Dec
14
The Least Favourite President?
Filed Under American Politics | 5 Comments
Going back the last 30 years is unsurprisingly George W. Bush. But only just:
Who would you say is your least favorite of the last five Presidents?
* George W. Bush 38%
* Barack Obama 37%
* Bill Clinton 11%
* George H.W. Bush 8%
* Ronald Reagan 5%
From a PPP poll via race42008
Obama is also the third least popular President amongst Democrats surprisingly amongst the five.
Ronald Reagan is comfortably the most popular President:
Looking back on the last five Presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, who would you say is your favorite?
* Ronald Reagan 41%
* Bill Clinton 27%
* Barack Obama 22%
* George H.W. Bush 7%
* George W. Bush 4%
The eighties were a good time for America in contrast to the dire previous twenty years and Reagan benefits from this I suspect. Obama has the same opportunity, America suffered with low self-esteem through the Bush Presidency and Obama was elected to be the post partisan President that would renew America as Reagan did in the eighties. He still has time; the failed economy and the wars were not his doing, but he is showing little sign of bringing America together as the electorate hoped.
Nov
9
Wonderful
Filed Under American Politics | 18 Comments
We conservatives may be simple-minded, but sometimes some of us really see to the heart of the matter. Reagan was one such conservative. I lived in Berlin when I was a nipper so I experienced the wall at first hand. When I heard Reagan say “tear down this wall!” and heard the German cheers, I have to admit, it brought a lump to my throat.
One of the great speeches in history.
Oct
13
Recipe For Success
Filed Under American Politics, Economics | 9 Comments
I was thinking last night (a unique experience for a wingnut like myself) about th1980’s recession and the nineties prosperity in America. I’m no economic historian, but I came to the conclusion that there were probably four main reasons for that recovery.
- Reagan’s tax cuts which created an atmosphere of wealth creation
- The end of the cold war which allowed Clinton to draw down on military spending
- The “Clinton recovery” was coincidental to the growth of the Internet, mobile telephony and the DotCom bubble
- Clinton’s welfare reforms
I’m sure there are other reasons too, the collapse of the Far Eastern economy for example, but the above reasons created an environment of wealth creation and growth and thus create a successful economy.
The trouble is, I do not see any of those factors coming into play this time to grow the American economy out of recession. There are economists who are tentatively suggesting that the green shoots of recovery are present, but I get no sense of confidence that a dramatic recovery is on the cards, a recovery that will result in prosperity. Things are just likely to be less bad than they are now.
And I don’t see how Obama’s and the Democrat’s ‘vision’ will lead to a Clinton-like recovery. They are creating a heavily regulated, federal owning, increased tax economy. Where will the recovery come from that cocktail?
And a final question. Are there benefits to a weakened dollar, or are some conservative commentators right to be concerned and the declining value of the dollar? Currency values seem to have either a negative or positive factor tied to thim. too high a dollar price and American businesses can’t export and tourist numbers to America are hit. But conversely, foreign goods like oil and cars become more expensive, the American public and businesses have less money to their name when the dollar price is low. Can a weakened currency be a positive contributor to growing an economy out of recession, or should we always be concerned about a weakened domestic currency?
Sep
18
Carter And Reagan = Obama And ?????
Filed Under American Politics | 3 Comments
Jimmy Carter suddenly becoming newsworthy again has given conservative bloggers the opportunity to link him with Obama. And Obama’s surrendering of the missile shield only serves to support the premise that like Carter, Obama is not only a purveyor of big government, but is weak on foreign policy too. True, it’s a simplistic comparison, and perhaps a little disingenuous to both Presidents, but it is also a comparison that has the ability to resonate, particularly with seniors and older independents. Because the one thing Carter’s Presidency did, was to create the Reagan conservative coalition. Conservative Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans and conservative Democrats all found a home in Reagan’s coalition.
For those of us who lived through the Carter presidency, it looks depressingly familiar. High spending, government control of the economy (especially on energy), and clear signs of retreat abroad — it looks much more like Jimmy Carter won his second term of office 28 years after getting booted by the American electorate. The entire decade turned into a morass of malaise, a cesspool of economic stagnation, and with Carter’s election, a season of American humiliation abroad.
But Ed notes the problem of comparing then with now. A Reagan coalition needed a Reagan:
Reagan built himself into a formidable candidate by spending years on the speaking circuit discussing politics and philosophy, and then eight years as governor adhering to conservative values. Reagan was no unknown quantity when he led his coalition to power in 1980; people knew exactly what Reagan would do as President.
It is tough to see anyone on the Republican side that can turn worries over big government and, if it pans out, a globally weakened America into strong GOP support. But not only that, a prospective candidate will need to square the circle of exciting the base whilst appealing to independents and moderate Republicans. Because two things are absolutely certain: No Republican will become President in 2012 unless they can appeal to both the base conservatives and those outside of the base.
If Obama continues on his current path, with an ever diminishing support amongst independents and seniors, the GOP will have a chance, but finding a reliably conservative candidate who can retain a degree of independence from the base is going to be tough. For the moment, I can only see two potential candidates out there that fulfill the necessary criteria; Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty. The only other possibility at the moment would be Mitt Romney, but I’m not sure his appeal with the base is strong enough.
Sep
14
That’s Worrying
Filed Under Uncategorized | 21 Comments
I find myself somewhat in agreement with Andrew Sullivan.
Sullivan calls himself an Oakeshottian conservative. In brief (and very generalised), Michael Oakeshott believed in a balance between the forces skeptical of government, and the forces who believe government has the power to do good. The two forces balance the excesses of each other. So Sullivan’s response to a dissenting e-mail is interesting. First the dissent:
But with Obama we don’t get change, we get more of the same. More government, just like Bush. A failed Keynesian stimulus driving us ever deeper into debt (and straight out the Bush playbook, with his ridiculous tax rebate of last year). More government in health care (Bush, Medicare expansion). More government in energy policy (energy bill passed under Bush’s watch). I’m all for change, just not for big government.
Part of Sullivan’s initial response corresponds to my developing views:
I also realize that in real politics, you have to construct a solid coalition for all this and make arguments for it consistently (as Reagan did for decades) and have some credibility. But the GOP has been doing he opposite, fighting wars – cultural and military – instead of attending to basic fiscal responsibility and limited government. You cannot just pivot on a dime without some accounting of the recent past.
I know that this will make me somewhat unpopular with those on the right, but the conservative movement has failed in recent times. They idolise Reagan, whilst completely ignoring the very reason for Reagan’s successes; that a consensual coalition is required to enact a non-divisive agenda. This is something the current conservative movement is ignoring.
I have a great deal of respect for the tea-party movement. anytime citizens become concerned and then peaceably engaged is good for democracy. sure there are excesses, some of the signs are hardly likely to persuade waverers, but that is a minority. The majority is a citizenry concerned for their future, worried about losing what they have and suspicious of a power grab by bureaucracies and partisan single interest groups. Sullivan is right to point out that these concerns have come somewhat late, but under Bush, the threat to an individuals autonomy was a lot less pervasive than it is now.
But the tea-partiers are looking to the wrong period in American history. Turning the clock back to Thomas Paine, Common Sense and the revolution is denying the narrative of American history. Reagan had the right idea. He was a post New Deal conservative. Whilst he was suspicious of government, he recognised that government has a function in a civil and ordered society. And the truth is, those protesting in Washington on 9/12 are post new deal conservatives too. I doubt they want the repeal of social security. They rely on their medicare if they are eligible (I know – great society not new deal) and they were brought up in a newly industrialised and prosperous post-war America.
So the protests do have the ability to resonate on a larger scale if they are focused in the right way. And just as importantly, they are essential to the democratic process. And it is on this point that I part with Andrew Sullivan’s conclusions:
The protestors keep saying that they want their country back. Sorry, my fellow small-governmenters, but this country is a democracy, and you didn’t lose your country, you just lost an election. You had your chance for eight years. You blew it, and you lost. What Obama is doing is what he was elected to do. The principled response is not a massive, extremist-riddled hissy fit a few months in, but a constructive set of proposals to build on universal care for a more market-friendly and cost-conscious system in the future. You have to win some political credibility for that; and then you have to beat the man you lost so badly to last year. That’s the civil and civilized way forward for the right. It also seems, alas, to be the one they are currently refusing to take.
Andrew Sullivan is wrong. politics is not a zero-sum game in which the losers of elections should be forced to sit back and wait for their turn to come round again. Winning an election does not give the winner carte blanche to enact any legislation that he wants. All an election win grants, is the right to control the agenda for a while. But politics is a dynamic process that constantly requires all opinions to be engaged. Without that, balance in the political process cannot be achieved. And it is this balance that sees to the needs of all the citizenry.
Aug
30
Reagan And Kennedy
Filed Under American Politics | 1 Comment
Peggy Noonan has written a piece for the WSJ about a speech, written by her (does this revelation break the first rule of speechwriting – never take credit?), which was to be in honour of JFK. For the scene setting, read the article.
This is an outstanding speech (perhaps we should allow her to take credit, it’s well deserved) that demonstrates some of the class that is missing from today’s politics.
It always seemed to me that he was a man of the most interesting contradictions, very American contradictions. We know from his many friends and colleagues, we know in part from the testimony available at the library, that he was both self-deprecating and proud, ironic and easily moved, highly literate yet utterly at home with the common speech of the working man. He was a writer who could expound with ease on the moral forces that shaped John Calhoun’s political philosophy; on the other hand, he betrayed a most delicate and refined appreciation for Boston’s political wards and the characters who inhabited them. He could cuss a blue streak—but then, he’d been a sailor.
