Home

The Hillary Moment

Posted November 23rd, 2011 by Michael Erickson
Democrat consultants Patrick Caddell and Douglas Schoen write an editorial recently in the Wall Street Journal, in which they argue that, for the good of both the Democrat Party and the American Nation, President Obama should decline to pursue a second term. They argue in essence that, even if he manages to win, he will have divided the electorate in such a manner as to make it virtually impossible for him to govern in his second term. In this context, they urge him to step aside, so that the Democrat Party may rally around Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a popular, respected alternative. Michael Erickson responds to the editorial as follows.

Thank you for sharing this commentary. I have genuine respect for both of the authors, as in my estimation they routinely put their estimation of the national interest above the crass, political posturing that all too often passes for "opinion" in political circles. We hear enough from the Sophists on both sides of the aisle. Caddell and Schoen, in their own manner, are willing to try at least to tackle the truth, even if this leaves them in the less popular portions of the Acropolis, where the serious philosophers must contend with the rebukes shouted at them by the wily debaters.

I agree with their fundamental point. All Presidents are political animals; they would not be in the Oval Office if they were less inclined to the sport. Nevertheless, the better ones will, if not always then at least at the most pivotal moments, put the national interest above the short term calculations of naked, political gain. From what I know, President Obama really has yet to make any decision, either in the domestic or foreign policy spheres, that places the national interest above his political positioning. Indeed, with several notable occasions in mind, he has allowed politics even to imperil our national interest, which is shameful.

An example is his decision to pull out all of our troops from Afghanistan by September of 2012. Even if a case may be made that it is in our national interest to extract ourselves in the near term from this quagmire, why pull out our troops at the height of what they regard there as the "fighting season" (prior to the Winter months, when the weather makes it very difficult to engage in the same level of land maneuvers as will be possible in the Summer), rather than by the end of December? Could it be because the election is in November, and President Obama wants a positive bump from announcing that the troops will be home by Christmas? Could it be because he wants his leftist base, which wanted the war finished a long time ago, to feel more energized just when they would be needed the most in getting out the vote? Or why did President Obama ignore the "Super Committee" charged with the unenviable task of finding over a trillion dollars in deficit reduction, thus giving them a green light to fail, but then make a point of "standing firm" for deficit reduction in his speech after the "Super Committee" had folded? Could it be because he wants everything to fail in the halls of Congress, so as to be able to emulate Harry Truman in running against a notorious "do nothing" Congress, even if that means that we fall even further into a crippling debt?

There are other examples, but the point is clear in my mind: President Obama would be a better President, if he were a principled leftist. I would not agree with him, but at least, on some sort of begrudging level, I would respect him. Instead, he is just small; his words are cliched claptrap. They no longer inspire even most leftists, because nearly everyone sees that the emperor is parading in little more than his soft underwear. He puts nothing at stake and thus elicits nothing in return. Now, the vote will be close in 2012, because in the end a lot of voters - including corporations, unions, and special interests who are able to corral a lot of voters - have a vested interest in maintaining and in growing their dependency on an ever growing array of federal handouts. Nevertheless, most of the Obama voters will be unenthusiastic in comparison to the messianic reveries we witnessed in 2008. He may win; but he will never again be the charmed Lancelot - more rather like an aged Arthur holding on simply because enough people fear what it would be like to live under the rule of a Republican Mordred.

Where I disagree with the commentators is in their reading of history. Truman and Johnson did not decide to forego another term because they "took the high road" and recognized that they could no longer govern effectively, if they pursued that goal. Rather, neither of them in fact were at all certain that they could win their party nominations, let alone prevail within a general election campaign. Democrat leaders in 1952 were even more despondent with the prospect of another Truman candidacy, than they were in 1948, when the Southern faction broke off and supported the Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, and the die hard socialists favored Henry Wallace. The intra-party opposition in the 1948 election cycle was narrowly regional and ideological. In 1952, there was opposition from every region of the nation and from the various ideological strains of the party. Indeed, such was the mood that party leaders from various factions pleaded with General Eisenhower to assume the Democrat Party nomination, rather than play his hand with the GOP. In 1968, Johnson had every intention of being the nominee of his party for another term, in spite of the upheaval occasioned by his handling of the Vietnam War. He did not back off until Eugene McCarthy did much better than expected in the New Hampshire primary. Johnson knew that he would face an uphill battle, not from McCarthy (who he knew would fade soon enough), but from his arch nemesis, the heir to the Kennedy throne. He left because he could count political heads better than any of his contemporaries and thus knew that he very well might come up short in the end.

If we go back to the nineteenth century, then we see several examples of poor, embattled Presidents not seeking another term. In every case, it is because their own political party abandoned them - not because they "took the high road" and put sound governance ahead of crass politics. The point is that the commentators are tossing at windmills if they earnestly believe that Obama, or virtually any other man who might occupy the Oval Office, will be persuaded to step aside simply by well constructed appeals or dream candidacies. For the king to abandon his throne there must be a real pretender - one armed with a cadre of real, resourceful mercenaries behind his banner and sword - not just some gossip here or there about some would be pretender who is still relishing his time as a guest in a foreign court.

