Daniel Ruwe's blog

Crossposted at Right Minds

Does anyone know precisely what caused the economic crisis? That question can’t be answered, at least right now—the matter is far too complex and multifaceted for anyone to fully understand its causes. The sheer number of players involved (banks, mortgage lenders, Fannie and Freddie, and Congress, just to name a few) and the inherent difficulties of economics make comprehending all the causes and reasons for the worldwide credit crunch immensely difficult for even for experts, and virtually impossible for laypeople.

Unless you happen to be a liberal. Then, all the reasons for the crisis can be summed up in one word—deregulation. If a liberal wants to expand on the root causes of the recession, he might mention George Bush, or maybe Wall Street greed. On the Left, there is no doubt that it was laissez-faire economics and deregulation that brought down Wall Street. Barack Obama said that the recession was a “final verdict” on the policies of the Bush Administration.

Deregulation (or perhaps more accurately, poor regulation) undoubtedly played a part in Wall Street’s collapse. But to saddle deregulation with all the blame in to grossly oversimplify the reasons for the current economic situation. 

In reality, government is as much responsible as big business for the mess we’re in. At the root of the problem are former mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—and both were originally created by the federal government. Eventually, both became hybrid corporations—owned by both private individuals and the federal government. So the federal government had a great deal of control over Fannie and Freddie.

Congressmen like homeowners—homeowners tend to be content, and contented voters mean reelection. Fannie and Freddie were in the business of buying mortgages, which meant that the number of mortgages sold was closely connected to the number they would buy. So Congress pressured Fannie and Freddie to accept risky subprime mortgages, thus allowing more Americans to realize the American Dream of owning a house. And Fannie and Freddie did as Congress wanted—both unveiled programs to ensure that low-income buyers could get mortgages, and spent billions on risky subprime mortgages.

Fannie and Freddie both bought and sold mortgages. They didn’t actually sell mortgages to future homeowners, but rather bought them from mortgage lenders. They then kept some, and sold the rest to third-party investors. Fannie and Freddie were seen as safe, reliable investments.

So on one end, Fannie and Freddie determined (in large part) the habits of mortgage companies (and so the housing market), on the other, they sold billions of dollars worth of mortgages, including many to banks and large corporations. Given their size and reach, these institutions were cornerstones of our economy.

Congress thought so too—when billions in subprime loans started worrying banks and other financial institutions, Congress stepped in to help—by pressuring Fannie Mae to buy tens of billions worth of bad debts. That kind of risk (and given the subprime market, this was a disastrous investment) is a horrible way to run a company, and contributed to Fannie Mae’s collapse. But it was a result of government intervention, not regulation run amuck.

 But deregulation was to blame for the fact that no one saw the collapse coming, right? Not so much. Early in 2008, Henry Paulson noticed Fannie’s and Freddie’s instability, so he sent Robert K. Steel to deal with the problem. Steel failed miserably—he was unable to get either company to raise any meaningful amount of money to cover bad loans. Had the federal government (or the leadership of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, for that matter) done something then, perhaps much of the resulting crisis might have been forestalled.

Finally, in July, Paulson asked Congress for authority to take over Fannie and Freddie should the situation require it. He thought the prospect of a takeover alone should stabilize the situation—he compared the takeover authority to a bazooka—“ff you’ve got a bazooka and people know you’ve got it, you may not have to take it out”—but the idea of a takeover did nothing to stabilize the situation.

After Fannie’s and Freddie’s stock became worthless, banks realized that any mortgages they had bought to shore up their portfolios were now virtually worthless. Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s collapse sent ripples throughout the economy.

Would better regulation have, possibly, prevented the economic meltdown? Maybe.
But had the federal government not mishandled Fannie and Freddie so terribly, perhaps the economy could have avoided recession, or at least the horribly lengthy and expensive sort we’re in. (Either way, a lot of blame still attaches itself to the Bush Administration—it both pushed deregulation and pressured Fannie and Freddie to accept risky mortgages). Deregulation was certainly not solely, and probably not even primarily, responsible for the economy’s failure.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

There is a lot of worrying in conservative circles about the liberal dominance of the Internet. It’s hard to argue that that is not the case—the Huffington Post is a major Internet player, and sites like the Daily Kos and MyDD get many more visitors than equivalent conservative sites. And the difference in tone between liberal and conservative sites are striking—conservative websites usually consist of commentary and analysis, while liberal sites take a more strategic, what-you-can-do tone. Basically, the conservative web presence consists of aspiring George Will’s, while the liberal side is full of David Alexrod’s.

