Obama Did Change Washington . . . for the Worse

Today on NRO

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: From public schools to health care, the Left's intent is to constrain people and prevent them from opting out. Utopia's Jailers.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Putin is following a blueprint that dates back to Philip of Macedon. The Putin Way.

REIHAN SALAM: Let's not forget Lee Kuan Yew's achievement in forging a stable multiethnic polity in Southeast Asia. Lee Kuan Yew's Greatest Accomplishment May Not Have Been Singapore's Economic Success.

RICH LOWRY: When the Quai d'Orsay is more concerned than Foggy Bottom with maintaining warm ties to Israel, it is a sign of a world turned upside down. The Diplomatic Revolution.

PHOTO ESSAY: Cartoon of the Day.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty, Conservative Journalist of the Year

March 24, 2015

Obama Did Change Washington . . . for the Worse

Allahpundit makes the case that ultimately, Obama's inexperience isn't really the problem with his presidency; his ideology and ruthless willingness to toss out precedent, tradition, previously-established Constitutional limits is:

If Obama had spent four years as governor of Illinois, would he have been a considerably better commander-in-chief? The "inexperience" argument is ultimately one about ineffectiveness — the guy never took the time to learn the ropes, which is why he often seemed not to know what he was doing when he was put in charge. But on the stuff that matters most to conservatives, Obama did "know what he was doing." He got the stimulus passed and then, with a major, major assist from old pro Nancy Pelosi, he got ObamaCare passed. The parts of Hopenchange that most aggrieve the right were the parts where Obama was effective; the "ineffectiveness" argument is more natural to the left, which whines endlessly about all the goodies they wanted from Hopenchange — cap and trade! amnesty! a public option! — that haven't been delivered. "If only he'd spent more time on the Hill building relationships," they say, "maybe he'd have been able to forge grand bargains." Could be, but that's certainly not a lament you will, or should, hear on the right. Also, his lack of executive experience hasn't stopped him from becoming one of the most aggressive presidents in modern American history when it comes to executive action.

All really good points. But Obama's lack of experience in Washington did ensure he didn't feel all that attached to anyone or anything that was there before him.

Remember the contrast between the way Biden negotiates and Obama does? Biden, the longtime Capitol Hill veteran, takes his three top priorities, your top three priorities, a similar number of concessions for each side, a couple of deal-sweeteners and mashes them together into a giant, messy, sometimes contradictory compromise agreement. By comparison, Chuck Todd describes the Obama approach as, "immediately identify the common ground as a means of showing the other person that they were on the same side, and that therefore that person's prejudices and preconceptions should be abandoned." Unsurprisingly, that sounds a lot like insufferable lecturing to the other party.

Pre-Obama Washington wasn't perfect. Pre-Obama Democrats had plenty of flaws. But it was rare to see pre-Obama Democrats, say, boycott an address from the Israeli prime minister. They didn't attempt to withhold FEMA funds from governors that didn't toe the line on the administration's climate-change rhetoric. They didn't endorse a secret deal with Iran with no congressional approval or public review. They didn't put up barricades around open-air monuments during government shutdowns.

Obama's brought a lot of personal pique and pettiness to Washington politics. Sure, we may roll our eyes at the excessive formalities and phony manners of Capitol Hill -- "my good friend, the distinguished gentleman" -- but it beats "I won" as a nose-thumbing debate-settler, or calling your opponents "tea-baggers."

Obama-era Washington is a nasty pit of vipers, as an administration that's gotten thoroughly clobbered at the ballot box in congressional elections attempts to wall off Congress from any significant role in American governance at home and abroad. You may or may not need experience in Washington to appreciate the Constitution, checks and balances, and the rule of law. That's what the next Republican president needs to restore, whether he's a longtime veteran of Washington or an absolute newcomer.

Why a Little Island in the Baltic Sea Might Be Really Important Soon

Here's a chilling little speculative scenario from a Ukrainian writer named Thomas Thiener. He posted this over the weekend, and claims that since then Russian hackers have attempted to block his server.

Last week Russia's air force progressed from testing military preparedness to dry runs for a major air assault. A combination of transport planes and fighter jets flew from Russia over the entire Baltic Sea to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad. While Sweden didn't even manage to get a plane in the air, Italian air force jets flying out from Šiauliai air base in Lithuania intercepted and identified the Russian jets. The Italian fighters were outnumbered 4 to 1.

