Rebuttal: Robert Shrum, "Rotten Decade, Remarkable Year"

Sometimes, I don't have to create my own content. Sometimes, the work of other analysts is so ridiculous that it begs for a rebuttal. Boy do I love those days...


Well, today is one of those days. Robert Shrum published an article for The Week entitled: "Rotten decade, remarkable year." As you can imagine, Shrum's article reads like a temper-tantrum at the Democratic National Convention – Bush ruined everything, Obama has/will solve everything.

We suffered a stolen presidency, the horror of 9/11 compounded by a war rooted in deceit and a reckless economics of greed that brought the country and the world to the brink of a second Great Depression. Along the way, the presidency, which should be an exemplar of moral leadership, trafficked in disdain for the environment, violations of constitutional rights and the exploitation of intolerance and fear.

I suppose it is not even worth my time to directly challenge the several unsubstantiated arguments that litter this paragraph. Clearly, when Shrum says "we," he is referring to a very select group of wingnut liberals.

In the first month, we took a great step toward the fulfillment of our nation’s ideals—a step many thought impossible until it actually happened—with the inauguration of the first African-American president. It was redemption as well as fulfillment; Barack Obama could have been legally owned by his first 16 predecessors. His victory was a breakthrough most powerfully because his color was not a barrier to electing the president that a majority regarded as the best candidate. 

I have to issue with this paragraph. Shrum is right when he says that the election of a black President was a huge step forward for our nation. Certainly, it was an event which was inevitably going to happen, and I am sincerely glad that I got to witness it. (I would note, however, that I have heard many wingnut liberals label the United States as a racist nation. Hopefully, Shrum would not take part in that illogical argument.)

The next turning point was the stimulus package—or as the administration futilely sought to rebrand it, the economic recovery package—which in increasingly evident fact has triggered a recovery. Without decisive, deficit-expanding federal intervention, the battered economy almost certainly would have plunged off the brink. The stimulus was criticized, for different reasons, by liberals as well as conservatives. The bill was passed without a single vote from the cowering, culpable Republicans in the House. 

The 2009 stimulus package did not trigger a recovery. In fact, to say that our economy is in recovery at this moment would be completely disingenuous. Further, even if the government had anything to do with the stabilization of the economic crisis (which we won't know until we get more information), Shrum is giving far to much credit to Pres. Obama's plan. The "economics of greed" of Pres. Bush and the "cowering, culpable" Republicans passed billions of dollars of economic aid before Pres. Obama was even elected. In fact, the worst part of the economic crisis occurred in mid-to-late 2008 – before Pres. Obama had even won the election. It is laughable to argue that Pres. Obama is our economic saviour, when he wasn't even in office when the country needed saving. 

The Republicans, meantime, will again do all they can to play on popular misconceptions about balanced budgets because they regard a downturn as their easiest path up the electoral mountain. Pointing to the “exhaustion of Reaganomics,” the conservative columnist Ross Douthat urges a new and positive “right-of-center agenda.” He can argue on; the GOP will keep drinking tea. 

This is epitome of what I fear most: making comments and analysis when I don't fully understand the subject I am commenting on. Clearly, Shrum has not done his homework: Reaganomics is still a vibrant theory that has hundreds (if not thousands, millions) of apologists. I have no idea what to make of the "exhaustion of Reaganomics" because I was not aware that Reaganomics had been exhausted.


As far as Republican's using "misconceptions about balanced budgets," I would simply remind Shrum that in the last election dozens of "blue dog" Democrats were elected on idea that Republicans were fiscally irresponsible. In fact, much of the majority of Democrats in Congress is made up of Democratic politicians who promised the voters that they would rein in the excessive spending of Republicans. Both Democrats and Republicans have taken on the mantle of "balanced budgets" – a fact that Shrum conveniently avoids.

The Republicans have announced that they will run in 2010 with a promise to repeal it [congressional health care bill]. Go ahead—make my midterm.

