Freedom Line Blog

I try to resist the temptation to overstate my opposition to President Obama’s agenda. I don’t think the president’s a bad man, a crypto-communist, or a self-hating American. I think he’s an extraordinarily conventional (and mostly doctrinaire) liberal who got a lot further than most people who share his worldview could have because he has some rather pronounced political gifts. What he clearly lacks, however, is any real skill at governing in a sustainable way.

Thus, do we get the President, on the eve of what will either be a devastating defeat or a too-narrow win in the Massachusetts senate race waxing defiant. According to a story from tonight’s edition of Politico:

An upset by Republican Scott Brown would be covered in many quarters as a repudiation of Obama, especially after Obama’s last-ditch campaign appearance with Coakley 36 hours before the polls opened.

But the president’s advisers plan to spin it as a validation of the underdog arguments that fueled Obama’s insurgent candidacy.

“The painstaking campaign for change over two years in 2007 and 2008 has become a painstaking effort in the White House, too,” the official said. “The old habits of Washington aren’t going away easy.”

The White House rallying cry, according to one Obama confidant, will be, “Buckle up — let’s get some stuff done.”

There’s always been a hint of wishful thinking in the Obama as Jimmy Carter meme on the right … until now. If the White House’s response to the loss of what should be one of their safest seats in the entire nation is to go gung-ho, then Democrats will learn by November that the president’s forward march is a kamikaze mission. Read the whole piece on Politico for a disturbing look into how deeply the administration is embracing court sycophancy.

Reason Magazine, the premier libertarian publication in the country, continues to turn out some of the most interesting material in the world of right-leaning opinion journals.

In a piece entitled “Five Reasons Why Libertarians Shouldn’t Hate Government”, William D. Eggers and John O’Leary, authors of the new book “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government” make an extremely lucid and compelling case that small government advocates also have to be smart government advocates.  In addition to the eponymous reasons, the piece also features a list of five major government successes and five major failures. The article is so good that I hesitate to quote it, lest Freedom Line readers not check out the original, but here’s a taste:

“I don’t want to make government work better, I want it to go away” is the typical response [of libertarians to arguments about improving government]. Government, in their view, is the enemy.

This way of thinking is deeply misguided, a troubling blind spot that keeps libertarians on the fringe of many policy debates. If you reflect only scorn for government, it’s hard to get anyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid to take your opinions on the topic seriously.

This is not to disparage the argument that government is too large, for which the case is strong. But holding government in sneering contempt is a misinformed corruption of that sentiment.

Our Founding Fathers, fondly quoted by limited-government advocates, didn’t view government as evil, but as a flawed institution with some important jobs to do. They studied how government worked and they served in office, not because they viewed government with disdain, but because they knew the importance of good government.

Read the whole thing. I command you.

Jon Stewart has been getting laughs at the expense of conservatives (many justifiably), then booking conservative straw men that he could easily knock down for years. Yet Stewart met his match on Monday’s edition of The Daily Show, when he interviewed former Bush Administration DOJ official John Yoo (author of the infamous “torture memos”).

If Stewart hadn’t been the one ginned up for a fight, it would’ve been appropriate to invoke the mercy rule. But it was hard to feel sorry for the smug, self-righteous (Stewart’s least appealing style) host when Yoo gently and subtly exposed his complete lack of even a basic understanding of the issues at play.

On the following night’s show, Stewart even had to cop to how badly he got owned.  See the full interview here, here and here.

Back in September, I chronicled the controversy that accompanied health care reform in the Amish community, where government assistance is usually refused as a matter of faith.

Now comes word that heavily Amish communities have lobbied to get themselves exempted from Obamacare’s insurance mandates, a set-aside that could extend to other, similarly situated groups such as Christian Scientists or Old Order Mennonites.

My hat is off to the religious groups that have been able to carve out an exemption. One wonders how far this trend will go. By the same standard, wouldn’t it be legitimate for Catholics to seek an out if they feel their faith is compromised by the abortion provisions in the new bill? What if Jehovah’s Witnesses are required to carry insurance with provisions for blood transfusions?