This worries many conservatives, who feel that the conservative movement is being left behind by technology. Barack Obama’s web campaign was much better than McCain’s—he got hundreds of millions of dollars from online donors, and created a whole network of like minded people. McCain’s web organization was reasonably good (it released some clever web ads and featured Michael Goldfarb), but was nowhere near as effective as Obama’s. McCain’s web presence seemed to be a secondary part of his campaign, while Obama made the Internet one of the cornerstones of his.

Many, such as Patrick Ruffini, think that the Right needs to shift direction. Ruffini (as anyone who reads The Next Right knows) distains punditry and thinks that conservative bloggers need to think strategically, as opposed to analytically, in order to make up the web gap.

It’s impossible to know for sure, but it seems to me likely that the web gap isn’t a product of ideology, but rather of demographics. The Internet population is composed disproportionally of young people. The most popular websites (Facebook, ESPN.com, YouTube) cater to a youthful audience. Internet memes (LOLcats, ninjas, pirates) are the sort of things that are the product of a less mature generation. Even writing styles used by bloggers is characteristic of young people—short, punchy posts, lots of lists, plenty of variety.

And young people tend to be Democrats. So naturally, they gravitate to sites like the Huffington Post and Daily Kos, where they can find similar points of view. The Democrat dominance of the Internet is inevitable as long as it consists mostly of young people.

A similar situation can be found in the case of talk radio. The Republican base consists largely of middle-aged people with jobs and senior citizens. Talk radio fills both of those niches—old folks don’t have anything better to do, and middle-aged people have fairly set schedules. Liberal talk radio will never (at least in the near future) succeed, and not just because it can’t seem to find any talented hosts. The demographics are wrong.

This is not to imply that conservative shouldn’t bother with the Internet—it’s a wonderful resource, and not all Internet inhabitants are Democrats. Sites like National Review Online, Drudge Report, and Instapundit, while lacking (with the exception of Drudge) the impressive hit totals of their liberal counterparts, still have the ability to drive stories and provide analysis. Sites like the The Next Right can be effectively create new strategies for the GOP. The Web can be a useful tool for conservatives—but it’s unreasonable to expect it to be as effective for Republicans as it is for Democrats.

And fortunately, eventually the two sides will even out. As the Internet becomes more ubiquitous, more and more older people will realize its possiblies. And as first-generation Internet users will get older, and some will inevitably slide over to the Republican side. Eventually, most of the population will be online, and then the Internet population will reflect the population-at-large’s political views.

Crossposted at Right Minds

For the past eight years, conservatives have been fairly easy on President George W. Bush. They’ve complained a bit about his massive budgets, and have occasionally pointed out examples of his poor communication skills, but overall, the conservative movement and George Bush have gotten along. Bush has received more criticism than any president since Nixon—but the conservative movement has always been there to defend his record.

In less than two months, Bush will no longer be president. It’s time to take a realistic look at Bush’s presidency. There is no longer anything to be gained by denying that it has been anything but a failure.

The Iraq War will probably be remembered as the defining event of Bush’s presidency. The wisdom of going into Iraq is doubtful in hindsight. (Saddam Hussien had no WMDs, and no—or few—connections to terrorism) When one looks at the information Bush had at the time (which is, really, the only way to judge the decision), Bush looks a little better—but not much. Even the most worrisome pre-war intelligence did not show any immediate threat from Iraq—Iraq’s WMD program, if it had one, could only have been in the planning stages.

Many liberals have charged Bush with falsely linking Al-Qaeda and Saddam. He didn’t. But there can be little doubt that Bush used 9/11 as a reminder of what could happen should we not invade Iraq. And Iraq had nowhere near the capabilities to inflict another 9/11 on America.

The intelligence failure was excusable—it’s difficult to judge future threats. Bush’s handling of Iraq was not. Our initial strike was a clear victory. Things went downhill from there as Iraqi insurgents mastered guerrilla tactics. America spent a far-too-large amount of blood and treasure in Iraq, futilely attempting to destroy an enemy who could not—at least using the strategies we were using—be destroyed. It took Bush three years to realize that a change in strategy was needed. That amount of time was much too long.