The obvious targets of Russian aggression along the Baltic Sea, namely Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, all share a land border with Russia, so there is no need to mount a large scale air assault to overrun these tiny states. But to keep these three nations occupied and oppressed, Putin must keep the US air force and the US Navy out of the Baltic Sea. This is why Russia is preparing to assault, occupy and fortify Sweden's Gotland Island.

That first part is confirmed by official reports: "The group of eight Su-27 and Su-34 fighter jets and three Russian military transports was intercepted over international waters on Tuesday, a Lithuanian Ministry of Defense spokeswoman said."

If Russia controls Gotland and bases S-300 or S-400 long range air-defense missile systems and K-300P Bastion-P long range anti-ship missile systems on the island, then US air force planes cannot reach the Baltic States and US Navy ships cannot pass the Danish Straits to enter the Baltic Sea. Russia has already S-300 and K-300P stationed in Kaliningrad along with tactical nuclear 9K720 Iskander missiles, but as Poland's military could overrun Kaliningrad and destroy Russia's anti-ship and air-defense systems there, Russia will occupy Gotland a few hours before the attack on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania begins. And here is how Russia intends to win this war . . .

Theiner walks us through a three-day conflict that posits a thoroughly unprepared Sweden, a divided, reluctant NATO, an obstinate Germany, and a ruthlessly determined Russia. Once Russia has established air and naval defense on Gotland, Russian troops move into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to "free the people" of these three nations from their "fascist governments."

Keep in mind that a military friend of mine once speculated, "The moment Russia hits a NATO target in Europe, we can sink every ship they have in the Pacific at a moment's notice. Hope that bit of territory they grab is worth half their fleet." But that, of course, presumes the United States Navy receives such an order from a commander-in-chief willing to make such a daring and punishing counter-punch.

(In Theiner's chilling scenario, NATO action is held up by Germany, which keeps insisting on the necessity to "not provoke Russia," the need to give Putin an "off ramp," and so on. Are we so certain that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry wouldn't be the ones insisting that the Russian aggression must be resolved at the negotiating table?)

Even if the details are wrong, isn't this a broad-brush-stroke vision of what Vladimir Putin would like to see? A crippled, divided NATO, an acquiescent Germany, an Eastern Europe reduced to servitude to a Russian superpower, and a thoroughly humiliated United States of America?

But hey, this is just a crazy scenario from some paranoid, anti-Russian Ukranian, right? Er, maybe . . .

Sweden will put troops back on the strategic Baltic Sea island of Gotland after a decade-long absence as increased sabre-rattling from Russia unnerves the region.

Peter Hultqvist, Sweden's defence minister, said he would recommend placing a company of about 150 soldiers on Gotland, which lies almost midway between mainland Sweden and Latvia in the middle of the Baltic Sea. Sweden will also step up military exercises around the island involving the army, navy and air force.

Keep an eye on that island.

'Reform Conservatives' Continued

Campaign Spot reader Stuart suggests a potential problem in the term "reform conservative" stems from the existing terminology of Reform vs. Conservative Judaism.

He concludes, "Reform is a weak word. Good-government Conservatism is weaker. How about Working Conservatism? That expresses the idea that it's conservatism that works, conservatism that concerns itself with making things work, and conservatism on the side of the working man and woman."

Back when I was at Congressional Quarterly in the ~~Mesozoic Era~~ late 1990s, the editors forbid reporters from using the word "reform" in our writing. They decided the word was too positive and implied an endorsement of any legislation using the term. So we ended up writing a lot about "legislation designed to overhaul campaign-finance laws" instead of "campaign-finance reform."

ADDENDA: Regarding yesterday's nefarious idea of buying up all of the available ad time in October 2016 now, one reader writes in:

Broadcasters are required to serve the public trust to retain their FCC licenses. If broadcasters were to start selling literally all their ad time to one side, there would instantly be a huge outcry from the president and Democratic legislators for the FCC to reinstate the awful "fairness doctrine," with which I'm sure you're familiar. And it just so happens that the current head of the FCC has proven himself incapable of resisting serious pressure from the president. (Read Holman Jenkins' recent columns on net neutrality and Title II.) There's no question in my mind he'd reinstate the fairness doctrine, and you'd have handed the Left a huge win in the battle for access to broadcasting.

A veteran of successful Senate campaigns tells me, "I think the reason is that candidates have the right to purchase, i.e., the issue ads are 'pre-emptible.' Also, candidates get to purchase at a lower price than the outside groups, too."

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

The Noonday Devil
Acedia, the Unnamed Evil of Our Times
By Dom Jean-Charles Nault

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences or unsubscribe, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

Obama Did Change Washington . . . for the Worse

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs