though always subject to change), nevertheless, oil closed at $113 per barrel today. Even without war and reprisal, our oil crisis is upon us.

You have heard my numerous exhortations in the past to stay the course in Iraq. I am not backing away from that line of thinking. But there is real danger ahead. Although the President's approval ratings in general (and on Iraq specifically) have turned dismal, his initiative in the Middle East has moved forward despite its diminishing popularity (mainly because Iraq seems disturbing but peripheral to most Americans).

Added commentary [Feb 2007: The above is obviously much less true in the early months of 2007 than it was last summer.

But an economic crisis would end all that. A deep recession would completely break America's will for war. The Iraq commitment survives precariously on the crest of this fortuitous economic wave. If this economy is as fragile as some have speculated, then the support for the war is just that tenuous.

More added commentary [Feb 2008]: Even more so today, an economic downturn would bring the war effort to a panic stop.

Think about it.

Michael Ramirez,
Editorial Cartoonist for Investor's Business Daily.

This is perhaps the most cogent political cartoon of the season; it will be interesting to see if it makes it into the various "best of the week" round-ups.

"There’s a certain sort of somewhat educated, yet substantially ignorant, person whose condescension toward Christianity and Christians tries my patience more than open hostility. I’m thinking of the person, often describing himself as spiritual but not religious, who believes that all “belief systems” or “faith traditions” are fundamentally the same: the same in their ultimate meaning, and the same in their origin, which is the human mind: it’s ok with him if you believe in Jesus, and it would be ok with him if you believed with equal conviction in fairies, or voodoo, or Odin, or Krishna. They’re all psychological responses to the puzzle of human existence, and one is no more true and no more false than another."

Maclin Horton explains why this view of Cristianity is profoundly disordered.

Over at Contentions, James Kirchik discusses Dr. Logan and the Act bearing his name in relation to Jimmy Carter's upcoming meeting with Hamas.

Does any of this "bitter" America "clinging" to God, guns, and backwardness really change the dynamic of this race?

So many seem to assume that this unguarded observation will arrive as a revelation.

Is this really a surprise to anyone?

We have spent the last few months dissecting the Obama appeal, and over the last few weeks we finally stumbled upon the missing element that explains so much: Obama, the product of the nation's most elite institutions of higher education, perfectly represents the liberal intelligentsia.

Who are the Obama-maniacs?

African Americans, the millennials, and the ever-present, ever-confident, not-so-young anymore, upwardly entrenched professional class.

This newly discovered third component consisting of well-heeled Ivy-Leaguers and Ivy-pretenders loves Obama with every fiber of their collective being.

Why?

He speaks their language. Consider once again the notorious example in question:

"[Successive presidents have] said that somehow these communities [small towns] are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Conservative pundits reacted in horror.

And, for the record, the Clintons, who desperately needed a turnover, are in the middle of this chaotic pile of humanity fighting for the football. They laid off the Wright comments last month, out-sourcing the dirty work to Hannity and Limbaugh, and those bumpkins made a mess of it. This time there is no room for error. The Clintons own this operation to expose the real Obama.

Will anybody care about this window into Barack Obama's soul?

The reaction from Obama and so many of his fellow intellectuals?

What's the big deal? I am sorry if the truth hurts, but come on, folks, everybody knows this is right!

It is a telling response--but will anybody care?

No and Yes.

No. My sense is that the vast majority of Democrats agree with Obama for the most part.

In fact, my hunch is that the Clintons pretty much agree also--but, as the clock winds down, their need trumps their world view.

Again, this is not really a revelation for the heart of the Democratic Party.

So, what happens? This incident may or may not impact the Democratic nomination race. It likely helps Hillary some in Pennsylvania.

A Horse Race Aside: we are in the midst of a familiar pattern. Hillary holds a big lead in a big state. Obama chips away. Election day approaches with Obama surging and Hillary departure talk cresting. Then Hillary pulls away again on election day?

Is this the latest installment in that serial drama? Maybe. Of course, most "cardiac kids" eventually come up a little short in the end.

Either way, this bump in the road seems unlikely to derail the Obama juggernaut. As several pundits have asserted: no scenario in the Quaker State changes the overall math. Even I am finally coming around to the inevitability of Barack--but not completely; sometimes final straws are curious events. We will know soon.

However, even I admit now that Barack Obama is moving ever nearer to finally escaping the clutches of Hillary Clinton and emerging triumphant in this contest for nomination.

What then?

Will anybody care in the fall?

Yes--but probably not enough people.

There was so much talk today about this "revelation" rendering Obama unelectable in November. Again, I remain skeptical. Obama--if he were anybody but Obama--would be clearly unelectable in the Fall Election. In fact, Obama--if he were anybody but Obama--would be "un-nominatable" in the Democratic canvass. But Obama is Obama--and all previous rules go out the window in this race. As I have said before, Americans seem bound and determined to elect this man--and everything else (issues, experience, philosophy, etc.) is pretty much noise.

All of this gives a glimmer of hope to an old Republican warhorse--but we need to keep in mind, in the bigger picture (Bush fatigue, Iraq fatigue, and the economy) the Democratic candidate still holds all the high cards in the 2008 race.

Last week, Kenneth T. Walsh reported in the US News & World Report, "98 percent of 109 professional historians, recently surveyed by the History News Network, believe that Bush's presidency has been a failure." In fact, according to the new poll, 61 percent of the historians judge Bush the worst president in American history.

Presidential rankings fluctuate over time. Each generation struggles to understand themselves and find consensus and community by reinterpreting their collective past, which is a productive function of history. On the downside, our historical figures ascend or diminish as a result of how we view their actions through the lens of our experience and culture rather than viewing their actions in their own time and place. Taken to an extreme, this is the trap of presentism.

If all presidential rankings are slightly deceptive and self indulgent, then attempting to rank contemporary presidents is pure folly. For example, see the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. poll (circa 1996), which ranked Ronald Reagan in the thirties, which apparently rested on the political views of Schlesinger and his cronies much more than sober historical judgment. Although I greatly admire Schlesinger's legacy as a scholar, his dismissal of Reagan as an "average" president of little note was petty, embarrassing, and tended to reinforce his reputation as a partisan.

Other “conservative” polls have come along since then that tried to place Reagan much closer to the top of the list, but many of them have suffered from the same disease in reverse. The inherent problem with rating presidents on whom we voted (for or against) is that we seek to push our objectivity beyond normal human limits. History is best understood and cataloged and interpreted by dispassionate and disinterested practitioners of the art.

An Aside: Gordon Wood noted recently that any new history of the American distant past that mentions the current Bush administration in the preface automatically merits suspicion, suggesting that politically driven historians are too likely to allow contemporary partisanship to overwhelm training and academic integrity.

Having said all that (and mindful of my hypocrisy), let me indulge in some speculation in terms of ranking President George W. Bush.

Back in the spring of 2006, I asserted:

"All observers agree that Bush will rise or fall on the success of Iraq. Obviously, Iraq today [2006] is not what the Bush brain trust was hoping for in the spring of 2003. Notwithstanding, the manifest fact that the Bushies were naïve and sanguine about the Iraq aftermath does not necessarily preclude ultimate success. Being there has a momentum and imperative all its own."

Back then I believed that "Iraq remain[ed] an open question, a 50-50 proposition." Success meant a modicum of vindication. Regional instability equaled "a gigantic error with myriad horrific ramifications."

Today, the Iraq question remains extremely tenuous--and likely not to be resolved (or even put on a steady path to positive resolution) during Bush's watch. Things got much worse after the spring of 2006--and then they got a lot better. But Iraq continues to hang in the balance, draining the collective reservoir of optimism, resources, and will necessary for eventual victory.