Possibly even worse than Bush’s handling of Iraq has been his management of economic matters. When Bush took office, the national debt was around five trillion. Now, it’s nearly ten trillion. Bush’s domestic policies represented the greatest expansion of government since the Great Society. That is simply inexcusable, especially for a president who claims to support fiscal responsibility.

It isn’t fair to lay responsibility for the current financial crisis solely on Bush’s shoulders. But then, Jimmy Carter wasn’t wholly responsible for stagflation—but that hasn’t stopped people from blaming him. Bush deserves blame for our situation today, as his policies are largely responsible for it.

His administration (and the Republican-controlled Congress) pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept risky mortgages. Under his watch, the Fed lowered interest rates far below market rates. (Granted, the Fed operates outside the executive branch—but it’s hard to imagine that Bush didn’t have influence). When Fannie’s and Freddie’s financial situation became obvious earlier this year, Bush’s Treasury Department did nothing productive.

Even if we assume that some sort of bailout was necessary to protect the lending markets, Bush still mishandled the issue (although to be fair, he had plenty of help from Congress). The bailout put far too much money in the hands of Henry Paulson, and Paulson’s allocation of it doesn’t seem to have helped the situation much. Paulson has spent about half of the $700 billion he got from Congress. It’s hard to see where spending another $350 billion will help. Bush tried to spend his way out of a crisis he helped cause. He failed.

Voters were right to reject Bush’s Republican party (although they probably jumped straight into the fire). There is nothing to be gained from defending Bush, or looking to his administration for guidance (unless, perhaps, as a guide of what not to do). As conservatives seek a new direction in which to take the party, they should simply admit Bush’s failure and look for a new national GOP leader.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

Back in October, I, along with much of the rest of the conservative movement, supported the federal bailout bill. The reasoning behind it, which seemed strong at the time, was the lending market was so terrified of further bankruptcy that some government intervention was needed to stabilize the situation. It sounded logical, and most pundits—though relatively few Americans—agreed with it.

It’s a bit late to wonder what might have been, but it seems that the bailout bill might have been a mistake. I suppose that the fact the Henry Paulson picked $700 billion dollars as the cost of the bill simply because it seemed about right should have been a tip-off that the bailout wasn’t going to be a very well-run operation. And the fact that much of the nation’s (and given our place in the global economy, the world’s) financial problems were partly due to Paulson’s frightening pronouncements and mismanagement (Fannie’s and Freddie’s bankruptcies didn’t just sneak up on us; Paulson knew for some time that both corporations were in trouble) should have been another. The bailout was supposed to prevent a disastrous credit crunch. Given the state of the economy, it seems to have failed.

The bailout of the banking sector hasn’t exactly been a rousing success. But Washington is now talking about bailing out one or more of the Big Three automakers. Congress already supports some form of bailout, and President-elect Barack Obama seems to as well. Bailing out Wall Street may have been a mistake. Bailing out Detroit would be a disaster.

Wall Street is not always rational. Irrational panic over the fate of Fannie and Freddie could have sent the financial (as in lending) sector of the economy into a tailspin. Credit isn’t a physical possession—and any organization dealing in it (as in a bank, or a mortgage insurance corporation) can be adversely affected by events wholly beyond its control. That was the original idea behind the bailout—to give the lending sector a bit of confidence that things wouldn’t get out of control.

Cars, on the other hand, are physical objects, and can be measured in cost per unit. The Big Three aren’t losing money due to external events—they’re losing money because they don’t work.

American cars aren’t very good, at least compared to foreign ones. Toyota and Honda are reliable—Ford and GM aren’t. And in a competitive environment, it’s hard to compete while making poor cars.

And when the Big Three do manage to sell one of their second-rate (not that every American car is bad—but on average, they do rate below Japanese cars) cars, they lose money on it. So when GM, say, sells five million cars, each car sold represents a net loss. Let me be the ten thousandth person to point out that GM loses money per sale, but they make it up in volume (ha ha). That’s not a very good way to stay in business.

Some claim that any of the Big Three are “too big to fail.” They’re right—we really can’t afford to have another huge corporation (or two) go bankrupt. But we can’t afford to bail them out even more.

First, that would destroy the idea of “moral hazard,” that by going into business you stand a chance of losing what you invest. If the federal government becomes, in essence, a massive investment insurer, both moral hazard and a great deal of incentive will be lost.

