After my friend Mike linked to yesterday's blog post, I figured I owed to my dozens, or hundreds, or... two... new readers to write something pithy today. I have two thoughts so far this morning, basically unrelated. One is a follow-up on yesterday's post, the other an observation on Super Tuesday.
So, to start with the "Slutgate" scandal, or whatever we're calling it now: I have read some more analysis since then, some of it fascinating. I'd love to link to a couple of articles, but in most cases, the content, the comments, or both, contain language that I'd prefer not go out to everybody. Two things jump out at me: despite the fact that I skimmed over the "they do it, too" argument, that's the one getting the most attention. And the standard comeback is that this situation is far worse than numerous misogynistic things said about Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Bachmann, or whoever, because those ladies are "public figures" and also because Rush has such a huge army of brainwashed dittoheads and wields so much power in the GOP. That's bull, and bull again. This Fluke-lady is a professional activist who inserted herself into the debate. She's no "Joe the Plumber" private citizen. And Joe got hammered for daring to question the prevailing media narrative. And besides, how "public" a citizen do you have to be to make it acceptable to suggest hate-rape? If there's a bright line about that somewhere, I think I prefer being the naive guy who doesn't know about it--that's just vile behavior, period. As for Rush's "influence," come on. Sure, he's influential, because he's the best at what he does. But he's no power broker. And even if he were, so what? Until I see somebody in the mainstream left publicly admit that Al Sharpton is a fraud and a hatemonger, I don't want to hear it. The second thing is that if you read the comments on this, about every third one mentions that Limbaugh is some combination of obese and drug-addicted. Admittedly, he used to be both. He currently is neither. But how does it make a situation like this better to turn up the ad hominem? And why is it that a Teddy Kennedy (or for that matter a JFK or even a Clinton) can do arguably worse and still be a role model, but any conservative's transgressions live on forever? If there were a department of double-standards, they would stay busy.
My unrelated thought is about Super Tuesday. It's not so much about the on-again, off-again "inevitability" of Romney. But it's about the inbred pessimism of conservatives. Maybe it's because our side doesn't believe in eternal progress or utopianism. Perhaps those of us who are theo-cons have a dimmer view of fallen human nature than our progressive friends, who are always one more education reform away from perfection. But we're a gloomy bunch. If Romney wins, he'll be the worst candidate ever. Unless Santorum wins, in which case he'll be as bad or worse. We had our shot and we blew it. This is the most consequential election of our lifetime, and we've already given it away. Yada, yada, yada. You know what? That's nuts. Here's a link to something funny about guaranteed losses. Don't miss the lesson here: it's not that Romney is Reagan. It's that people really thought Reagan couldn't beat Carter. And now the conventional wisdom (flavored by hindsight) is that Carter never had a chance. Once this one is over, there will be analysis. But it likely won't line up with what "everybody knows" right now. It rarely does.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Paying the Piper, Calling the Tune
I went out of town for a weekend, and came back to 87 unopened emails and 3 days of news. Apparently while I was gone Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown coed a slut and caused all holy heck to break loose. As I understand it, admittedly a day or two late and several dollars short, she testified that students like her need the new mandated zero-copay option for birth control because they cannot afford the $3000 such stuff could cost them during their law school careers. Limbaugh said something unfunny, relating to the notion that if she wanted somebody else to pay her for having sex, that made her a pro. A day or two later he apologized, but it's been the topic of numerous editorial screeds and much hand-wringing.
Oh, where to begin? The low-hanging fruit is to play tu quoque with the various liberal ugly jokes and character assassinations that have been thrown at the likes of Sarah Palin. That could take days, and once again illustrate the usual double-standard. Too easy, and it's been done.
Another tack is to zero in on the absurdity of the premise. Even if the young lady's numbers are correct, $1000 per year is less than $3 per day. Most law school students spend that much at Starbucks. And apparently generic birth control pills can be had for $9 per month at a Wal-Mart within walking distance from the University. I find it surprising that anybody who can afford Georgetown's tuition would have a hard time scraping that together. And along those same lines, why would there be zero copay for birth control pills, but not for penicillin or zantac or an epi-pen? For that matter, what makes the pill privileged over viagra or rogaine or even a decongestant?
But the one that really gets me is this: this shouldn't be anybody's business. Not Limbaugh's, not mine, not yours. If this young lady wants to make whatever personal choices she does, nobody should care. And I really don't, at least in theory. I may generically disapprove of sex outside of marriage, or deplore the way our social standards slouch ever more toward Gomorrah, but that's just crankiness. I'm not this girl's father, and I have no standing to judge.
...UNLESS. Unless you make me pay for it. And that, to me, is the big issue. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. And when you let "the government," which equals, "the taxpayer" be the piper-payer, then the tune gets to be a matter of public debate. I just returned from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. Did you know that we have cancelled all of NASA's manned space flights? Yep. Budget cuts. Somebody in a cubicle has decided that it's a waste of money, and that we can develop private-sector space travel or hitch a ride with the Chinese if we need to tinker with a satellite. So we're too broke to afford astronauts, but our budget priorities include me buying birth control for somebody to whom I am not related. I like astronauts better.
BTW, this argument works LOTS of ways. I'm no fan of nanny-statism. Even though I hate smoking (emphysema killed my Granddaddy and will one day kill my Dad), I'm OK in theory with smoking being allowed in places that are not going to have secondhand exposure (a no smoking section in a restarant is like a no peeing section in a pool). I don't like seat belt laws, or helmet laws, or big brother watching my fat intake. If you want to kill yourself (quickly or slowly), have fun! But once "society" has a stake in paying for the consequences of your (or my) actions, we get a vote. This is why I want to reach into the buggy of people with food stamps and say, "put back that steak!" You earn the money, eat T-bone every night. But in my house, I earn the money, and steak is rare. If I earn "your" money, I get a vote on your groceries.
Anyway, none of this is to defend Limbaugh. He was right to apologize. And he also owes an apology to those of us on the right side of this issue, whose reasonable arguments are undermined by him making a rude joke that distracts from the numerous good reasons to oppose this new mandate.
Speaking of prostitutes, there's an old line attributed to Winston Churchill. He supposedly asked Lady Astor, with whom he had a long-running feud, if she would sleep with him for a million pounds sterling. She indicated that she might. He then asked if she would for five pounds. She asked, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" The famous answer was, "We have already determined that. Now we are negotiating price." I'm afraid that we're in the same sort of a pickle as a nation. We have already decided, I am afraid, that we choose to be a nation of serfs and subjects. We are merely negotiating the terms of our servitude.
Oh, where to begin? The low-hanging fruit is to play tu quoque with the various liberal ugly jokes and character assassinations that have been thrown at the likes of Sarah Palin. That could take days, and once again illustrate the usual double-standard. Too easy, and it's been done.
Another tack is to zero in on the absurdity of the premise. Even if the young lady's numbers are correct, $1000 per year is less than $3 per day. Most law school students spend that much at Starbucks. And apparently generic birth control pills can be had for $9 per month at a Wal-Mart within walking distance from the University. I find it surprising that anybody who can afford Georgetown's tuition would have a hard time scraping that together. And along those same lines, why would there be zero copay for birth control pills, but not for penicillin or zantac or an epi-pen? For that matter, what makes the pill privileged over viagra or rogaine or even a decongestant?
But the one that really gets me is this: this shouldn't be anybody's business. Not Limbaugh's, not mine, not yours. If this young lady wants to make whatever personal choices she does, nobody should care. And I really don't, at least in theory. I may generically disapprove of sex outside of marriage, or deplore the way our social standards slouch ever more toward Gomorrah, but that's just crankiness. I'm not this girl's father, and I have no standing to judge.