Of course, we don’t allow untrammeled discretion to religious beliefs.  If your religion sanctioned murder or theft, you wouldn’t get a pass from the state. Rather, the western tradition of liberty has always been strongly influenced by the concept of natural rights — that the aspects of individuals that constitute their inherent dignity as human beings should be immune from coercive influence by the state.

Health care is an area that overlaps with those rights so frequently that these early controversies will prove to be only the tip of the iceberg. Thus, health care reform doesn’t just represent government overreach — it involves a paradigm shift in the relationship between the government and the governed. If we were truly adhering to this nation’s natural rights tradition, every American would get the same right of refusal as the Amish.

With this week’s announcements that Democratic senators Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota won’t be seeking reelection in the fall, all eyes have turned to the U.S. Senate. With Republicans needing to gain only one seat on net to eradicate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority, the stakes are high. And with an anti-incumbent mood running hot nationally, we should expect to see some shakeups.

A few predictions:

First, it’s all but certain that Democrats will lose the filibuster-proof majority. In the current political atmosphere, 60 senators is pretty close to an absolute ceiling for either party and the Democrats are not performing anywhere near well enough to sustain it.

Second, the Republicans will not pick up the 11 net seats needed to regain control of the Senate. There are 19 Democratic seats up in 2010, but by my count 7 are entirely out of play (Connecticut now that Chris Dodd is retiring, Evan Bayh in Indiana, Barbara Mikulski in Maryland, Chuck Schumer in New York, Ron Wyden in Oregon, Patrick Leahy in Vermont, and Patty Murray in Washington). Despite a late surge from the Republican candidate, it also seems likely that Democrat Martha Coakley will win the special election in Massachusetts to succeed Ted Kennedy.

That leaves 11 possible pick-ups, but some of them are extremely remote prospects and the likelihood of all them coinciding is extremely low. The GOP’s strongest chances to swell its ranks are in North Dakota (where Governor John Hoeven is likely to become the next senator); Arkansas (where Blanche Lincoln’s dismal poll numbers show her being beat by any of four Republican challengers); Colorado (where appointed Senator Michael Bennet has proved to be a disappointment); and Nevada (where Harry Reid — elected as a moderate — seems likely to face a political death sentence for casting his lot with the likes of the DailyKos and MoveOn.org).

Republicans have fighting chances in several other races (Delaware, Illinois, and Pennsylvania) and a few other contests present outside pickup possibilities because of weakening incumbents or the possibility of viable challengers throwing their hats in the ring (California, Hawaii, New York, and Wisconsin).

However, the electoral math also has to factor in Republican losses. I don’t think there will be many. Some weak GOP incumbents in the south (David Vitter in Louisiana, Johnny Isakson in Georgia, Richard Burr in North Carolina) may have been in real danger under other circumstances, but the popular rage against Washington liberalism will probably insulate them this time around. Some of the seats the GOP is defending will be close, but the only one that currently looks to be on a trajectory for loss is Missouri, where Kit Bond is retiring and former House Minority Whip Roy Blunt — dogged by allegations of corruption — will likely be facing off against Robin Carnahan, the new face of a popular Democratic family in the Show-Me State. The upshot: look for Republican gains, but not enough to retake control of the chamber.

Finally, with Harry Reid’s loss looking more certain by the day (which would make him the second consecutive Democratic leader in the Senate to lose a popular election before losing his leadership position), 2011 should bring some interesting jockeying to head the Democratic Party in the Senate. Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois is nominally next in line for the position, but Durbin is gaffe-prone and perhaps identified too closely with President Obama’s Chicago machine. Expect a strong challenge from New York’s Chuck Schumer — and a more strategically sophisticated Democratic Party if he wins.

From the Sunshine State today comes news that Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (one of the closest allies of moderate Governor — and U.S. Senate aspirant — Charlie Crist) is resigning from his post. The chairman came under fire from the right for his unsubtle support of Crist against the more conservative former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio in the Republican senate primary, as well as for being a bit of a spendthrift.

The delicious irony is that Greer — a man who had been justifying his every action on the basis of creating a “big tent” party — chose to leave office with a scorched earth message:

Greer said his opponents want to “burn the house down and destroy the Republican Party.”