Further, bailing out GM (which would probably be the first automaker to be bailed out) would set up a slippery slope. No business is safe in our economic situation. Which would be the next sector of big business looking for a federal government bailout?

Finally, bailing out the Big Three wouldn’t solve anything. They would still lose money on their cars, and their cars wouldn’t improve in quality. Giving them cash would only let them continue to lose money. Were GM to fail, it would represent a true catastrophe—but it wouldn’t be as bad as having the federal government bail it out.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

One of the most watched elections this year was the vote deciding whether to pass Proposition 8, which would amend California’s constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. California is one of the most liberal states in the country, and the debate over same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial social issues. The election was seen as a measure of public opposition to same-sex marriage.

The measure passed, which reassured social conservatives and angered and frustrated gay activists. Two groups were largely responsible for the passage of the amendment—Mormons, who flooded the state with anti-gay marriage ads, and blacks, who were out in force supporting Obama but opposing gay marriage.

Angry gay activists decided that the proper way to build support for gay marriage was to take their frustration out on both groups. Some California gays have announced plans to boycott Utah to protest the Mormon church’s opposition to gay marriage (although it’s hard to see exactly what they would boycott—Utah wasn’t exactly a gay mecca in the first place). Gays also took out their anger on blacks—according to some reports, gay protesters called black passerby (and some black fellow protesters) “n*ggers” and blamed them for the proposition’s passage.

(It should be noted that not all, in fact not even most, gay protesters acted in this disgraceful way. But many did, and fairly or not, they became the face of the post-Proposition 8 protests).

I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for those disappointed gay marriage advocates. A constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage may represent governmental overreach—but then, it was passed in order to prevent federal courts from subverting the will of the people from the bench. I don’t support the recognition of gay marriage, so the result (if not the means) of the California ban is in line with my ideology.

That being said, I do have a little sympathy for same-sex marriage activists. Considering that homosexuality (at least according to Roman Catholic teachings) is a relatively minor (though still mortal) sin, and that allowing gay marriage would affect such a tiny part of the population (possibly two percent, and even that’s a bit high), it’s hard to deny that homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat for the erosion of the institution of marriage over the past half century. (If you don’t think that our ideas of marriage have fundamentally altered over the latter part of the past century, consider that over half of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and over a third of U.S. children are born out of wedlock). Gay marriage would redefine marriage, and not for the better, but could hardly weaken it more than it is now.

Given that fact, I can find it within myself to feel rather sorry that the California gay community is handling their loss so badly. Granted, it must have been a real disappointment to gays—but there are at least three things gays could be doing more productive than protesting and boycotting.

1. Find What Went Wrong. The anti-Prop 8 campaign was well-funded, well organized, and media savvy. That wasn’t enough. Gay marriage advocates might want to find out why, instead of trying to threaten those who voted against it.

Anyhow, gays don’t have much influence with their targets—Mormons don’t really care to have gays buy from them anyway, and while hearing “n*gger” is undoubtedly hurtful to blacks (and offensive to whites), it does lose some of its menace factor when coming from a skinny hairdresser in tight jeans.

Anger may be understandable, but it’s counterproductive. I’ve read some screeds by angry gays responding to Prop 8. None have made me feel a bit sympathetic. In fact, after reading 600 words about how anyone who opposed this proposition is hateful and bigoted and basically racist and probably in the closet themselves, I go from mildly glad the proposition was passed to feeling relieved at what a narrow escape we had.

2. Try To Be Normal. Gays suffer from the (correct) perception that they don’t see the world the way most people do. Most people aren’t comfortable with that. So in order to win acceptance, gay activists must combat that image. That probably means that whole “interior decorator” image has to go, replaced by a more wholesome “couple next door” vibe.

An example: when TV comedy Will and Grace was casting, the part of gay character Will Truman came down to actors John Barrowman and Eric McCormack. McCormack got the part—Barrowman was “too straight.” If gays want to see gay marriages recognized, they will have to change that popular image. (Ironically, McCormack is straight, while Barrowman is gay).

3. Establish a Relationship With Social Conservatives. It’s a stretch to expect evangelicals, Mormons, or conservative Catholics to support gay marriage (I certainly wouldn’t), but it is conceivable to conceive of a scenario in which these groups just aren’t all that concerned. Gay activists should stress that gays can be pro-life (though come to think of it, I suppose unplanned pregnancies aren’t a big problem for homosexuals) and pro-gun, and can be friendly to religion. It would, perhaps, be productive to send pro-gay marriage preachers to evangelical churches—they probably wouldn’t change many minds, but they might lessen anti-gay marriage fervor.