...UNLESS. Unless you make me pay for it. And that, to me, is the big issue. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. And when you let "the government," which equals, "the taxpayer" be the piper-payer, then the tune gets to be a matter of public debate. I just returned from the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. Did you know that we have cancelled all of NASA's manned space flights? Yep. Budget cuts. Somebody in a cubicle has decided that it's a waste of money, and that we can develop private-sector space travel or hitch a ride with the Chinese if we need to tinker with a satellite. So we're too broke to afford astronauts, but our budget priorities include me buying birth control for somebody to whom I am not related. I like astronauts better.
BTW, this argument works LOTS of ways. I'm no fan of nanny-statism. Even though I hate smoking (emphysema killed my Granddaddy and will one day kill my Dad), I'm OK in theory with smoking being allowed in places that are not going to have secondhand exposure (a no smoking section in a restarant is like a no peeing section in a pool). I don't like seat belt laws, or helmet laws, or big brother watching my fat intake. If you want to kill yourself (quickly or slowly), have fun! But once "society" has a stake in paying for the consequences of your (or my) actions, we get a vote. This is why I want to reach into the buggy of people with food stamps and say, "put back that steak!" You earn the money, eat T-bone every night. But in my house, I earn the money, and steak is rare. If I earn "your" money, I get a vote on your groceries.
Anyway, none of this is to defend Limbaugh. He was right to apologize. And he also owes an apology to those of us on the right side of this issue, whose reasonable arguments are undermined by him making a rude joke that distracts from the numerous good reasons to oppose this new mandate.
Speaking of prostitutes, there's an old line attributed to Winston Churchill. He supposedly asked Lady Astor, with whom he had a long-running feud, if she would sleep with him for a million pounds sterling. She indicated that she might. He then asked if she would for five pounds. She asked, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" The famous answer was, "We have already determined that. Now we are negotiating price." I'm afraid that we're in the same sort of a pickle as a nation. We have already decided, I am afraid, that we choose to be a nation of serfs and subjects. We are merely negotiating the terms of our servitude.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Political Round-Up
Some random throughts on the state of the 2012 campaign:
First, it looks like I really do have super-powers. Whoever I vote for in a primary goes on to lose the nomination, even if it's a "sure thing." Why I couldn't have gotten super-speed or invisibility, I don't know. After voting for Romney because he was "better than Gingrich," I've managed to destroy both of their campaigns. You're welcome, Rick Santorum.
Speaking of Romney, if he does happen to wind up the GOP nominee, he'll still be fine in the general election. No, he doesn't excite the conservative base. But when there is no choice besides Mitt and Obama, with potentially 2+ Supreme Court nominations in the next 4 years, the base will hold their nose and vote for him..
But Santorum, he's interesting. I worried back in the SC primary that, even though I like him a great deal, his position on social issues makes him too easy for the left to caricature. But now I'm having second thoughts. First of all, if we conservatives honestly believe that having conservative views on social issues is a guaranteed loser, what does that say about us? Secondly, for all of the talk about Romney (or McCain 4 years ago) being able to appeal to blue-state folks, that math only works in the primaries. The RINO is always the moderate-to-liberal undecided voter's favorite Republican... until they get a chance to vote for the Democrat. I'm beginning to wonder if Santorum might not actually be more electable with genuine "swing" voters that people think. Put another way, I wonder if there might be more votes to be picked up on the margins of the issues like religious liberty than there really are from moderating those positions. I don't know.
Along those same lines, I know Santorum is going to be savaged as a religious weirdo. But really, the Mormon guy wasn't? Indeed, let's take three different religious profiles and arrange them in order from most mainstream to most weird: Mormon, Catholic, Jeremiah Wright-style liberation theology. Yeah, I know. The problem is that Santorum actually seems to believe what his religion teaches. Again, this is somehow supposed to be a negative, right?