Tell Americans that you’ll role back the patient’s bill of rights and end the ban on preexisting conditions—provisions that take effect this year. Progress won’t be reversed here—any more than it was when the GOP warned in 1936 that Social Security meant regimentation for our workers and dog tags for every American. They spoke of repeal then, too—and their nominee carried two states.

Shrum, once again, is ignoring reality. Reality tells us that a majority of voters, including unaffiliated voters, strongly oppose the bill. Reality tells us that there are many center-left Democrats who are losing in polls because their constituents oppose the health care bill. Reality tells us that the Republicans are looking at substantial gains in both the House and Senate in the 2010 elections.

Oh, and as far as the 1936 elections, every historian knows that Social Security was a side-issue in those elections. In the upcoming elections, the health care bill will take center stages as a major deal-breaker for many in the American electorate.

There were a few missteps as well, notably in the aftermath of the attempt to bring down flight 253 on Christmas Day. (Maybe we should have a rule: No one named Janet in the Cabinet.) But at least Obama righted the public response and, more importantly, set in motion a review of a faulty intelligence system. He also had the class, and wisdom, not to blame the Bush administration. 

 First off, good joke about Janet Napolitano. It elicited a quick chuckle when I first read it.

However, when I read the last sentence I laughed out loud. Sure, Pres. Obama himself does not actually blame Pres. Bush – he just lets his staff (and bloggers) do it.

After restoring America’s image in the world last year, he will advance concrete achievements like a new arms-control agreement with Russia and international action to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

Wow. In other words, Pres. Obama will be able to solve the two most pressing international problems that America faces – even though these two situations have both deteriorated since Pres. Obama took office. If Pres. Obama accomplishes these two objectives, there will be no one happier than myself. If Pres. Obama can get the international community to stem the rise of Russian military power and defuse the nuclear situations in Iran and North Korea, I would argue that 95% of Americans (conservative and liberal alike) would be overjoyed. Unfortunely, as you and I (but apparently not Robert Shrum) know, that is very unlikely.

I will leave you with some of my favorites comments made by the readers of the article.

Joe the engineer: This was supposed to be on the Onion website, right? Right?

Jack Davis: So, Bob, what planet are you from?

Rick: Why is anyone still listening to this guy? He has a worse record in Presidential elections than the Buffalo Bills do in Super Bowls, and now he's trying to say that the last year was a success?

Tim: Oh, Bob, please stop smoking the Hopium pipe. Not only does that junk make you silly and incoherent, it will rot your teeth.

Colin: The extent of your thoughtfulness on economic decisions and ability to take the partisan blinders off is best exemplified by saying 1933 was a turning point.

Michael: This sounds like something fit to read from a teleprompter...

Doug Gibson: Bob Shrum the man in the plastic bubble.

Kyphysician:In the dcitionary [sic], under Sycophant... it reads, See Shrum, Robert

RKG:Should I file this under Fiction, Fantasy or Deranged? 

The Unreality of the Liberal Reality

Drew Westen, a liberal professor at Emory University, published an article for CNN in which he argues that the Obama Administration is plagued by a lack of clear, strong messages. Westen contends that the unpopularity of Pres. Obama's policies is due to this ineffective communication. I find his analysis fascinating because it reveals the alternate reality that liberal academia have created in their minds.

In that sense, there's something deeply ironic about Republicans attacking the vacationing Obama for failing to prevent a Nigerian from blowing up his underpants in mid-air.

This is clearly a straw man. Republicans are not attacking Pres. Obama for his vacationing tendencies, but for the lackadaisical way in which his Administration has approached terrorism (Demint, Cheney, Gingrich). To dismiss criticism of the President based on this unfair characterization is brutally fallacious.

 Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano initially suggested, in a tone intended to reassure, that the failed terrorist attack proved the system works. A few days later, when that comment could no longer even pass through airport screening machines, the president reversed course, calling the event a systemic failure of catastrophic proportions.

Napolitano's gaffe (which, to be fair, she later sought to correct) was not an isolated incident. It is emblematic of a seat-of-the-pants approach to speaking with the American people about issues that really matter to them that is increasingly undermining the administration's credibility (and with it, its poll numbers).

First off, this Administration has clearly shown that it does not speak from the "seat-of-the-pants", but rather is very scripted and methodical in its rhetoric. Pres. Obama's use of a teleprompter has been well-documented. The President has controlled the exact wording used by many high-ranking officials in his Administration (apparently Napolitano wants us to call "terrorism" "man-caused nuances").


In addition, however, I would contend that it is belittling the American public to contend that they are more influenced by rhetoric than by policies. Americans were disturbed by Napolitano's gaffe because it confirmed a long-standing suspicion that they have about the Democratic Party – that Democrats don't take the threat of terrorism seriously. Napolitano's comment was not disastrous because it failed to "stay on message"; it was disastrous because it portrayed the Administration as weak on terrorism.


For example, polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hours upon hours broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet they still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. The lack of support for the President's health care plan is not a mythical miscommunication; rather, the cause of the fierce opposition is the very substance of the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 

It is difficult to find an issue on which the White House has offered a coherent, compelling message. Consider the administration's stance on deficits, which will constrain every piece of legislation the president attempts to pass.

President Obama never made a concerted effort to explain to the American people, in plain language, the most basic lessons of modern economics as to why deficit spending is essential to breaking a downward spiral in which major banks fail, the stock market collapses, businesses lay off employees, people who've lost their jobs can't buy or pay their mortgages, more businesses collapse as consumer confidence and spending plummet, banks stop lending, and home foreclosures skyrocket, leading to further layoffs and decreased demand. 

When no one has the money to spend or invest, the only one left to do it is the federal government. Breaking that spiral (and beginning to reinvest in America) was the primary purpose of the "stimulus package"-- something the president should have repeated dozens of times. 

Instead, the administration has been mixing messages -- often in the same sentence -- about the need for government spending and the importance of deficit reduction and making any new spending "deficit neutral." To the average American, it's difficult to see how those messages fit together, and with good reason: They don't.

Westen is both correct and incorrect in his analysis. He is correct in his argument that the argument of "making any new spending 'deficit neutral'" is inherently contradictory. There has never been a period in American history where the government has dramatically increased spending and yet been able to contain the deficit. Westen is correct when he points out that the average American can see this contradiction in the rhetoric of the Obama Administration.


However, Westen is incorrect when he assumes that if Obama had made a classical Keynesian argument "dozens of times" then he would have gained the support of the American people for his policies. I have previously contended that the American electorate no longer supports Keynesian economics. Further, I would argue that public opinion is firmly against the rising government debt. In the end, Pres. Obama's continual use of anti-deficit rhetoric is evidence that even the members of his Administration agree that the public will not support increases in the deficit.

What would that story have offered? A description of the problem in terms everyone can relate to, an explanation of how it came about that people have seen with their own eyes, a clear plan for solving it that passes the "common sense" test, and an appeal to core American values like security, hard work, competition and fairness. I happen to know that message would have garnered 2 to 1 support for health care reform because I polled various versions of it during the election and have done so recently.

Again, Westen's argument is filled with glaring assumptions that contradict reality. The American public doesn't support the Administration's health care plan because of the substance of the plan. American's simply do not want a government-run health care system. Many polls have indicated that the American public, including a significant majority of unaffiliated voters, oppose the health care plan offered by congressional Democrats.  The media has spent hour upon hour broadcasting the details of the plan, the pros and cons of the plan, and the rhetoric of the Administration – and yet the people still overwhelmingly oppose the plan. Quite simply, American's oppose a government intrusion into health care, regardless of what the President and his Administration says. 


The polls that Westen took during the election are no longer valid. First, the public often changes its opinion on a policy issue. Further, big government plans have historically seen dramatic decreases in support once that have actually been proposed in Congress. Finally, there is no way that we can logically side with the results of polls taken over a year ago, when they contradict the conclusions of polls taken just weeks or months ago.