I don’t know if these ideas would work, and given that I oppose gay marriage, I hope that the gay community don’t try them. But I do know that they would have to be more effective than what gay activists are doing.

(Some might wonder why, if I don’t support gay marriage, I wrote a 900 word essay giving my best ideas how to promote it. Good question—I really don’t know. It may have been a waste of time—but then, political junkies love thinking about this sort of stuff).
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

In the days following a presidential election, both sides turn introspective and attempt to chart the future path of their political party. In 2004, conservative pundits started writing books like Painting the Map Red and started gloating about the influence of “values voters,” while liberals wrote books like What’s the Matter with Kansas? and griped about flyover country. The same phenomenon can be seen in 2008—both sides are frantically trying to determine what this election tells us about the political future of the nation.

Apparently, the lessons of this election are the exact opposites of the ones learned from 2004. Liberal strategists are plotting ways to paint the map permanently blue, while conservatives wonder what’s the matter with Pennsylvania and worry that they’ll be consigned to eternal minority status.

Most of this analysis is a harmless overreaction to recent events and won’t have much influence. But there is one idea, popular among many conservatives, that is potentially destructive. This view cites the Republican party’s emphasis on social issues as a reason for its unpopularity among voters.

This line of reasoning goes that social conservatives might make up about a third (give or take a few percentage points) of the electorate, but you need 51% to win and pandering to those scary social conservatives drive away moderate voters, which are necessary for victory. According to proponents of this view (David Frum is one; David Brooks is another), conservatives should propose more moderate, work-towards-the-center policies, such as accepting abortion and fighting climate change, which would, in theory, appeal to educated, upper-middle class voters.

I’m not sure what would happen to the social conservatives under this model; I think that the idea is that they would have to face up to reality and keep voting Republican.

This idea is completely divorced from reality. One of the most noticeable features about post election theorizing is the idea that anything that didn’t take place within the last two years never happened, which might explain how values voters went from cornerstones of the GOP’s success in 2004 to a millstone around the GOP’s neck in 2008. Do demographics really change so fast that embracing a certain group could be essential for victory in one election but actually harmful in the next?

Apparently so, according the many GOP moderates. But even if we accept that these instant demographic shifts as plausible, there really isn’t much evidence that the GOP’s social attitudes are driving away voters in great numbers.

Exit polls are dubious at best—they failed to predict the correct results in 2000 or 2004, and were significantly off in 2008 as well. But no matter how bad they are, pundits seem to accept their results as gospel, so we’ll work with them. They didn’t show Obama winning because the public was uneasy about a potential theocracy—for the most part, Obama voters cited the economy and a desire for change as their primary reasons for voting Democrat. Social issues didn’t depress the Republican vote—in fact, given the fact that McCain won primarily socially conservative Southern states, it might have prevented an Obama landslide.

Moving beyond exit polls, actual Republican voters spoke by voting down pro-abortion candidate Rudy Giuliani. For years, Democrats have attempted to mollify pro-lifers by supporting “safe, legal, and rare” abortions (without much success). There is little evidence that Republican opposition to abortion costs them many votes—on the contrary, it is the party’s attitudes on the economy and the war that lost the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Given the fact that there isn’t much evidence that appealing to social conservatives hurts Republicans with moderates, why do so many Republicans propose jettisoning this group? There is not, of course, only one answer, but I think much of the solution lies in the fact that many of those most vocal against social conservatives represent either the fiscal conservative or neocon wings of the party. President Bush’s fiscal and foreign relations policies have been incredibly damaging to the GOP’s reputation. Social conservatives are an insular group, and don’t have many defenders. This means that they form a perfect target for those within the conservative movement who don’t wish to admit that so many of the policies they endorsed are miserable failures.
 

Barack Obama’s victory has resulted in a lot of poorly reasoned commentary. There are many who, on the strength of two bad elections, declare the Republican party extinct and conservatism dead. Then there are those who declare that Obama’s 52-46 win (with every possible political wind behind him) a resounding mandate for Obama’s liberal policies. And there is a great deal of overblown praise of Obama’s seemingly limitless political savvy and leadership strength. But unquestionably, the most annoying meme is the idea that America has now, with Obama’s win, officially transcended racial divisions. This idea manages to be both obviously wrong and nauseatingly conceited.