“I am not a purist,” he said in describing his vision for the party. “I have never been a purist. I believe that our party stands for principles and values and that anyone who has an interest in our party should be able to participate.”

Greer’s beauty pageant eloquence aside, these statements are an intellectual schematic of political breakdown. If your party “stands for principles and values,” then you can’t strengthen it by attempting to marginalize those who take those principles and values most seriously. Too many GOP moderates seem to think that creating a big tent means pushing conservatives out of the back end. They’re going to have to learn how to be partners and not adversaries in the future. If they don’t, expect to see more centrists dethroned ala Jim Greer.

Remember a year ago, when the biggest rationale for Republican supporters of Barack Obama was his “first-class temperament?” Well, as the Obama Administration prepares to enter its second year in the wake of a near-miss terrorist attack, there’s signs that “No Drama Obama” can’t even muster a pulse for his job’s highest responsibility: protecting the American people.

From a story in today’s Politico:

“In general, I think that the president’s inclinations as a leader work fairly well for this issue — no-drama Obama,” [Cato Institute defense and homeland security fellow Benjamin] Friedman said. “In some ways Al Qaeda is trying to be relevant and trying to be politically relevant, and in some sense they achieved that. He’s denying them that relevance by acting like it’s not the No. 1 thing on his agenda. We credit them with more power and credibility than they have.”

Obama heading to the golf course, Friedman said, “signals that it’s not a crisis, and he’s the president and he has a lot of things to do and this is just one of them.”

Friedman and his fellow-travelers on the left and the libertarian right are engaging in a quixotic bit of terrorism-as-child-rearing fantasy.  Are we really to believe that the highest maxim of combatting terrorism is “see no evil?” If the targeted Northwest Airlines flight had gone down as planned, would this low-key approach from the President be equally effective in discouraging Al Qaeda? And how has this administration’s orgy of euphemisms (you may remember such hits as “man-caused disasters”) done so far in deterring potential terrorists?

It’s naive to believe there’s no such thing as evil in the world. The only thing more naive may be believing that you can make it go away by ignoring it.

In this, the hair of the dog week of the holiday season, there’s cause for good cheer on the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border. That’s where Lockheed Martin pledged $400,000 to keep alive the state park commemorating George Washington’s daring 1776 Christmas crossing of the Delaware River — a bold act that led to the colonies’ victories in the battles of Trenton and Princeton, and breathed life into what looked like a losing American cause.

I have to admit an emotional attachment to this issue. A year ago, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, I used the Christmas version of the President’s radio address to tout the amazing story of Washington’s Crossing to the American people. With the holiday weekend allowing a rare respite from the White House’s around-the-clock schedule, I spent a Saturday making the drive from my home in Alexandria, Virginia, to the banks of the Delaware River that the father of our country had crossed 232 years earlier.   It was a sight at once inspiring and tragic.

On those shores, where the dreams of an independent republic could well have foundered, is an aging and dilapidated visitor center that looks like it hasn’t been updated or improved for 30 years. Emanuel Leutze’s famous painting of the crossing (which at the time was hanging in the lobby of the West Wing) was replicated on a grand scale — but in an empty auditorium with buckets to catch the leaks from the roof and seating that looked like it had been pried from a condemned elementary school.

The center was reportedly facing closure because of cuts in the Pennsylvania state budget. That’s a shame. If conservatives and liberals can agree to spend money on anything, it ought to be on commemorating the great moments and great men in American history. And frankly (my only call for greater federal power in 2009 is coming in three … two …), as a place of national significance, there’s no reason that the federal government shouldn’t be picking up this ball if Pennsylvania is intent on dropping it.  In the meantime, thanks be to Lockheed. And if you’d like to lend your support, you can do so here.

I’ve been arguing in this space that one of the keys to a Republican resurgence will be tapping into the slightly libertarian, anti-government energy of the Tea Party movement. This strategy has the twin virtues of aligning with where the public is at right now and getting the GOP back to first principles after nearly a decade of intellectual drift.

For that reason, it’s encouraging to see that the new Public Policy Polling results in Kentucky show Dr. Rand Paul (Ron Paul’s son) with a commanding lead against the establishment candidate in the Republican primary.