In the mid 1990s, when I was a more youthful, earnest, idealistic lieutenant in a shadowy group of California Republican Party insiders, we band of brothers decided that the House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, should be sent out to pasture. We had various grievances, which no longer come to mind, but which were then imagined to be grand anathemas. Even with scant maturity under our belts, and even less of what might be called wisdom, we realized nevertheless that "heartfelt appeals" to the "better conscience" of the Speaker would do little to persuade him not to seek another term as the House Speaker. We knew that the Speaker would hold on - his tenacious tentacles scraping the floor, as he was carried out - unless and until someone arose from within the ranks to challenge him for the position of House Speaker. Thus, after setting our sights on Congressman Bob Livingston, we joined with other conservative groups around the nation in urging him to run for the post. We very literally inundated his office with faxes (as the internet was in its infancy at the time, and internet social media was not even imagined as of yet), thus creating first the impression, and then the reality, of a groundswell of support for his advancement. As we know, it was not until Livingston announced his intention to run that Gingrich backed off. Our particular role in this affair was rather small, though we were one of the first dominoes to fall in this direction. What is more important is that we knew to be true then what is true now - that a king never gives up his throne, so much as he is tossed from it, no matter the appeals.

A Letter from a Friend to Michael Erickson

On November 23rd, 2011 Michael Erickson says:
Regarding the Obama Presidency...your comments directly align with the view from this house...unceasing is our amazement at the blindness of those claiming that he has the national interest at heart...are they frauds or dupes? I truly wonder. Redistribution and socialism as tools to insure re-election has and will always be at the center of the agenda...it strikes at the very heart of how America was built.

A Response from Michael Erickson to the Friend

On November 23rd, 2011 Michael Erickson says:
Regarding your comment that President Obama pursues a policy of massive "redistribution and socialism as tools to insure re-election," I believe that the critical word in this context is "tools." I have no doubt that on some level he regards redistributionist economic policies as morally and ethically preferable to a laissez faire approach. Nevertheless, what is overriding for him is that they are "tools" for corralling enough Americans into voting for his re-election in 2012. Even people on the left sense this about him; and, for that reason principally, he is losing his previous hold on the imaginations of many of the American people. He had won in 2008 as a "transformative" figure; he is now seen as "just another politician." This is hurting him as much as the poor economic numbers, in my opinion. A friend of mine once remarked that a leader can never really lead unless and until he aims for something much higher than his own re-election. Of course, every politician claims in his well crafted speeches and photo opportunities to be focused on the "national interest" or on the "higher principals" of his time. Few would be so crass or careless as to admit that they are motivated by the base desire to aggrandize their own egos and pocketbooks by winning future political office. Nevertheless, when the hoopla subsides, as invariably it will, even the disinterested voter usually can tell the difference between an authentic leader and a political shill. Consider the example of President Lincoln. He was very unpopular well into 1864 as a result of the losses suffered by most of the Union armies in the Civil War. Even his closest friends predicted that General McClellan and the Copperhead Democrats would send him to his log cabin and negotiate a truce with the Rebels. Nevertheless, while his opponents may have characterized him as "stupid," or "backwards," or even "ape-like," they did not accuse him of putting politics above nation. There was a basic consensus, at least in the Northern States, that, however misguided he might be, he was a decent, principled man. I believe in the end that that, more than even the Union victory at Vicksburg, guaranteed his victory. It is difficult to predict what makes a great leader. We have had leaders emerge from very humble origins, as in the case of Lincoln. We have had equally good leaders emerge from among our own elite class, as in the case of Washington. Some have been fairly reserved in their personal styles, as in the case of Eisenhower; others have been charismatic, as in Theodore Roosevelt. My sense is that, what ultimately distinguishes them from the normal, forgettable politicians, is their willingness at critical points in their lives to put everything that they hold dear - or as Washington said, their "sacred honor" - on the line for some principle greater than their own personal advantage or even basic well being. Furthermore, they are distinguished in having a peculiarly adept sense of what principle is most important for the times, whether it be the principle of noble self-governance in the context of the Revolution, or the principle of law and justice in the free market in the context of the "trust busting" of the early twentieth century, or the principle of national resolve against enemies foreign and domestic in the context of the early years of the Cold War. Finally, in their own distinctive manners, they are distinguished in their ability to communicate their policies in such a way as to inspire confidence in the great mass of the American people. Most Presidents fail to be good leaders, just as most of the Caesars in the time of the Roman Empire were either bad or forgettable. For every Marcus Aurelius, there are many Commoduses and Caligulas (though thankfully by the grace of God the Commoduses outnumber the Caligulas). Obama is a Commodus - an inept, sometimes crass, politico with little apprehension beyond what may be tactically to his immediate advantage, who has a penchant for show that over time grows less convincing to the audiences at the gladiator games. That he is not a leader is a certainty. That, in His own time, God will provide another good and necessary leader is as much a certainty, if the lessons of history may be a guide to the future. Incidentally, the same insight applies to the history of the Church. We have confidence that the Holy Spirit will remain steadfast in His guidance of the One, Holy, Apostolic faith of our Fathers in Christ Jesus. We know that He will provide good and able Bishops for us, just as we have been stymied by tyrants in purple shirts and foxes in tightly wound priest collars. If God provides enough grace to keep the Kingdom of Caesar moving forward, albeit not in the manner that we might prefer at any given time, then we may have faith that He will do even more so for the Kingdom of God. It is indeed a testament to His grand mercy that we retain hope, in spite of the prevalence of Commodus and Nero types in the State and the Church.