He loved history and approached it as both romantic and realist. He could quote Stephen Vincent Benét on Gen. Lee’s army—’The aide de camp knew certain lines of Greek / and other things quite fitting for peace but not so suitable for war . . .’ And he could sum up a current ’statesman’ with an earthy epithet that would leave his audience weak with laughter. One sensed that he loved mankind as it was, in spite of itself, and that he had little patience with those who would perfect what was not meant to be perfect.
“As a leader, as a president, he seemed to have a good, hard, unillusioned understanding of man and his political choices. He had written a book as a very young man about why the world slept as Hitler marched on, and he understood the tension between good and evil in the history of man—understood, indeed, that much of the history of man can be seen in the constant working out of that tension.
“He was a patriot who summoned patriotism from the heart of a sated country. It is a matter of pride to me that so many young men and women who were inspired by his bracing vision and moved by his call to ‘Ask not’ serve now in the White House doing the business of government.
“Which is not to say I supported John Kennedy when he ran for president, because I didn’t. I was for the other fellow. But you know, it’s true: When the battle’s over and the ground is cooled, well, it’s then that you see the opposing general’s valor.
“He would have understood. He was fiercely, happily partisan, and his political fights were tough, no quarter asked and none given. But he gave as good as he got, and you could see that he loved the battle.
“Everything we saw him do seemed to show a huge enjoyment of life; he seemed to grasp from the beginning that life is one fast-moving train, and you have to jump aboard and hold on to your hat and relish the sweep of the wind as it rushes by. You have to enjoy the journey, it’s unthankful not to. I think that’s how his country remembers him, in his joy.
“And when he died, when that comet disappeared over the continent, a whole nation grieved and would not forget. A tailor in New York put a sign on the door: ‘Closed due to a death in the family.’ The sadness was not confined to us. ‘They cried the rain down that night,’ said a journalist in Europe. They put his picture up in huts in Brazil and tents in the Congo, in offices in Dublin and Danzig. That was one of the things he did for his country, for when they honored him they were honoring someone essentially, quintessentially, completely American.
“Many men are great, but few capture the imagination and the spirit of the times. The ones who do are unforgettable. Four administrations have passed since John Kennedy’s death, five presidents have occupied the Oval Office, and I feel sure that each of them thought of John Kennedy now and then, and his thousand days in the White House.
“And sometimes I want to say to those who are still in school, and who sometimes think that history is a dry thing that lives in a book, that nothing is ever lost in that house. Some music plays on.
I have been told that late at night when the clouds are still and the moon is high, you can just about hear the sound of certain memories brushing by. You can almost hear, if you listen close, the whir of a wheelchair rolling by and the sound of a voice calling out, ‘And another thing, Eleanor.’ Turn down a hall and you hear the brisk strut of a fellow saying, ‘Bully! Absolutely ripping!’ Walk softly now and you’re drawn to the soft notes of a piano and a brilliant gathering in the East Room, where a crowd surrounds a bright young president who is full of hope and laughter.
“I don’t know if this is true, but it’s a story I’ve been told, and it’s not a bad one because it reminds us that history is a living thing that never dies. . . . History is not only made by people, it is people. And so history is, as young John Kennedy demonstrated, as heroic as you want it to be, as heroic as you are.
Jul
21
The Politics Hall of Fame
Filed Under American Politics | 33 Comments
Chris Cillizza at Washington Post’s The Fix has started taking votes on a Political Hall of Fame.
His non-voted for inaugural class is Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan and the the first group to be voted on is FDR, Tipp O’Neill and Richard Nixon.
I find it strange that the inaugural class includes Clinton and LBJ and not Roosevelt, I think Reagan is fair just for his accomplishments, but also because he would be the leading Republican.
Anyway, I think this could e fun for a debate – who would you put into a political hall of fame? I suspect that Cillizza is looking at 20th century politicians (why no Lincoln otherwise?) but I won’t necessarily limit you in that regard. Having said that, can we agree to accept the Founding Fathers as a given and not include them?
So who would you choose and why? You may want to consider their service, length of time within the upper echelons of politics, their transformative or unique role or their influence. I also think it is reasonable to consider non-politicians like political journalists.
My early thoughts:
Henry Clay
Daniel Webster
John Calhoun
All of the above were probably the three most influential Senators in American history, all involved in the slavery debate pre civil war and influential in other areas too. Calhoun was important as a states-rights advocate, Henry Clay was a key advocate of the American system of economics that lead to America’s leading economic role in the world.
Harry Truman – I’ve mentioned before why he is so important as a President
My earliest thoughts. I’ll add more as you add yours (if you want to).