As the president moves into his second year, it is time for a course correction. As one of the most effective communicators in modern American history, he should heed the wise counsel of the president he most admires, Abraham Lincoln: "...public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible."

It is time this president makes statutes and decisions possible, not by compromising at the outset with the people who dug the holes in which we find ourselves or staying "above the fray" as legislators and lobbyists work out the details, but by articulating clearly what he believes in and putting the power and prestige of his office and his presence behind it.

In this final point, Westen exposes the fundamental flaw in his analysis: he believes in an alternate reality. To Westen, the American public is politically liberal, much like the Europeans, and supports liberal dogma of government solutions. Why else would Westen argue that the public sentiment in America would flock to the banner of big government? He truly believes that the American public will rally in support of Pres. Obama if he becomes a spokesperson for big government. 


This is fundamentally wrong. Any person who takes a fair-minded view of the political environment of the United States could see a clear picture of an electorate who does not support big government liberalism. The people of the United States (unlike many of the students/professors/staff in the universities where Westen works) are not confused about Pres. Obama's plan; in fact, they understand it clearly and oppose it.


This alternate reality that Westen calls the U.S. is not the reality that I, and my fellow 300 million citizens, know as the United States of America.

Elevating the Debate about Guantanamo Bay

Believe me when I say that I understand why many people oppose the very existence of the Guantanamo Bay prison. I understand that it violates that rights of the American citizens who are imprisoned there. I understand that it tarnishes the reputation of the United States in the international community. I understand that government needs to have restrictions on military power in order to avert all forms of tyranny. However, at the same time I believe in the most foundational purpose of government: to protect the lives of the innocent citizens.

In this post, I do not intend to engage in a debate about the validity of the Guantanamo Bay detention center (Although, I would be happy to do so at a later time if there is such a desire). Rather, my intention is to simply uncover the fundamental reason why Guantanamo exists.

The debate surround Guantanamo is a fierce debate that is far from being resolved. But many debate the issue with out fully understanding the purpose of Guantanamo Bay. Those of us who support Guantanamo, and those who oppose it, should first understand the reason why it was create before we begin to debate its merits and flaws.

A recent article in the British newspaper The Times gives a compelling narrative of the why the Guantanamo was created.

At least a dozen former Guantánamo Bay inmates have rejoined al-Qaeda to fight in Yemen, The Times has learnt, amid growing concern over the ability of the country’s Government to accept almost 100 more former inmates from the detention centre. 

...

The 91 Yemeni prisoners in Guantánamo make up the largest national contingent among the 198 being held.

Six prisoners were returned to Yemen last month. After the Christmas Day bomb plot in Detroit, US officials are increasingly concerned that the country is becoming a hot-bed of terrorism. Eleven of the former inmates known to have rejoined al-Qaeda in Yemen were born in Saudi Arabia. The organisation merged its Saudi and Yemeni offshoots last year.

...

The US Government issued figures in May showing that 74 of the 530 detainees in Guantánamo were suspected or known to have returned to terrorist activity since their release. They included the commander of the Taleban in Helmand province, Mullah Zakir, whom the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, called “a key and seemingly effective tactical leader”. Among others who returned to terrorism was Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who killed six Iraqis in Mosul in 2008.

The number believed to have “returned to the fight” in the May 2009 estimate was double that of a US estimate from June 2008. US officials acknowledged that more detainees were known to have reoffended since, but the number has been classified.

“There is a historic trend and it continues. I will only say that we have said there is a trend, we are aware of it, there is no denying the trend and we are doing our best to deal with this reality,” Mr Morrell said.

Officials said that a higher proportion of those still being held were likely to return to terrorism because they were considered more of a security threat than those selected in the early stages of the release programme.

These excerpts from the article (which I would recommend in full) display the risk that the Obama Administration is taking by closing Guantanamo Bay. The detention center is not a diabolical attempt to get revenge through torture; rather, it recognizes that many of the terrorists that the military is capturing in the War on Terrorism are very dangerous criminals.

While it is clear that American citizens should not be held in Guantanamo (for that would be fundamentally unconstitutional), and also that there has been a few instances of innocent people being held in Guantanamo Bay, this evidence shows that the military has valid reasons for indefinite detention of many of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.


The fundamental criticism of those who would close Guantanamo has always been that it would endanger the American people. In our present political environment, terrorist organizations have demonstrated that they are the biggest security threat to the America. Defeating terrorism, therefore, should be the highest priority for the Federal Government in defending the security of the United States. It is imperative that the USFG ensure that those detainees that they release from Guantanamo Bay will not go on to take the lives of American soldiers or the American public.


In the end, there ought to be a seriousness surrounding the debate over Guantanamo Bay. The decision that we make could mean the difference between dozens (if not hundreds or thousands) of innocent lives protected or lost. Already, we have evidence that the USFG has failed by releasing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay who have gone one to murder innocent people. We cannot let that happen again.


Guantanamo Bay does not have to remain open. Rather, the Federal Government has to protect innocent people from harm. While there may be a better option aside from Guantanamo Bay, I believe that all of us must understand why Guantanamo Bay exists before we can debate its merits or flaws. 


Guantanamo Bay has a purpose – a noble purpose – and that purpose must continue to be the foremost goal of the Federal Government. The end must remain the same; the debate should be over what means will best achieve those ends.

The Resurgence of Terrorism

It is humbling to think that even after the horror of 9/11 and the almost decade-long "War on Terrorism,"  300 innocent people came breathlessly close to being massacred by an Islamic terrorist on American soil on Christmas Day. In other words, the American security institutions are unable to fully protect the American homeland from a terrorist attack.

Of course, we ought to note that American security forces have most likely foiled dozens (if not hundreds) of terrorist plots during the past eight years of the War on Terror. However, what is worrisome about the recent failure of the system is the similarities that the current attack had to the 9/11 attacks.

Before 9/11, all three major intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI and NSA) received many warnings about the men who would eventually hijack and fly the airplanes of the attack. On Aug. 6, 2001, the CIA sounded the alarm by publishing the President's Daily Brief which was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S." In hindsight, many experts have commented on clear warnings that the intelligence agencies failed to act upon in the months preceding the 9/11 attacks.

The timeline of events that preceded 9/11 is eerily similar to narrative that is emerging of the near-successful attack of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. In March 2009, the British government rejected Abdulmatallab's student visa application and placed him on a terrorist watch list. In August, the NSA received reports of al-Qaeda leaders in Yemen discussing a terrorist attack involving a Nigerian man. On November 19-20, Abdulmutallab's father met with officials of the American embassy in Nigeria, warning them of his son's radical beliefs. A memo would be sent to both the CIA and National Counterterrorism Center with this information, causing both agencies to gather information on Abdulmatallab and identify him in their databases as the potential terrorist. On Dec. 16, and again on Christmas Day, the Department of Homeland Security received notification that a plane ticket had been purchased in cash for Abdulmutallab, and that he had boarded the flight without checking any bags. Despite these warnings, he was permitted to board an airplane to Detroit, and he would eventually come within minutes of murdering 300 innocent people on American soil.

What I find most alarming about the recent attack is that the narrative is so similar to the attack of 9/11. The  failure of the intelligence agencies to act upon the several clear warnings is profoundly similar to the failures of 9/11 – a combination of miscommunication and inefficiency.

You would have thought that in the wake of 9/11 the security institutions would have at least tightened the security in the airline industry. The fact that al Qaeda was able to use the same methods to bypass our security defenses is inexcusable. The security loopholes that were manipulated on 9/11 have yet to be closed – it is absurd.

While Pres. Obama, politicians and many commentators have called for a review into the "systematic failure" of our security system, I would argue that such a review ignores the major issue. While it is important to continually improve our security defense system, and to increase the efficiency of the agencies, the issue is more fundamental. I believe it comes down to the question: should we as a nation overprotect or under-protect?

In the months following 9/11, it was clear that the policy of the Administration was to overreact. The Patriot Act (which was passed almost unanimously by Congress), the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, the creation of the DHS and NCTC, and the billions of dollars spent on security were all instituted in the wake of 9/11. George Bush was a security-first President.

Throughout the Bush Administration, the culture remained that homeland security would be the foremost goal of the President. All this changed with the election of Pres. Obama – health care, closing Gitmo, economic stimulus packages, and other issues took center stage. The American electorate spoke in November 2008, and clearly stated that the ideal of security-first (which arguably personified McCain) was not the ideal that they wanted to uphold.

The following months will be interesting to observe. Terrorism has taken center-stage once again, and one must wonder how the electorate will act. Already, there are calls for Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security) to resign in the wake of her statements that the "system worked". Will the American electorate continue to choose the Democrats over Republicans, despite the fact our security could not stop Abdulmatallab?

I guess we will have to wait until Nov. 2010 to find out.

The Public's Changing Opinion on 'Change'

How much stock ought we to put in the grand campaign slogans concocted by the Obama Administration? Certainly, during the campaign words such as 'Change' or 'Audacity' were golden when it came to projecting a favorable image to the electorate. But can these slogans sustain Pres. Obama's popularity through the rough-and-tumble of his Presidency? Will slogans like, "Yes, We Can" maintain their credence in the face of a $787 billion stimulus package or a $2.5 trillion health care bill? 

The 2008 election seemed the indicate that the historically center-right American public had become more receptive to an expanding government bureaucracy. Had the housing bubble and the ensuing financial crisis pushed the American electorate to embrace big government?

While I don't usually read TIME Magazine (they have no credibility in my mind), Nina Easton published an article in the magazine which is well worth reading. In the article, she compellingly argues that the electorate, despite the election of Pres. Obama, is still opposed to big government.

When Obama took office, conventional wisdom held that the American people, jarred by a financial crisis they were routinely told was "the worst since the Great Depression," would race into the protective arms of Washington. After all, the Federal Government had given us the New Deal in the worst of times and a patchwork of economic safety nets since. The idea is that we instinctively turn to its beneficent hand to ease the pain of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes--and recessions.

Yet in today's hard economic times, something startling began showing up in public-opinion polls: fewer people than in the past wanted Washington to step in. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 23% of respondents said they trust the government "always or most of the time"--the smallest proportion in 12 years. The percentage of voters who think government should "do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people" has dropped 5 points since Obama's first weeks in office, while that of those who think government should leave more things "to businesses" rose 8 points. The shift is especially noticeable among independent voters, a small plurality of whom wanted government to "do more" after Obama took office; now--by a margin of 17--they think government does "too much."

The American public has been considered by most political observers to be a center-right crowd. Generally, they like a small government to stay out of the free market. Even the New Deal, which certainly endorsed a bigger government, was to the right of the quasi-socialist systems set up in Western Europe following WWII. While there are a number of explanatory reasons for this phenomenon (foremost was the Cold War), American's have never been captivated by the socialist/big government agenda. Even the more liberal Presidents, such as Johnson and Carter, would be considered moderates in European politics.

With the economic crisis, fear and anxiety about the future of the U.S. economic future pervaded the Presidential elections of 2008. It would be irrational to separate Obama's victory from the sense of economic doom. The voters dissatisfied and fearing the worst, abandoned their decades-long preference for small government and voted for 'change' -- and big government.

The electorate, however, has realized what 'change' is. The 'change' that Obama offered is not a new strategy, it is not a ground-breaking new approach to problems. Obama's change has been around since the post-WWII rise of socialized democracies in Europe. 'Change' was the decades-old strategy: replace market economics with government bureaucracy.

It is clear now that the voters have changed their minds about 'change.' The initial popularity of big-government is over; the honeymoon with bureaucracy has ended. In November 2008, the people might have voted for big government, but in November of 2009, they realized that the 'change' was really more of the same.