While it’s as yet unclear to me whether Dr. Paul shares his father’s isolationist views on foreign policy (based on his campaign website, Rand seems ever-so-slightly more mainstream), his candidacy should be embraced on the right even if he does. Like Peter Schiff (who is running for the Republican nomination in Connecticut), Paul is a true believer in limited government, personal freedom, and Austrian economics. Having a few new U.S. Senators cut from that cloth would be more than worth the tradeoff on defense issues.

Ross Douthat, who took over as the New York Times’ house conservative after Bill Kristol‘s brief stint during the 2008 election, has become increasingly insightful as he has settled into his new perch. In an entry on a NYT blog today, Douthat dissects the criticisms of the GOP approach to health care by The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait (a liberal) and former Bush speechwriter David Frum (a self-loathing Republican). Douthat doles out judicious criticism to each, but his own diagnosis is much more provocative:

In the end, when the history of the health care debate is written, I don’t think any of the choices that G.O.P. lawmakers made this year will loom particularly large. The choices that they made, or didn’t make, across the last fifteen years are what made all the difference. Between the defeat of Clintoncare and the election of Barack Obama, the Republicans had plenty of chances to take ownership of the health care issue and pass a significant reform along more free-market, cost-effective lines. They didn’t. The system deteriorated on their watch instead. And now they’re suffering the consequences.

Absolutely true. As good as many of the free-market healthcare reform ideas swimming around are, the reality is that, with the exception of marginal advances on Health Savings Accounts — a necessary, but not sufficient aspect of reform — the GOP has done nothing to advance an alternative vision for health care. And the party’s one major accomplishment was a massive and unfunded expansion of the welfare state in the form of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

One other interesting note from Douthat:

As far as the Republicans’ rhetorical emphases go, meanwhile, I’d really prefer to live in a world where the G.O.P. hadn’t decided to remake itself as the party of Medicare now, Medicare forever. But judged purely as a short-term political strategy designed to derail the legislation, it’s hard to argue with the results. Public opinion has turned dramatically against the bill, and every swing-state Democrat who votes for it is courting political suicide.

Me: I’d gladly trade away potential GOP wins next year for defeating the health care bill now. After all, the point of  political victory is to influence policy outcomes.  And once the government embeds itself in the healthcare industry there will be no turning back — like our British counterparts, most of the domestic policy agenda will become focused on who can better manage a bloated welfare state.  The next few weeks may thus see the biggest epochal shift in American politics since the constituent parts of Reaganomics made their way through the Congress.

On yesterday’s “Hardball”, Democratic strategist (and promiscuous presidential campaign kamikaze) Bob Shrum got into an almost unwatchable scrimmage over global warming and the Copenhagen Conference with Pat Buchanan.  In a tag-team effort with host Chris Matthews, Shrum tried to side-step the epistemological questions surrounding climate change by invoking the analogy of carrying fire insurance.

This meme, which has started showing up in Democratic talking points lately, tries to get around climate uncertainty by invoking the “precautionary principle”: that it’s prudent to take decisive action proportional to a catastrophic threat even if the potential of that threat being realized is miniscule. This irrational doctrine has been part of the environmental left’s catechism for decades, but its appearance in the political sphere shows that liberals are becoming sensitive to the fallout over Climategate and trying to reframe their position as a common sense hedge against catastrophe.  Wrong.

The Precautionary Principle sounds good in a vacuum (who caucuses for increased risk, after all?), but is (ironically) non-empirical in its application. All of life is a matter of weighing probable rewards versus probable risks. Jettisoning this cost-benefit principle on a serious policy issue is dangerous — and the insurance analogy shows why.

Think about how fire insurance actually works. You pay a miniscule fee to hedge against the minute possibility of a catastrophic outcome. But that’s not how carbon abatement schemes work. First of all, there’s no pool to socialize risk within. As an inherently global “crisis”, everyone is supposedly effected — so it’s impossible to cross-subsidize in the way that insurance plans do. But more importantly, you wouldn’t buy fire insurance that costs exponentially more than the likely damage from a fire — and that’s what the economic disaster represented by cap and trade and other such schemes would mean.