Proponents of this view, which is found on both the left and right, see America’s acceptance of Barack Obama as a sign that we have finally moved past race, and that doing so is a major historical event and a convincing sign of American virtue. Norah Vincent wrote in the LA Times that “the world is actually proud of us too, and more than a little surprised. It didn't think we had it in us. To tell you the truth, neither did I”. Peggy Noonan gushed that “[Obama] confounded history to get [the presidency]. What a thing this is going to be to see. What luck to observe it.”

The fact that America has elected a black president is an exhibition of its relative color-blindness, at least compared to a generation ago, but is hardly historically significant and certainly not surprising.

Hollywood has shown black presidents for years. In “The Man”, James Earl Jones played a black president, as did Morgan Freeman in “Deep Impact.” “24” character David Palmer was a very popular fictional black president, at least until he was assassinated (on the show, of course, not in real life).

And in real life, Colin Powell probably could have run for the presidency on either party’s ticket in 1996. He wasn’t guaranteed a victory, of course, but his impressive poll support was clear evidence that wide swathes of America were open to the idea of a black man running for president. For that matter, the intensely polarizing Jesse Jackson ran respectable presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988. Obama’s victory may be a victory for race relations—but it is about as surprising as hearing of a Catholic winning an election in Utah.

And not to rain on anyone’s parade, but the fact that a black man has become president of the United States is historically significant only if one takes a relentlessly Amerocentric view of history. Blacks were treated horribly in America—first as slaves, then under Jim Crow. But compared to other historical turnarounds, the liberation of black society isn’t particularly remarkable. Jews are now accepted in Germany. India’s people peacefully overthrew their British rulers and set up a fairly functioning democracy. Japan managed to check its imperialistic impulses and is now allies with the very nations it attempted to conquer seventy years ago. Black America has come a long way—but compared to the above examples, its story isn’t particularly extraordinary.

And even if one thinks it is comparable, it’s worth noting that America is still de facto segregated. Blacks are now allowed to vote, to send their children to school wherever they like, and to assemble without fear. Whites, at least the vast majority, no longer fear or worry about blacks. But it’s rare to see blacks and whites living together. Schools are mostly separated into white and black schools. White and black youth culture is different (though there is some crossover between the two cultures, whites tend to listen to pop or country music, whiles black seem to prefer hip-hop).

Black and whites don’t intermarry to any significant degree. When going to any young people’s hangout, whites and blacks usually stay apart.

(I can’t speak from personal experience, but it would be interesting to compare racial attitudes in America and a European country, such as England. According to some articles I’ve seen, racial attitudes over there are much more relaxed. That may be true—they couldn’t be much less relaxed than they are here—but I can’t think of any prominent European politicians, or any other influential characters, of color).   

Racist slurs are considered unacceptable, and any racial prejudice is the one sin that is considered unforgivable. White people, at least the ones I know, aren’t motivated by racial dislike—they simply don’t seem to know many black people. And the blacks I know are the same way—they don’t dislike whites, they simply don’t seem to have much in common with them.

I can’t say why the relationship between whites and blacks isn’t closer, except that I doubt it is solely due to racial tension. But our society is still effectively segregated today, and Americans might want to hold off the self-congratulations of their tolerance and sensitivity until it isn’t.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

Sometimes, it’s easy to wonder if the Republican party really cares about winning elections. After his 2004 election, George Bush pretty much gave up on any sort of public relations campaign—he stopped trying to be a national leader and seemed to resign himself to rock-bottom approval ratings. The Republican Congress hasn’t been any better. It has displayed both corruption—Jack Abramoff and the Bridge to Nowhere—and political stupidity—think amnesty for illegal aliens.

The Republican National Committee hasn’t done a particularly good job either. In 2004, the Republican base was composed mostly of middle-aged to older white folks, people in rural areas, and “values voters.” After that election, the RNC announced that it would try to start drawing more minorities, particularly Hispanics, and young people to the party. It failed. Young voters, blacks, and Hispanics overwhelmingly voted Democrat.

It’s hard to see exactly what the RNC does, and I’m certainly not enough of an insider to know exactly where it went wrong. But by all accounts, the GOP get-out-the-vote operation was light years behind the Democrat effort, and its technology obsolete. (Apparently, in some areas Democrat operatives had interactive handheld “checklists” with which to check off voter’s names in real time, which let everybody involved know exactly who and who had not voted. I very much doubt the Republicans had anything like that).