It's not hard to find a national consensus that government should lead on matters like national defense, natural disasters, food safety and support for the elderly and poor. But any bold reach beyond the basics becomes problematic when swing voters start to confront costly realities and the soaring sweep of campaign promises gets lost in programmatic details. Since last spring, there has been a sizable drop in the portion of voters who think Washington should guarantee health insurance, with Gallup now recording--for the first time since it began asking the question--more people saying it is not the government's responsibility (50%) than saying it is (47%).

This is the reason for the dramatic change in opinion on Obama's policies. During the first year of the Obama Administration, the electorate realized the actual costs of his bureaucratic policies. During the campaign, it was easy to hide the realities of what expanding Federal power meant: more costs, less efficiency, more taxes. But now, when those policies are put to the test in the arena of national politics, the costly reality of big-government has been exposed. And unlike their European counterparts, the American electorate cannot stomach this reality.

What I am suggesting is that the voters did not know what they were voting for. Most voters did not have the time to understand what 'change' was; they knew it was different and that was good enough for their vote. When 'change' manifested itself as big-government, they realized what 'change' was and they rejected it. 

'Change' is a great campaign slogan -- especially when the country is in the midst of crises in both the domestic and international arenas. 'Change' is generic, positive, optimistic. It epitomizes the Obama campaign.

However, big-government is not a generic policy. It is costly, inefficient, and unappetizing to the American public. 

It was when 'change' turned from generic to specific that the electorate changed its opinion on change.

Why is Science Committing Suicide?

Under the auspices of Climategate, we are seeing the reputation of hard science implode. The people can no longer trust the "experts" that give us the stats on scientific problems, because Climategate has shown us that these "experts" are willing to manipulate the data to support their bias.

What does it mean when you have a formerly credentialed "expert" stepping down amid investigations that he "cooked the books?" What does it mean when you have multiple investigations  concerning allegations of lying and deception? For goodness sake, even Jon Stewart is commenting on the irony of the moment.

Will all this blow over? Will the public forget this and continue to believe that facts that are scientifically-proven? Perhaps. However, despite my lack of a crystal ball, I can positively predict that conservative commentators will never let this one go. Climategate will be staple fodder for talk radio for a long time.

Let us look an article published in the Wall Street Journal that looks at the long term effects of this scandal.

Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science. Because "science" said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen. At least not since the Manhattan Project.

In other words, science chose to stake its reputation on the issue of global warming. This was not a externally-imposed phenomenon; rather, science chose to lend their collective reputation to the theory of global warming.

The choice to link your scientific reputation to a such a shaky theory seems counter-intuitive. To any person who honestly looks at the issue, it is relatively easy to expose serious flaws in the theory of global warming. I can't imagine that any educated scientist (who does their homework) would chose to stake their entire academic reputation on such a flimsy theory. Why would they make this choice?

I can identify two plausible reasons for why they would take such a risk:
1) They did not do their homework. This is the optimist in me, hoping that these scientists really are misinformed. They could have been deceived by other scientists whose reputations were so impeccable that they did not consider questioning their findings. However, there were thousands of other scientists who declared that global warming was a hoax, so it seems ridiculous to assume that they could have been in the dark.
2) They followed the money. Whether we will admit it or not science is now a big business. There are millions of dollars in grants thrown around the academic world, and the people who are funding these grants have strong political preferences. It is certainly plausible to argue that scientists, in an attempt to garner more grants and funding, would manipulate the data to satisfy a certain type of political preference.  In other words, become a proponent of global warming (even if you must lie to do so) and you will garner the donations of pro-global warming institutions.

As I hint at in my analysis, I clearly believe that second reason is far more plausible. Science is now big money, and money corrupts.

Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies.

Beneath this dispute is a relatively new, very postmodern environmental idea known as "the precautionary principle." As defined by one official version: "When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

If the new ethos is that "close-enough" science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it. 

As Climategate continues to unfold, it is interesting to observe what will be the long-term effects. Don't just ask how Climategate will impact the cause of global warming. Ask yourself: will science ever be able to recover? Can the public ever trust the "experts" who are giving them "the facts" again?