Liberals can’t get their head around the fact that there’s only so much value swimming around in an economy (regardless of the money supply).  If you use some of it in one place, you can’t use it in another. And when government mandates its use, it’s almost always less efficient than the private sector. This is called an opportunity cost. It’s usually covered in the first few days of an elementary economics course. This is what happens when we elect people who cut that class for a Sierra Club meeting.

Here in Los Angeles, talk radio guru Bill Handel conducted a provocative interview today with Stephan Kinsella, an intellectual property lawyer from Texas who is also a libertarian legal theorist associated with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

Kinsella is an interesting guy. He is a patent lawyer, yet doesn’t believe in the legitimacy of intellectual property rights.  But his current cause is making the case that blackmail should be legal.  Kinsella points to the recent sex scandals surrounding Tiger Woods and David Letterman and notes that Woods bribing former paramours to keep quiet would be legal, whereas Robert Halderman’s attempt to solicit a bribe from Letterman in exchange for his silence got him arrested. 

Kinsella is in favor of extortion laws that seek to deter the use of force, but sees no reason to prohibit seeking money for the preservation of someone’s reputation (making the interesting case that no one has a right to what other people think of them).  Many (maybe even most) listeners will disagree, but there’s plenty of interest to listen to here.

Foreign Policy Initiative’s Abe Greenwald does an excellent riff on President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptace speech today on National Review’s website. The upshot: Greenwald wonders whether Obama’s stark articulation of evil’s presence in the world (and its impact on international affairs) shows a president who’s starting to rethink some of the first principles of his foreign policy.

Greenwald sees some promising signs, but still wonders whether Obama can ever fully turn the corner. In one bravura passage:

“Irving Kristol said, almost too memorably, ‘A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.’ With that definition in mind, an eminent national-security personage put this perfectly phrased query to me over the summer: ‘Is Obama too arrogant to get mugged by reality?'”

“An excellent question. What the president calls his “philosophy of persistence” looks increasingly like the vice of conceit. The new White House imperiousness explains Obama’s inability to offer full-throated praise for the Iraq War — an undertaking he staunchly opposed. It also explains his devotion to de-fanging Iran through the voodoo of his personal allure (and to his correspondent obtuseness on Iran’s democrats).”

Today’s best piece on foreign policy (apart from this one). Read it here.

Today’s version of the Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog notes that Sarah Palin gave a radio interview over the weekend where she seemed to leave the door open to a third party presidential run in 2012.  This could potentially be politically disastrous for the GOP come Election Day.

Under present circumstances, Palin probably doesn’t have a strong enough coalition to take the GOP nomination. What she does have, however, is an intensity of support that would likely lead many of her supporters to follow her out of the Republican Party’s presidential fold.  Given the schismatic tendencies that the Tea Party movement has begun to show, Palin could also potentially have a much more organized, coherent base than most independent candidates.

This prospect is just one more impetus for a Republican coalescence before the next presidential race.  From Theodore Roosevelt to Ross Perot, the legacy of strong third-party candidates has tended to be creating murder-suicide pacts with the candidate that they’re ideologically closer to.  If Sarah Palin bolts the GOP in 2012, she may end up spending two election cycles in a row being blamed for Barack Obama’s presidency.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll out today shows that if the Tea Party movement was an organized political party it would poll second nationally (at 23%, 13 points behind the Democrats).  Many reports on the numbers play up the growing influence of this grassroots force on the right, but that may miss the bigger point: Republicans came in third in the poll, with only 18% supporting the GOP.

Read those numbers closely; with Republicans and Tea Partiers divided, Democrats win (a lesson learned in the congressional race in the New York 23rd).  Thus, if the right hopes to regain political traction it’s going to have to create a fusionist project between the mainstream GOP and the “mad as hell and not going to take it any more” Tea Party movement.

