The Day After

On The Day After, Jonah Goldberg’s column, “Now Govern,” is as good as a place as any to begin:

[N]ow the Democratic Party is for all practical purposes America’s super-majority party. It has complete control of the presidency and Congress. It’s time to put away childish things and govern.

If Democrats govern from the center, good for the country. If they govern from their instincts, good for the Republicans.

I strongly suspect we’re going to see Jonah’s Option Number Two out of a unified Democratic government. After effectively fourteen years out of power, I do not think this bunch can stop themselves from indulging their fundamental instincts, i.e., abandoning our allies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, yanking up taxes, slashing defense spending, regulating anything that moves and subsidizing anything that doesn’t, trying to rig election and media laws to maintain their current majorities, and seizing and/or nationalizing 401(k) accounts.

The latter, should the Democrats actually be dumb enough to try it (it’s already being pushed by leftie academics and out-there Representative George Miller of, you guessed it, San Francisco), would be an instant Waterloo for Hope and Change, at least in Congress. That kind of lunacy would never pass in a million years, even with this congress, but simply trying it would make the 1994 backlash against Hillarycare look like a mild disagreement over restaurant reservations. Given Barack Obama’s history of having a tin ear to leftie radicalism and going along to get along with the Chicago machine, I think we can expect to see plenty of such nuttiness trotted out in the next 18 months.

Here’s another big red flag to watch out for. The price of oil has dropped by more than 50% since peaking on July 14. What happened on July 14? That was the day none other than George W. Bush lifted the federal ban on offshore drilling (what, you mean you never saw that connection noted in the press? Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise). Bush’s action popped the oil price bubble, and it’s been in free-fall ever since. This, of course, will not do in the eyes of the Democratic Party, regardless of the damage expensive energy does to our economy or the benefits expensive oil bestows on the balance sheets of our enemies. Appeasing the “global warming” cultists is far more important, so look for the next Congress to re-instate the ban on Day One, and then watch as gas prices start leaping up towards $4 a gallon again.

Then sit back as The Savior and his media minions try and convince the rest of us it’s all for our own good. I’ll bring the popcorn for that one.

While I suspect Obama will be a disaster for this country, I confess to being rather relieved at not having to even pretend to defend a McCain Administration for four years. After championing “campaign finance reform,” mostly in a huff over being out-raised by George W. Bush in 2000, McCain richly deserved what happened to him, namely being crushed by a wave of private money while priggishly insisting on having the taxpayers foot the bill for his own campaign.

Obama’s fundraising was certainly not all on the up and up, but his campaign’s success should have the salutary effect of ending “public financing” as anything more than a goo-goo slogan in presidential politics. Whether it will also lead to the more realistic ideal of full disclosure, well, I’m not holding my breath. Anybody who thinks Obama’s no-rules credit card fundraising will be investigated by an Obama Justice Department or Obama appointees to the Federal Elections Commission is also welcome to stay up all night waiting for the Tooth Fairy, for all the good it will do them.

Back when McCain was pushing McCain-Feingold, he used to dismiss conservative opponents who brought up pro-Democratic media bias by asking, if the bias of his media friends against the GOP was so severe, how was Ronald Reagan ever elected? As McCain should have learned by now, the reason was that Reagan could buy airtime to go over the press’s heads, most notably in the 1980 election-eve special that ran on every broadcast network (sound familiar?).

McCain’s defeat now serves as an object lesson to future GOP nominees on not one but two fronts. First, 2008 has demonstrated conclusively that Big Media is not just biased, it is part and parcel of the other side. Five of the six networks with news divisions (counting taxpayer-funded PBS), along with virtually every major newspaper and all the news weeklies served as free opposition researchers and unofficial press offices for the Obama campaign. That’s all the next nominee needs to know about how to treat with all of those organizations: as hostile forces.

Secondly, and in no small part because no non-Democrat can count on the legacy media to accurately report on either a non-Democrat’s campaign or on their Democratic opponents, it’s very clear that future Republican nominees cannot afford McCain’s self-righteous posturing on taxpayer funding. As McCain’s campaign aptly demonstrated, if you do, you’re going to be buried by the combination of your opponent’s money and the media’s cheerleading for that opponent. Felicitously, this problem has a solution that appeals to conservatives and libertarians alike: just take responsibility for yourself and raise your own money. You’d better, because otherwise you might as well not bother running at all.

There was plenty wrong with McCain the candidate beyond not having enough money and having to campaign against the press and a financial meltdown (although it didn’t help any that the press obligingly failed to point out said meltdown was caused by deliberate policy actions of the Democratic Party). McCain has always been obsessed with his own biography and reputation, and like many a decorated politician before him, always seems amazed that it isn’t enough to win a national election.