Barack Obama is a political force that would be difficult for anyone, no matter how competent, to stop, but a more efficient RNC could have made things a bit closer, and maybe won a few House and Senate races. The stereotype of Republicans is that they are incompetent, out-of-touch elitists—and the performance of the RNC has pretty much lived up to those expectations.

It’s hard to imagine Mike Duncan staying on as head of the RNC—the disastrous 2008 election may not have been all his fault, but his performance as chairman definitely wasn’t strong enough to justify another term. The RNC will be needing new leadership—and Michael Steele might be the man to provide it.

One reason he’s the man to provide it is that he happens to be the only man running for the job right now (it is rumored that he could officially announce his candidacy this week), which does tend to cut down on the competition somewhat. (Newt Gingrich, apparently, doesn’t want the job). The only other well-known names that have been mentioned for the position are Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, but neither has expressed any real interest. So Steele is in excellent position to get the chairman post (at least outwardly—for all I know, there’s some dark horse candidate secretly rounding up votes as we speak).

Steele is reasonably conservative, which is good. But he’s moderate enough to, at least in theory, reach out to independents, which is more of a mixed blessing—attracting independents is all well and good, but not if it comes not the price of diluting conservatism. This moderatism (Steele is both pro-life and pro-Rove vs. Wade, and has also talked about “restoring the Rockefeller wing of the Republican party) is probably the most serious objection to Steele’s chairmanship of the RNC.

But I think it is balanced by Steele’s articulateness and his image. Steele is frequently found arguing the Republican position on cable news, and arguing it quite well, which is more than most Republicans are able to do.

And he happens to be black, which really shouldn’t be a qualification, but does make for some good P.R. for Republicans (who need all the good P.R. they can get). Perhaps a black chairman might actually do something about reaching out to minority voters, who are a growing demographic and one the Republican party needs. Michael Steele ran a very, very strong campaign for a Maryland Senate seat (although he lost, so maybe it wasn’t as strong as the experts thought it was), so maybe the RNC could improve their get-out-the-vote efforts under his leadership.

Michael Steele isn’t a perfect candidate for the RNC chair, and there will probably be conservatives who oppose his leadership role, which I can understand. But I think he’s the best we’ve got—he is competent and he has ideas (which are in short supply at the RNC at the moment). The Republican party can’t afford another awful election—and under Michael Steele’s leadership, it might not have to.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

So, with the presidential election over, Barack Obama will become President of the United States, Joe Biden will become Vice President, and John McCain will serve out the rest of his time in the U.S. Senate. Sarah Palin’s fate is less certain—she has an interesting political future ahead of her.

Her situation at present is not without precedent. On one side of the ideological fence, Palin is nigh-universally loved and respected. Over eighty percent of Republicans have a favorable view of Palin, and she seems to be the Republican frontrunner for 2012. She is viewed, at present, as Miss Conservative; a perfect model of conservative thought.

To the other half of the country, she’s a punch line. She’s seen as frighteningly extremist; as well as laughably unqualified. An entire Palin mythology has sprang up among Democrats—she didn’t know that Africa is a continent (is that even possible for a governor?), she was unaware of which countries are in NAFTA, she “went rogue” and started going after William Ayers without campaign permission. She is a sort of Democrat bogeyman, a terrifying “what if” to frighten the base.

Sound like anyone we know? Yes, Sarah Palin occupies the exact position once occupied by Hillary Clinton, except the parties are reversed. And we all know how the Hillary saga turned out. She came very close to winning the White House—had it not been for an unexpected, smooth-talking Illinois Senator, Hillary Clinton would probably have beaten McCain and become our first female president.

Palin could do nearly the same thing, except she could actually win her party’s nomination. The Republican party tends to embrace the next person in line as its nominee (the last time they didn’t was in 1964, with Barry Goldwater), and Palin is the next in line. And Palin is probably the politician most identified with the Republican party, which would have to be an advantage in getting the nomination.

Palin’s other advantages are pretty obvious. She is (at times) articulate and compelling. She has a sky-high approval rating as governor of Alaska. And she is, of course, attractive and has a wonderful family, and seems to embody the American Dream.

Further, there really aren’t that many strong Republican candidates on the horizon. Mike Huckabee is far more articulate and funny than Palin, but he lacks support from the conservative base. Mitt Romney has money, but no charisma or ability to connect with voters. Bobby Jindal is smart and conservative, but little known (though that could change before 2012).

On the other hand, Palin has some tough obstacles to overcome as well. Over half the nations thinks she’s stupid, which is a bit of a problem when running for president. And her situation in Alaska might not be as secure as it looks—being an oil producing state, Alaska depends on $74 dollar a barrel oil to balance its budget. Oil’s at $60 right now. And as Hillary Clinton proved, highly polarizing candidates don’t always play well with voters.

Palin has a lot of room to succeed—and a lot of room to fail. She will have to eradicate the impression that she is unintelligent, which will be quite hard—Gerald Ford was perhaps the most athletic president ever, but one trip and fall gave him an unshakeable reputation as someone exceptionally clumsy. But hard or not, Palin must succeed.

Palin has one more weapon that could help her do so. America voted Barack Obama into the White House because he promised “change” (tempered, of course, by “hope”). Palin represents much the same attraction—she bills herself as an original, outside-the-Beltway thinker. That isn’t a qualification for the presidency, or any other office, but if the word “change” could make Barack Obama the most powerful man in the world, then it is not inconceivable that “outside-the-Beltway” could do much the same for Palin. Palin’s attractive and inexperienced, but don’t underestimate her—she managed to go from mayor of Wasilla to three and a half million votes and a heartbeat away from the presidency in less than ten years.
 

Crossposted at Right Minds

Gone are the days when president-elects waited until Inauguration Day to start the presidential power transfer. Given the foreign situation and financial crisis, Barack Obama is taking action immediately—he has decided on Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, and held a press conference today emphasizing his economic plan. (He also delivered his first presidential apology—to Nancy Reagan for alleging that she held séances in the White House, when instead she merely consulted astrologers, which is completely different but equally stupid). During his press conference, Obama stressed that he does not “underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead.”

I think he might. The next four years would present incredible difficulties for any president. The subprime mortgage crisis has turned into a worldwide credit crunch, and the U.S. economy is almost certainly in recession. Foreign enemies are on the move—Vladimir Putin seems to be trying to revive the old Soviet hegemony (because that worked so well last time), and Islamic terrorism still remains a threat. And Communist China is starting to flex its economic and military muscles.

Unfortunately, Obama is ill-suited to deal with any external threat. He is viewed, fairly or not, as callow and inexperienced. The day after Obama was elected, Putin threatened to place short-range missiles near Poland, which seems an obvious test of Obama’s will. Given Obama’s inexperience, he will have to respond aggressively. But given the state of the American military (overstretched), he will have a hard time doing so.

Further, Obama is under a great deal of pressure not to fail in the task of protecting the American people from Islamic terrorism. George W. Bush, for all his shortcomings, did not allow any attacks on American soil after 9/11. That’s the standard Obama has to live up to—and it may be an impossible one. It would be relatively simple (I assume) to hire a small airplane to crash into a nuclear power plant, or a sporting event, or a school, or to coordinate a nationwide string of school shootings, or something equally horrible.

So, foreign enemies will aggressively seek to test Obama—but Obama can’t let them do the least bit of damage to America, or risk being unfavorably compared to George Bush. Not an ideal position for the President-elect.

The financial situation may well present a tougher challenge for the President-elect. The health of the U.S. financial system depends, in large part, on the health of the stock market. The stock market depends on the confidence of big business. Democrat majorities make big business unconfident.

It will be hard for Obama to reassure corporations that he won’t hurt them while simultaneously playing to his liberal base. That is why the stock market plunged following Obama’s election.

Making Obama’s situation worse, he has promised to let Bush’s tax cuts expire. Everyone agrees: the worst thing to do during a recession is to raise taxes. Tax hikes remove money from the economy, and cause people to save instead of spend. Had Obama realized that the bottom would drop out of the world economy, it is doubtful that he would have made his tax hikes promise. Unfortunately for him, however, he did, and now has to face the consequences.

Had John McCain been elected president, his position would have been very difficult. Obama’s will be worse. This is a mixed blessing for Republicans—on the one hand, a poor Obama presidency would make winning in 2010 and 2012 much easier. On the other, it wouldn’t do much for the United States of America. Most Republicans wouldn’t want a massive worldwide recession as a convincing demonstration of liberalism’s failures—but they could get one.