What I find most intriguing about all the fall of scientific credibility is that this harm is self-inflicted. It is not like some dissenter (dare I say, heretic) attacked falsely lied about global warming in order to damage the reputations of many scientists. No, scientists chose to gamble their reputations on the theory of global warming, and they got burned.

Metaphorically, science is committing suicide.

Where the Rubber hits the Sand

So far in his first term, President Obama has focused on domestic policy and been a little light on the international. This certainly was a major critique of Pres. Obama when he entered office. It seems that his trip through Europe mid-campaign hasn't made him the foreign policy enthusiast that the Office of President requires.

Certainly, the War in Afghanistan is one of the foremost issues in American foreign policy. Over the past year, the American public has been told time-after-time about how the Afghanistan War is getting out of hand, with ominous allusions to the 04-06 Iraqi quagmire. While Iraq has become a more stable country in the months following the ingenious General Petraeus and "The Surge", it seems that Afghanistan has gone the opposite direction -- more casualties and less stability.

In the recent weeks, the Obama Administration has been forced to focus on defining it's policy on the War in Afghanistan. Here is the article I will examine, from Nov. 17 ,which outlines the goals of the Administration. For information on the speech the President will give tomorrow night, check out this article from earlier today.

Top Obama administration officials took pains to lower the bar for success in Afghanistan Sunday, stressing that the administration is seeking an exit strategy and holds "no illusions" that it will transform the country into a functional modern democracy. 

Lowering the bars for success, I would suggest, is a horrible strategy. This idea that you cannot establish a "functional" democracy in Afghanistan is ludicrous. In the Middle East, we have already established a functioning democracy in Iraq, which not only holds regular elections, but also has seen civilian deaths fall to record lows this month. For goodness sake, the Iraqi government has its own YouTube channel to promote its propaganda.  Why is Afghanistan so much different? Perhaps, I would argue, the problem is not that this region is inherently unable to have functioning democracies, but that our strategy is flawed. Just as experts who said democracy was "unattainable" in Iraq were wrong, I would contend a similar statement about Afghanistan will be proven wrong. President Obama, don't change the end goal, change the strategy.

"We have been there for eight years. It is a long, long time. And we have to keep focused on what our purpose was in the first place. Our purpose was to disrupt and dismantle and destroy Al Qaeda," he told CNN's "State of the Union." But obviously we cannot make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against Al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing our troops home at some point. ... There has to be a framework to this decision." 

Defining the "end strategy" is exactly what we need to avoid. An end strategy gives no benefits whatsoever. An end strategy has no purpose aside from being a ceremonial "shame on you" to the Afghani government. All it does is point out how frustrated we are with the progress in the country, and show our impatience to the entire world. When we rebuilt Japan after WWII, we did not constantly whine and complain about the lack of progress. We did not constantly remind the people and government of Japan that we were dissatisfied with their efforts and wanted to wash our hands of the operation as soon a possible. An exit strategy goes against the image that we need to project to the people of these new democracies -- that we are confident in democracy and want to establish long-term alliances with the new countries. 

Clinton would not comment directly on concerns expressed by the U.S. ambassador to the country, Karl Eikenberry, who relayed to the White House his reservations about whether problems with the Afghan government could undermine the effectiveness of any troop increase. 

This is what President Obama needs to address in his speech tomorrow. The Afghani government was given the golden opportunity after the post-9/11 toppling of the Taliban to establish a democracy. Is corruption the reason why they failed? What measures will he recommend be taken to root out corruption in the government? We need the President to take the initiative, take leadership, and come up with a strategy to confront corruption in the Afghani state. I don't want to hear, "I will recommend the Afghani leaders address this problem", or "the government in Afghanistan needs to address this dire situation"; no, I want President Obama, or his foreign policy experts, to design a actual policy to solve this problem. That is what leaders do: find problems, find solutions.

President Obama, Afghanistan can be made into a stable democratic ally. Drop the rhetoric about how democracy is impossible in Afghanistan, or about the need for an exit strategy. Then, spend time actually solving the huge problems facing the Afghani government. 

It is time for the rubber to hit the sand.