McCain proved again why so few senators (and almost no long-serving senators) win the presidency. Having been in the legislative branch for so long, where he had the ability to pick and choose which issues to focus on and which to ignore, McCain was completely unable to define any kind of platform for his campaign beyond being a “maverick.” As Mark Steyn noted today, “maverick” is an attitude, not a philosophy. That stance won him points with the press when he was poking his own party and its base in the eye, but once electoral push came to shove, that same press corps left McCain out in the cold to mumble about minutiae and process. You almost felt sorry for the guy, but he only had himself to blame for not accepting the political facts of life. In addition, McCain was simply a bad campaigner who could not shake off half a lifetime of Senate “collegiality” reflexes to take a political fight to the other side, and worse, he lacks the personal discipline to stay on message for more than five or ten minutes.

While he almost certainly would have been better for the country than Obama will be, McCain probably would not have been an effective president, and very likely would have signed on to the media definition of “bipartisanship” (i.e., Republicans deferring to Democrats) on most issues, and he would have whined incessantly about being criticized for it. I can’t make myself shed any tears over McCain’s failure. To be blunt, I didn’t want either of these guys to become president, and the real shame is that both of them couldn’t lose.

It’s telling that the legacy media is still rushing to condemn the one big thing McCain did right as a candidate, which was naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. Despite the onslaught of fanatical anti-Palin invective that’s swept the airwaves and internet over the past two months, Palin shored up a conservative base that had little interest in voting for McCain beyond, “Well, he’d be better than the other guy.” Looking at the numbers today, it’s clear that Palin’s presence on the ticket played a major part in denying Obama the landslide-level victory that so many in the media were predicting 24 hours ago.

Which brings us to the Attack Of The Snobs.

Much of the revolt of the allegedly conservative NYDC pundits against Palin can be credited, I’m sorry to say, on little more than snobbery. The leading offenders are David Brooks, who’s spent the better part of the past two decades looking down his nose at the foibles of flyover country for the amusement of the Upper East Side, and George Will, who it ought to be remembered regularly dismissed one Ronald Wilson Reagan as an empty-headed rube as far back as the late ’70’s. Brooks and Will carry a lot of weight in the big media punditocracy, and their sniffy dismissal of Palin quickly became accepted wisdom in the Manhattan/DC media corridor, even while Palin was drawing record audiences both in person and on television.

This tremendous error, I strongly suspect caused by simple fatigue over having to defend an inarticulate Texan president against endless attacks in newsrooms, dinner parties, and various social situations (“Oh, no, I’m not going through that again”), is most likely going to backfire, and badly, on the legacy commentariat. I hesitate to join in declarations of Palin as “the next Reagan” (as Glenn noted, at Palin’s current age, even Reagan wasn’t Reagan yet), but like The Ron, Palin’s popularity and appeal to the country at large trumps any derision from The Better People Who Went To All The Right Schools by a vast margin. Pointing out that Palin in 2008 was not an exceptionally qualified candidate for vice president (even while her qualifications outstripped those of the current president-elect) was a reasonable criticism. Getting on a high horse about her being a hick from the sticks with too many kids and not even a whiff of Ivy League odeur most definitely was not, and the latter is not going to age well among the actual electorate.

Obama supporter Mickey Kaus noted after the veep debate, “Big loser, again, is Hillary. In two years Palin will be so much better she won’t even be in the same league.” I suspect that will also apply to Mitt Romney and probably any other Republican who’s imagining himself mugging for the cameras on a flag-encrusted stage 1460 days from now. The lone exception might be Bobby Jindal, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Jindal winds up playing second fiddle to Palin’s star power, just as Hillary got left behind by Obama. We’ll see, but at this remote date, a Palin-Jindal ticket looks like it’d have a hell of a lot of upside.


9 Responses to “The Day After”

  1. NukemHill Says:

    Heh. I read this in Steve’s voice, not noticing that you’d written it, Will. He could easily have written it.

    Brilliant post-mortem. Do we mix the pitcher of martinis now, or wait until the inauguration? Frankly, I don’t see Obama lasting two weeks before he announces a Cabinet appointment that has at least half the country up in arms. If he appoints a Conservative to, say, SecDef or SecTreas, the Leftists will have aneurisms. And if he swings far enough Left, the gang over at The Corner will melt down.