Finally, I have been exasperated of late on the internet. Darn facebook! This is at least tangentially related to the Santorum thing, by the way. Is it just me, or is there some rule that only conservatives and Christians can be lampooned as dumb hicks? Maybe I've been unlucky lately, but several conversation threads I've been involved in have involved the assumption that conservatives, Tea Partiers, and religious people are just stupid. I don't get it; I know that southerners, fundamentalists, red-states, etc. have to carry around the idea that we are the people of Wal-Mart. But why is it that the equally-large number of uneducated people in inner cities don't get hung around the neck of the left as a similar albatross? I never seem to see conservatives or Christians putting up posts online with the theme "point and laugh at those stupid liberals, boy are they dumb!" But it's a daily occurence in reverse. Perhaps this is because so many of my friends online are former students, many of whom are now college students (often at pretty elite schools).
I posted the following article online, and nobody commented on it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html
I think it describes and analyzes that issue pretty well. Anybody in this forum interested in it?
First, it looks like I really do have super-powers. Whoever I vote for in a primary goes on to lose the nomination, even if it's a "sure thing." Why I couldn't have gotten super-speed or invisibility, I don't know. After voting for Romney because he was "better than Gingrich," I've managed to destroy both of their campaigns. You're welcome, Rick Santorum.
Speaking of Romney, if he does happen to wind up the GOP nominee, he'll still be fine in the general election. No, he doesn't excite the conservative base. But when there is no choice besides Mitt and Obama, with potentially 2+ Supreme Court nominations in the next 4 years, the base will hold their nose and vote for him..
But Santorum, he's interesting. I worried back in the SC primary that, even though I like him a great deal, his position on social issues makes him too easy for the left to caricature. But now I'm having second thoughts. First of all, if we conservatives honestly believe that having conservative views on social issues is a guaranteed loser, what does that say about us? Secondly, for all of the talk about Romney (or McCain 4 years ago) being able to appeal to blue-state folks, that math only works in the primaries. The RINO is always the moderate-to-liberal undecided voter's favorite Republican... until they get a chance to vote for the Democrat. I'm beginning to wonder if Santorum might not actually be more electable with genuine "swing" voters that people think. Put another way, I wonder if there might be more votes to be picked up on the margins of the issues like religious liberty than there really are from moderating those positions. I don't know.
Along those same lines, I know Santorum is going to be savaged as a religious weirdo. But really, the Mormon guy wasn't? Indeed, let's take three different religious profiles and arrange them in order from most mainstream to most weird: Mormon, Catholic, Jeremiah Wright-style liberation theology. Yeah, I know. The problem is that Santorum actually seems to believe what his religion teaches. Again, this is somehow supposed to be a negative, right?
Finally, I have been exasperated of late on the internet. Darn facebook! This is at least tangentially related to the Santorum thing, by the way. Is it just me, or is there some rule that only conservatives and Christians can be lampooned as dumb hicks? Maybe I've been unlucky lately, but several conversation threads I've been involved in have involved the assumption that conservatives, Tea Partiers, and religious people are just stupid. I don't get it; I know that southerners, fundamentalists, red-states, etc. have to carry around the idea that we are the people of Wal-Mart. But why is it that the equally-large number of uneducated people in inner cities don't get hung around the neck of the left as a similar albatross? I never seem to see conservatives or Christians putting up posts online with the theme "point and laugh at those stupid liberals, boy are they dumb!" But it's a daily occurence in reverse. Perhaps this is because so many of my friends online are former students, many of whom are now college students (often at pretty elite schools).
I posted the following article online, and nobody commented on it. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123492175917805451.html
I think it describes and analyzes that issue pretty well. Anybody in this forum interested in it?
Friday, December 30, 2011
Predictions for 2012
I've seen several sites here at year-end that give various predictions about the coming year. Here's a few from me, just so I can look back and check on them later:
- In politics, Mitt Romney will win the GOP nomination. He will pick Marco Rubio of Florida as his running mate. The GOP will hold the house and get a 50-50 split in the senate, with VP Rubio breaking ties (yep, that means Romney will win. I'll say 52-48% in the popular vote, and closer in the electoral college). However, the senate being so close will result in numerous filibusters and threats of filibusters, so we'll still have gridlock.