A possible prescription for this kind of Republican renaissance improbably shows up this week’s edition of Newsweek, courtesy of Howard Fineman, whose columns usually tend toward EZ-Bake liberalism.  However, in a piece entitled “Is There a Doctor in the House?”, Fineman perceptively notes that the GOP could do a lot worse than straightening its spine through Ron Paul’s example:

… The GOP needs to study Ron Paul, and learn. No one has better captured the sense of Main Street outrage over secret insider deals and Wall Street bonuses. No one has been more consistent about sticking to core conservative values—including the one that says the government shouldn’t spend more money than it takes in. If the GOP is going to appeal to independent voters, it has to confront its own corporate allies. “Republicans need to find a populist edge again,” says Craig Shirley, the author of Rendezvous With Destiny, a new account of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign. “Reagan spoke to the guy who thought he was being screwed by big business, by big government, by the big media.” The good doctor, of all people, is showing Republicans the way. What they need is a candidate who embodies the spirit of Ron Paul. Just so long as it isn’t Ron Paul.

There’s a lot of sense in Fineman’s diagnostic (along with this, a sign of the apocalypse).  On foreign policy, Paul is still peddling ideas long ago discredited by Charles Lindbergh and Bob Taft.  But on the domestic side, his compass is truer than most of the GOP.  When the Republican Party isn’t rooted in notions of small government and individual liberty, it tends towards existential drift.  And we all know where that leads.

Ever since Republicans lost hold of every major organ of the federal government, the MSM has been pushing a meme about how the right-wing wackos on talk radio represent a radical, uncompromising view of the world that will assure permanent minority status for the GOP. In virtually every instance, I’ve thought this analysis almost comically wrong. Until today.

The reality is that — whatever their intellectual shortcomings — the conservative talking heads usually do a pretty good job of keeping the GOP honest. Unfortunately, some of them seem to be totally abandoning that charge when it comes to President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan.

Rush Limbaugh had some relatively muted criticisms for Obama’s plan on his radio show this morning, but Sean Hannity was positively apoplectic on Fox tonight in the aftermath of the President’s speech at West Point.  Hannity hit Obama hard for “dithering” on the decision making process, shorting General McChrystal’s troop request, and not being “passionate” enough. His reaction was churlish and desperate.

The reality is that Obama (of whom I have little positive to say on virtually any other issue) is boldly choosing to alienate his own political base by embracing the kind of strategy that we know can work based on the Bush experience in Iraq.

Criticisms over the amount of troops are misguided. Obama already ordered a mini-surge earlier in the Spring; he seems to be making a serious effort to get NATO to supply the forces to make up the difference between new American deployments and Gen. McChrystal’s request; and, if the Bush experience is any indicator, the final number of new troops deployed will likely be higher than Obama’s initial estimate.  On top of all this, there’s a bizarre line of criticism that it was somehow inappropriate for Obama not to take McChrystal’s recommendation without a single alteration.  As Commanders-in-Chief, Presidents are not supposed to be  passive receptacles of their military advisors’ recommendations.  Effective wartime leaders push back and push back hard. That doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama got the decision right, but he certainly has the methodology down.

There are plenty of legitimate points of criticism. While Obama was right to enter into a serious deliberative process, the “dithering” claim has some merit — a quarter of a year is too long to leave the theater adrift. The focus on timetables for withdrawal is also a mistake and one that’s liable to get the President into hot water come 2012. His caveat about “conditons on the ground,” while welcome as a matter of strategic principle, only muddies the rhetorical waters further.

All that being said, Obama has made a courageous decision that will shape the rest of his presidency. It’s the right call for the nation. Pundits on the right should keep their powder dry.

About a year ago, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the White House staff was engaged in a massive bout of what are known as “departure photos”, where staff members bring family members to the White House for an opportunity to meet the President before departing 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When President Bush learned that my parents were small business owners in California, he teasingly replied “so how long have you been thinking about moving to Texas?”

In a post on the American Enterprise Institute’s “The Enterprise Blog”, Ryan Streeter looks at the salient differences between the economic climates in California and Texas, and discovers what has been increasingly obvious in recent years — The Lone Star State is built for performance; The Golden State is built to fail.

For a detailed side-by-side comparison that shows how Texas is pulling ahead, see this recent report from the American Legislative Exchange Council and this editorial from The Economist (if you’re a subscriber). For a thorough dissection of California’s failures, see my piece from the fall issue of National Affairs.

It’s late on Monday night and President Obama has been huddling with his “war council” at the White House for the ninth time discussing a strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  Never mind that Obama himself unveiled a new strategy in the spring, that he was responsible for appointing General McChrystal as the commander in theater, and that his months-long ambivalence on Afghanistan is in sharp contrast to the “fierce urgency of now” that drove the stimulus package, cap and trade, and health care reform to be rolled out in massive pieces of legislation delivered in the middle of the night.

Even putting all that aside, what’s truly worrisome about the President’s current state of mind is his unseriousness.  According to CNN’s coverage of the council meeting:

At the last war council meeting – on November 11, Veteran’s Day – Obama pushed for revisions in proposed plans for troop increases to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama would seek answers at Monday’s meeting to the questions he posed on November 11 about “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.”

It’s all well and good for Obama to be considering what the endgame in Afghanistan will look like, but that’s no reason to delay the decision-making process.  The historical record is pretty clear. While an emphasis on exit strategies always sounds comforting, they’re almost impossible to construct in a vacuum.  If Afghanistan is really the “war of necessity” the president has said it is (and it is), he needs to settle on a strategy for victory. Trying to figure out how to leave before figuring out how to win is a recipe for failure. Obama is president now — which means it’s time for him to stop thinking about the war in terms of election cycles.

Sometimes I think the best way for conservatives to dominate public opinion would be to just get out of the way and let liberals do all the talking.

A good example of this principle can be found in the new column by the Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts. In a defense of Attorney General Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda terrorists to trial in civilian courts, Pitts claims that the primary motivation of those opposed to the move is a visceral need for vengeance:

Pitts’ response:

But you have to wonder: Are our emotional needs the most important consideration here?

It’s worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

As prosecutor Robert Jackson put it: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”

One little problem. The enlightened example cited by Mr. Pitts was a military tribunal — exactly what KSM and company would have had if the Attorney General hadn’t booked their Manhattan vacation.  Never mind that Nuremberg only took place after World War II had ended …

Given enough time, President Obama will probably find occasion to apologize for that act of wanton American aggression at Lexington and Concord during a state visit to the United Kingdom.

For now, however, the President is contenting himself with paying penance for America’s 20th century “sins”. When Obama’s Asia trip took him to Japan over the weekend, former New York Times military correspondent Richard Halloran noted that the President hinted at a press conference that he may accept an invitation that no previous Commander-in-Chief has ever entertained — a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Per Halloran:

Many Japanese, particularly left-wing organizations, would most likely demand that the US apologize for dropping the bombs, which would stir up rancor in the US. That would call into question the judgment of President Harry Truman, who made the decision to drop the bombs. In turn, that would put President Obama in a politically difficult position.

Among Americans, veterans of World War II, especially survivors of Japan’s surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, would be vigilant for any sign of remorse for an action that many believe ended World War II with Japan’s surrender, sparing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans poised to invade Japan.

And the veterans would be right.  Not only did Truman’s courageous decision prevent widespread American military deaths, it also likely prevented the millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties that would have resulted from the urban warfare that a ground invasion would have brought.  It also was almost certainly responsible for preventing the planned Japanese execution of Allied POWs  (a slaughter of 100,000 — or 2.5 times more than the initial death count from Nagasaki).

It’s bad enough that Obama would even entertain the notion of recoiling from the moral superiority of the Allied cause in World War II.  Even worse (if utterly predictable at this point) was his tortured use of Japan as a model for his dream of the world as a nuclear-free Fantasia:

“Indeed, Japan serves as an example to the world that true peace and power can be achieved by taking this path. For decades, Japan has enjoyed the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, while rejecting nuclear arms development – and by any measure, this has increased Japan’s security, and enhanced its position.”

I wish there was a pithy one-liner to capture the stunning stupidity of that statement. Let’s just put it this way: Obama, his speechwriters, or both are historically illiterate.  Japan hasn’t ‘rejected’ nuclear arms development, so much as it has had the United States government preventing it from remilitarizing for nearly 65 years.  And were it not for the substantial American military presence and security guarantee enveloping the island nation, its nuclear neighbors in China and North Korea would have swallowed it years ago.

The lesson here is not about the benevolence of a nuclear-free world. It’s about the benevolence of American power. What are the odds we’d hear that message in presidential remarks at Hiroshima?