Bush backers, who have their own reputations to think about, hope against all evidence to the contrary that the current 30-something approval ratings are Truman-like. We see the myriad mistakes. But we also cling to the hope that Bush's tough and unpopular foreign policy choices will prove ultimately correct and successful in the larger scheme. In the Truman mold, Bush is setting forth a bold, courageous, and transformative American policy that, like containment, will emerge triumphant at some point in the decades to come.

The President’s opponents see him more like Nixon, tangled in a web of secrecy and paranoia and shady dealings. Or like Johnson, fecklessly and tragically prosecuting an ill-conceived war that is draining the life blood out of his presidency and his credibility. Or like Warren G. Harding, who woke up one day to the realization that his clear-cut view of the world and his simple notions were not sophisticated enough to combat the problems of the modern presidency.

Time will tell.

Back then I also said: "[W]hile presidential legacies are generally not built on economic success, an economic collapse on Bush’s watch or immediately following would certainly injure his historical standing."

The President is still trying to dodge an economic meltdown. If Bush can avert economic catastrophe during his tenure, we will remember very little about Bush and taxes, mortgages, or even Katrina. If the Great Crash comes before January 20, 2009, the public consciousness will remember him as a latter-day Herbert Hoover.

An encouraging thought for the President: when he completes his second full term, he will join an exclusive club of eleven reelected-full-term presidents (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, U.S. Grant, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton). For the most part, history has been kind to these elite eleven.

Moreover, Bush is one of only twenty presidents to win election after serving as president. In addition to those listed above, four presidents won election while finishing the unexpired terms of their predecessors (Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson). Grover Cleveland won back the presidency four years after having lost it as an incumbent. Richard Nixon won reelection after a full term but resigned before completion of his second term. Abraham Lincoln and William McKinley won reelection after a full term but fell to assassins in the second.

There are notable exceptions--but, once passions cooled, mostly historians came around eventually to confirming the wisdom of the voters in first nineteen cases. Bush retains a good chance of eventually climbng much higher than many highly partisan current historians expect.

Will he rise as high as Harry Truman? Tough to say. But, undoubtedly, he will not out-distance Franklin Pearce, James Buchanan, and Warren G. Harding as the worst president ever.

From Christianity Today.

Into the wee hours of Wednesday morning I watched the C-SPAN replays of the two Petraeus/Crocker Senate hearings from Tuesday. Sitting on my sofa, bleary-eyed and jotting down a note or two, catching a few winks every now and then, I probably missed more than I saw, but, nevertheless, I came away with a few impressions.

A note on style: I am on the road with student government this weekend, working off a laptop, thinking about national politics during the cracks, and writing with my beefy fingers on a small keyboard. In that vein, here are a few less than polished observations:

--Unfortunately, I missed what was easily the best line of the day, Joe Lieberman: "see no progress, hear no progress, speak no progress." Brilliantly succinct and devastatingly accurate.

--A General Impression: I like Ryan Crocker. I mean I really like Ryan Crocker. Of course, we love Petreaus (and, of course, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates); Petraeus and Gates are Grant and Stanton (with Ph.D.s)--they even have an "Anaconda" Plan.

But Ryan Crocker is less immediately appealing; he is less obviously brilliant. He is more working class. He does not have a Ph.D. from Princeton or Georgetown--rather, a BA from a low-profile college in Washington (as in state not District). Almost every one of his sentences begins with "ah, ah, ih, ih" and features an "um, um, um" somewhere in the middle of the thought, but so what? This non-descript fellow with the halting delivery gets things right. He is not especially smooth--but he is unflappable. He is quietly competent and, evidently, incredibly talented at getting to the crux of any challenge. Crocker is an acquired taste--but I think I finally get him.

In the face of the most turgid, self-serving, and inherently antagonistic questioning, Crocker stood his ground, speaking truth to politically informed ignorance and under-stating simple truths:

--this is tough and complicated

--AQI is reeling, which is a good thing

--much is left to do, and it will not be easy, but it is worth doing

Part II Preview:

--My number one pet peeve with the Senate hearing format?

--Opposition Talking Points.

--Where did we get those GOP Foreign Relations Committee members (nearly all duds and newbies)? Among other problems, the Party of Lincoln is desperately low on talent. We lost a lot of intellectual force and personality in 2006. But back to my point: with friends like these...

More to come...

Great article from The Telegraph.

On the day in 1982 that the British task force set sail to recover the Falkland Islands from the Argentine invaders, Margaret Thatcher was asked on television: "If you fail, would you feel obliged to resign?" "Failure?" she answered, "Do you remember what Queen Victoria once said? 'Failure - the possibilities do not exist'."

The remark goes to the heart of Mrs Thatcher's essential political message, and of her character. It shows her romantic patriotism, her confidence in her own sex, and her dauntlessness.

And I did not know this: the name "The Iron Lady" was given her in derision by Red Star, the newspaper of the Soviet Army. She accepted the term not as an insult, but as a compliment.

We are in the midst of a lot of crazy talk concerning the open slot for a John McCain running mate.

What about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice? Frankly, the whole Condi idea strikes me as too “gimmicky.”

“Hey, look, they have a black candidate and we have one too.”

When conservative pundits raised the idea of the Secretary of State for top spot three years ago, I thought it was an interesting idea. I am actually a big Condi fan. However, it arrived a non-starter because of the trials and tribulations of the Bush White House (see Jay Cost for a statistical analysis of why this is a bad strategy--hint: 30-percent approval rating). Moreover, Rice has forcefully and repeatedly articulated her own apparently sincere desire not to be president.

Now, to go back to Rice in a frenzied attempt to achieve a racially balanced ticket and/or create excitement among conservatives seems utterly panic-driven and foolhardy.

An Aside: does Condoleeza Rice really pack the kind of appeal among conservatives that will somehow overcome the deep and abiding disgust for John McCain? I don't see that.

Turn the page.

I think those who have been suggesting Charlie Crist for the past few months are on the right track. Let’s get the four yards and a cloud of dust. Charlie Crist is not the big play, game-changing stroke of genius we would prefer--but he definitely helps a lot in Florida, and Florida is a must have.

Historically, it is a rare instance in which any second banana makes any difference anywhere other than their own state (and even that is not a given).

Can Crist win Florida for the ticket? Maybe. Maybe not—but, once again, he helps some in a very close and vital state.

Tim Pawlenty? He might swing Minnesota. Maybe. Maybe not. Minnesota would be nice. But Minnesota is more like three yards and a cloud of dust.

Are Crist and Pawlenty too moderate? Compared to what?

The strategy of pulling conservatives back in by establishing a rock-ribbed conservative as heir apparent would be fine--save for the dearth of rock-ribbed conservative heir apparents (see Cost again for the dilemma of the "weak GOP bench").

Governor Mark Sanford from South Carolina has been mentioned in this regard, and he seems like a nice fellow, but I am skeptical of this line of attack in general. More than likely, conservatives will be unmoved by any of this patchwork. There is nothing John McCain himself can do to appeal to conservatives (although he can take care not to continually alienate them)--and I remain unconvinced that any conservative VP can bridge this divide.

In the end, the McCain-hating conservatives will either come back around in the face of a very liberal Democratic nominee (most likely Barack Obama) or they won’t. Some conservatives are going to vote for Bob Barr and some will not vote at all. But mainly this election is going to be won in the middle. Who best appeals to Mr. and Mrs. Average American?

In a really odd development (within an abominably dismal year to run as a GOP candidate), wild card John McCain now holds a pretty enviable position with the non-aligned voters of America. John McCain has unorthodox appeal, which will be hard to counter. Independent voters will not buy the canard of McCain as a Bush third term. And, as we have said before, Obama is positioned too far Left for most voters--and this dissonance among the candidate and the plain folks of America will be the story to watch between now and November.

Time will tell. If the economy stays above deep and bitter recession—and the news from Iraq stays on a moderately positive track—John McCain maintains a slim chance to beat Barack Obama.

Of course, if the economy craters, or Iraq goes south, nothing can help McCain.