- Economically, things will continue in our current stagflationary pattern. "Recovery" on the jobs front will continue, albeit slowly, but prices will rise. Hopefully wages will, too. (The old line about the depression was that it really wasn't so bad... IF you had a job.)
- In the 2012 Olympics, an American will make the finals in at least one distance event, but will not medal. The USA 4x100 team will finally get the baton around the track, but it won't matter, as Jamaica will have a team with all three open 100 medalists on it. The USA basketball team will have less star power than 4 years ago, but will perform better, for that very reason.
- In football, the USC Gamecocks will be good, but fall short of this year's 11-win season (yes, that means I'm picking a bowl win on Jan 2). I'm thinking 9 regular-season wins, with losses to LSU, Arkansas, and Florida. We beat Georgia again, but they still win the East due to their easier schedule. In traditional USC fashion, idiot fans will complain about 9-10 wins, not recognizing the amazing leap that has been made. Marcus Lattimore will be a Heisman contender, but will not win.
- Clemson will win the ACC again, and lose to USC again. They will beat Boise State in the Orange Bowl. Sammy Watkins will also be a Heisman contender, but will not win.
- The SEC will not win the national championship game, as their champion will not be IN the game. Southern Cal will beat Ohio State, both of whom will be undefeated at the time. The SEC champ (Alabama) will have two losses.
- In the NBA, the Heat will not win a championship. Neither will the Lakers. Which is good enough for me.
- With the Romney victory in 2012, the news media will rediscover that 8% unemployment is really not that good, and even when it drops, the slow pace of the drop and the amount that can be attributed to discouraged workers leaving the workforce will be noted.
- The Republican party will be stupid.
- In high school sports, my PG teams will have a rough year in football (but will be really good after a year), will be even better in basketball, will repeat as XC and volleyball champions, and will contend for a repeat title in track. I won't call the win, but I will predict that the top two teams will be us and Orangeburg Prep.
- Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear sites. We will pretend that was a naughty thing.
- Gas will cost over $4 per gallon during the summer.
- As inflation rises, so will interest rates. Stocks will be sluggish, but the bond market will improve.
- An offer of statehood and peace will be made to the Palestinians. They'll find a way to screw it up.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Resolution Time!
I took the time to look back at my resolutions for 2011, and I actually feel better about this past year than I have in a long time. Among the things I set out to do was to read the entire New Testament in the first 75 days of the year (done, never missed a day) and to run more consistently, but without a set mileage goal (but with the understanding that 500 was the baseline). The running is a point of great pride--As of today, with 5 days still to go, I not only have run 729 miles in 165 runs, I am on pace to break my previous all-time log record of 744 miles and 169 runs, set in the year 2000. This has been the most consistent I have ever been, and has paid off with good racing; I ran an-age-adjusted personal best for 5k this October. Imagine that! Run more, longer, and more often, and race better. Who would have guessed? I also put on paper (pixels) the audacious goal of trying to win a state championship in track. We did it, and in dramatic fashion. As a matter of fact, in just a little over a year we've won back-to-back-to-back titles (cross-country in fall of 2010, track in spring of 2011, cross-country in fall of 2011). Obviously, a great deal of that has to be credited to the athletes--I'd never even set such a goal without a terrific roster. And even more credit goes to my friend and co-coach Hugh, who is XC/distance coach. It's his kids who have done the heavy lifting in terms of scoring. But my satisfaction level is quite high. I don't know if I've ever worked harder on a track season, and the payoff was amazing. As a bonus, one of the results of all this success was a complete renovation of our track facility which I've been wanting for nearly a decade.
However, not everything was smooth sailing. I intended to blog more (and didn't). I intended to spend less time online and more reading "real" books. That was a non-starter. I wanted to be more thoughtful about my use of time while I was home, but instead spent too much time online or holding down a sofa. All of those were related--the things I did best were functions of discipline and consistency. The things I did worst were those in which I showed the least discipline and most auto-pilot. I'll also add that after my initial 75-day Bible reading success, I had spotty results in my daily devotions, and my prayer life has been just a mess. I've been getting up at 5:30 daily with the intention of having my quiet time, but have managed to spend up to an hour and a half reading "news," most of which is the same opinions rehashed over and over.
So, here's the plan for 2012:
However, not everything was smooth sailing. I intended to blog more (and didn't). I intended to spend less time online and more reading "real" books. That was a non-starter. I wanted to be more thoughtful about my use of time while I was home, but instead spent too much time online or holding down a sofa. All of those were related--the things I did best were functions of discipline and consistency. The things I did worst were those in which I showed the least discipline and most auto-pilot. I'll also add that after my initial 75-day Bible reading success, I had spotty results in my daily devotions, and my prayer life has been just a mess. I've been getting up at 5:30 daily with the intention of having my quiet time, but have managed to spend up to an hour and a half reading "news," most of which is the same opinions rehashed over and over.
So, here's the plan for 2012:
- I'm going back to my old Day-Timer (actually a Franklin Covey planner), and having a daily period of planning, prayer, and study. I also want to journal.
- I'm cutting back on the web-surfing. I've already deleted a bunch of bookmarks that were on my "daily" list.
- I'm going to "discuss" less on facebook and message boards. If I want to write out my thoughts, I'll do it here.
- I think having my Nook is going to help me read more that's not online.
- I want to keep up the momentum I've gained running. With only two years of 700+ miles in the past 13, it seems a stretch to plan on a third, but I'm putting it out there.
- I want to spend more time and effort managing our family budget. (We do really well on this, but often "wing it." With my oldest starting college, I'd like to be more hands-on.)
- I want to have more frequent and more intentional "date nights." Ann and I started doing some of this recently, and it's been great.
- We're also going to try to defend that state championship in track. It'll be even harder this season, and after this year's graduation may become impossible. But the bar has been raised.
Monday, December 26, 2011
What I'm Reading
I put together a few gift cards and got a Nook for Christmas. Very cool. This means I can have the usual dozen books on my bedside table but not have the stack so high. The best part is that most of the books I have downloaded are free or very cheap. Here's what's on tap to start the year. First, the hardcopies:
Modern Times, by Paul Johnson. (moving slowly through this one.)
My Utmost for His Highest, by Oswald Chambers (trying to do a 1-page devo before bed nightly.)
The Tangible Kingdom, by Hugh Halter (a book on rethinking church that Ann passed my way.)
Then come the ones on Nook that I'm actually currently reading:
The Bible
EntreLeadership, by Dave Ramsey (I actually paid for this one!)
Game Plan for Life, by Joe Gibbs (an old Promise Keepers book that was free.)
Matthew Henry's Method for Prayer (also free!)
Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton.
Finally, the ones I have downloaded and not looked at yet:
The Everlasting Man, by G.K. Chesterton
St. Francis of Assisi, by G.K. Chesterton (see a theme? Lots of free Chesterton!)
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
Between the Nook and a booklight that came from my daughter, I'm set in the evenings for the near future.
Modern Times, by Paul Johnson. (moving slowly through this one.)
My Utmost for His Highest, by Oswald Chambers (trying to do a 1-page devo before bed nightly.)
The Tangible Kingdom, by Hugh Halter (a book on rethinking church that Ann passed my way.)
Then come the ones on Nook that I'm actually currently reading:
The Bible
EntreLeadership, by Dave Ramsey (I actually paid for this one!)
Game Plan for Life, by Joe Gibbs (an old Promise Keepers book that was free.)
Matthew Henry's Method for Prayer (also free!)
Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton.
Finally, the ones I have downloaded and not looked at yet:
The Everlasting Man, by G.K. Chesterton
St. Francis of Assisi, by G.K. Chesterton (see a theme? Lots of free Chesterton!)
The Art of War, by Sun Tzu
Between the Nook and a booklight that came from my daughter, I'm set in the evenings for the near future.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Ranking Obama
One of the things I do in my modern US history class is talk about relative rankings of US presidents. You may have seen some of the buzz lately over President Obama's statement in his recent CBS interview (it got edited out of what was on TV, but the transcript and unedited tape is now going around) that his domestic and foreign policy accomplishments put him in the top 4 presidents (after Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ). Obviously, plenty of right-wing bloggers have engaged in some snark over that, and rightly so. It's the sort of thing that, even if true, one should never say about himself. But let's step back, take off any bias, and think about the claim as objectively as possible. Where will Obama rank?
Let's begin with a metric. "Great" presidents are seen as successful in three areas: foreign policy, domestic policy, and political success. Note than none of these things evaluates whether I personally agree with their goals, only that they achieve (and are recognized for) success in them.
In foreign policy, Obama won the Nobel prize, but has the asterisk for the fact that he won it mostly for not being Bush (as the nominations were due literally 2 weeks after his inauguration). He also has wound down the Iraq war, albeit on the timetable arranged by Bush before his term ended, and has seen the death of Osama on his watch. You might argue that some of his "successes" involve keeping Bush-era policies he once vilified (Gitmo, rendition, predator strikes, even the Libya excursion), or that some of what he has done will backfire later. But for now, he gets credit there, if only for a "Nixon to China" scenario.
Domestically, the health care bill is a signature achievement, but faces either legislative repeal or judicial review still, and has yet to go into full effect. If it survives, it'll be big. On the economic front, the story has been pretty terrible. We can argue that it will improve and he'll get the credit, or that it would have been worse without him. But neither of those gets him any credit currently.
Politically is tougher. There are bonus points for being the first black president. Also for winning the highest percentage of the popular vote of any Democrat since LBJ. But he hasn't won reelection yet. If he does, he gets some serious points. If not, he is almost certainly relegated to the bottom half of the presidential pile. You also have to ask, "at what cost?" Bush 43 won reelection, but damaged his party's brand so badly that he put them in the doghouse going forward. That's very different than someone like Reagan, who set the table for his successor.
Once all the scores are in, here's the math of it. Only 16 men have won two elections. One of those is Nixon, so he drops below the one-termers. You probably can drop William Henry Harrison and James Garfield from the rankings due to their very short terms, and maybe Ford, as well. That leaves only 40 men to rank (since Grover Cleveland served twice). That means top 10 is also top 25%.
Top 5 are completely untouchable. That's the 4 guys on Rushmore and FDR. Next 5 or so has to include Reagan, Truman, Ike, Andy Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Madison, and Monroe, in any order you like. That gets you to 12, and you haven't even hit JFK yet. Some of these guys we may disagree on (I personally dislike Wilson, since he was a serious racist and since his win in WWI was combined with a "loss" of the postwar process that set the stage for WWII). I know others have issues with Jackson, Polk, and even Reagan. But you can't slice this list in such a way not to fill out the top quarter of all presidents with serious heavy-hitters who won wars, won landslides, and transformed their parties for generations (whether you like the party or not).
Barring some event that gives Obama a chance to shine on a huge stage that none of us would like to see (like a big war), I think that even if he maxes out his potential, he can't get much better than 15th. (Behind all of the above, JFK, Cleveland, maybe LBJ.) And that's not bad--it's a pretty deep field. If he doesn't get reelected, or worse, if some of the worst-case scenarios for him play out (loses reelection, Iraq goes south, health care gets repealed, economy stays crummy), he could easily get ranked in the high 20's.
I don't think there's much he could do to get worse than that, barring some scandal. There's a pretty firm floor down in the mid-30s with Carter, Hoover, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Pierce, and Buchanan. The media and academia loves him--he can have a Carter-like tenure and still get better press clippings.
Please note--none of this reflects my personal politics. There's no judgment based on whether I like or dislike any of these men's policies. I hate the Lakers, and detest Kobe Bryant. But I also recognize that he is one of the best players in the game. I'd love to hear from both conservative and liberal friends about whether they think I'm being fair here.
Perhaps after a couple of comments from the usual suspects I'll add some more personal editorializing in the comments. I've got plenty of opinion on this topic, but don't want to take away from what I hope is a pretty academic blog post.
Let's begin with a metric. "Great" presidents are seen as successful in three areas: foreign policy, domestic policy, and political success. Note than none of these things evaluates whether I personally agree with their goals, only that they achieve (and are recognized for) success in them.
In foreign policy, Obama won the Nobel prize, but has the asterisk for the fact that he won it mostly for not being Bush (as the nominations were due literally 2 weeks after his inauguration). He also has wound down the Iraq war, albeit on the timetable arranged by Bush before his term ended, and has seen the death of Osama on his watch. You might argue that some of his "successes" involve keeping Bush-era policies he once vilified (Gitmo, rendition, predator strikes, even the Libya excursion), or that some of what he has done will backfire later. But for now, he gets credit there, if only for a "Nixon to China" scenario.
Domestically, the health care bill is a signature achievement, but faces either legislative repeal or judicial review still, and has yet to go into full effect. If it survives, it'll be big. On the economic front, the story has been pretty terrible. We can argue that it will improve and he'll get the credit, or that it would have been worse without him. But neither of those gets him any credit currently.
Politically is tougher. There are bonus points for being the first black president. Also for winning the highest percentage of the popular vote of any Democrat since LBJ. But he hasn't won reelection yet. If he does, he gets some serious points. If not, he is almost certainly relegated to the bottom half of the presidential pile. You also have to ask, "at what cost?" Bush 43 won reelection, but damaged his party's brand so badly that he put them in the doghouse going forward. That's very different than someone like Reagan, who set the table for his successor.
Once all the scores are in, here's the math of it. Only 16 men have won two elections. One of those is Nixon, so he drops below the one-termers. You probably can drop William Henry Harrison and James Garfield from the rankings due to their very short terms, and maybe Ford, as well. That leaves only 40 men to rank (since Grover Cleveland served twice). That means top 10 is also top 25%.
Top 5 are completely untouchable. That's the 4 guys on Rushmore and FDR. Next 5 or so has to include Reagan, Truman, Ike, Andy Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Madison, and Monroe, in any order you like. That gets you to 12, and you haven't even hit JFK yet. Some of these guys we may disagree on (I personally dislike Wilson, since he was a serious racist and since his win in WWI was combined with a "loss" of the postwar process that set the stage for WWII). I know others have issues with Jackson, Polk, and even Reagan. But you can't slice this list in such a way not to fill out the top quarter of all presidents with serious heavy-hitters who won wars, won landslides, and transformed their parties for generations (whether you like the party or not).
Barring some event that gives Obama a chance to shine on a huge stage that none of us would like to see (like a big war), I think that even if he maxes out his potential, he can't get much better than 15th. (Behind all of the above, JFK, Cleveland, maybe LBJ.) And that's not bad--it's a pretty deep field. If he doesn't get reelected, or worse, if some of the worst-case scenarios for him play out (loses reelection, Iraq goes south, health care gets repealed, economy stays crummy), he could easily get ranked in the high 20's.
I don't think there's much he could do to get worse than that, barring some scandal. There's a pretty firm floor down in the mid-30s with Carter, Hoover, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Pierce, and Buchanan. The media and academia loves him--he can have a Carter-like tenure and still get better press clippings.
Please note--none of this reflects my personal politics. There's no judgment based on whether I like or dislike any of these men's policies. I hate the Lakers, and detest Kobe Bryant. But I also recognize that he is one of the best players in the game. I'd love to hear from both conservative and liberal friends about whether they think I'm being fair here.
Perhaps after a couple of comments from the usual suspects I'll add some more personal editorializing in the comments. I've got plenty of opinion on this topic, but don't want to take away from what I hope is a pretty academic blog post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)