    I’m really working hard at being dispassionate, and even understanding, of this whole process. I was at an election party last night, and was clearly the only one there even mildly rooting for McCain. I should be roundly applauded for keeping a level head about myself. I was able to hit different sites for up-to-the-minute data, relieving many people there of anxieties over VA and FL, in particular. Had I been malicious about it, I could have given them heart-attacks with false rumors, etc.

    I admit it–I’m a mensch! 😉

    Besides, my wife loves me even more, since I was so good-natured about it all. Wonder how long that will last….

    I hope, above all, that Obama can actually rise to the occasion, and be a true bi-partisan leader. But one thing is clear to me–he is my President, come January 20th. I will most likely strongly disagree with him on many issues. But I’m also willing to acknowledge when he does something right, as I’m sure he will. The blind hatred has to end, however.

    The role of the loyal opposition is to stand firmly against when principal calls for it. And to graciously support when the time comes. But the partisan bullshit has to end. It is too destructive, too damaging. That way lies our doom.

  2. Stephen Green Says:

    Dear lord, Will, but that was good.

  3. varifrank Says:

    Channelling my inner Mencken this morning, I found myself saying:

    “A new President has been elected. Well that aught to teach him…”

    The office of the presidency is a cruel inhumane joke that we invented to trap our most agressive alpha males. They get attracted to the scent of power, and the find themselves trapped in the steel jaws of a governmental system thats designed on purpose to not work.

    Thats why everyone comes into office like a bright shiny penny and leaves office looking like a bag of freshly hammered dog crap.

    I almost feel sorry for him.

  4. ironchefoklahoma Says:

    That was dynamite. Thanks for crystallizing a lot of what I was thinking. I’m especially with you on future Republican media strategy: the national newspapers and television newsdesks are imploding. As the MSM circles their wagons trying desparately to salvage ad revenue while shedding personnel they’ll exhibit more and more groupthink…and then they’ll be gone.

    May I rise to defend George Will? I find his dismissal of Governor Palin upsetting but I believe that he’s still a good ally. He is one of the few Conservative (!= Republican) voices at the national level and he’s certainly the most erudite. He spent an immense amount of time and energy battling the McCain-Feingold campaign finance abomination in print and on air. Seeing McCain allow Senator Obama to walk away with the money advantage must have filled Will with rage. He took it out on Palin (wrong) but I can see (some) of his motivation.

  5. rbj Says:

    “That kind of lunacy would never pass in a million years, even with this congress, but simply trying it would make the 1994 backlash against Hillarycare look like a mild disagreement over restaurant reservations. ”

    In 1994 Newt was able to skillfully use the backlash to leverage Congress away from the Dems. I hate the Republican lamentation “We need a new Reagan”, but I am wondering if there is a Newtesque figure out there who will be able to jujitsu the Dems’ unfettered liberalism against them.

  6. Ken Begg Says:

    On the face of it, it seems that Palin would have been better placed to run in 2012 as a sitting VP. I disagree. She’s the biggest name in the party right now (it’s impossible to think of another bland party hack like Mitt Romney getting the nod), has four years to bone up on the issue. More importantly, she has four free years to get her own message clear in her head. Best of all, she won’t get tarred with with would almost certainly have been the reputational sludge of having served in a horribly bad McCain presidency.

    Personally, I’d like to see her run as a reformer of (sorry) the maverick sort. I want her to bring battle to Democratic corruption, but to establish her bonefides by first attacking the corrupt pigs on her side of the aisle. And this is the important part–by name.

    In other words, I want her to do exactly what she’s already done in Alaska. Start up a network of the handful of really good Republicans in the Congress, like Jim DeMint, and then work tirelessly to dethrone and replace the multitude of Ted Stevenses who are sucking the very life out of the party. No more going along to get along. Find another Republican to run for, say, Arlen Specter’s seat, and campaign with that guy or gal to grab the nomination away. Pick a very easy to follow and inherently conservative national issue to bring all this all together, like attacking earmarks and those that wallow in them.

    Maybe we lose seats to the Democrats in the short term this way (although maybe not), yet in the long run the party would actually begin to stand for something, and that’s the best thing we can hope for. And frankly, I can’t but imagine that such a course of action would raise Palin’s reputation up even higher.

  7. drslogan Says:

    Obama has received only 52% of the popular vote, despite all of his $$ and media bias. So as long as we learn from this election and use it as opportunity to rebuild the conservative movement and actually turn into something much more meangful than it is today, we can still prevent he worst things from happening.

  8. Saney Says:

    Thank you. I raise three fingers of bourbon to you.

  9. sammy55 Says:

    “…the one big thing McCain did right as a candidate, which was naming Sarah Palin as his running mate.”

    So, Vodkadude, you’re serious?

    No really, dude, you’re serious?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: