A Much Needed Win

It seems that we suddenly have a presidential campaign. Only a few days ago, the media was preparing Governor Romney's obituary, concluding that his thus far moribund campaign was essentially over. However, Romney's performance in last night's presidential debate exceeded all expectations and, for his supporters,
their wildest hopes. He managed to dominate the discussion, putting a befuddled President Obama on the defensive, while presenting himself as well-informed, presidential, and likable.

One of the most telling signs of Romney's successes was Obama's body language throughout the debate. The president was consistently scowling, grimacing and shaking his head in disagreement. He looked confused, unprepared and ill-at-ease. At one point, a camera shot of the backs of the two candidates revealed that while Romney was standing straight and tall, Obama had nervously bent his knee and was rolling his foot behind the podium.

Obama's jittery-ness was in stark contrast to Romney's poise—both in his body language and his speech. The governor was clearly well-prepared and not only defined the scope of the discussion but had reasonable and succinct responses to every attack from the president. This left Obama with little choice but to continuously harp on tired and refuted talking points; for instance, the ineffectual attack on corporate jet owners and constant reiteration of a bogus $5 trillion tax-break.

Yet what was most interesting about Romney's performance was that he displayed a couple of characteristics, previously absent from his campaign, in the most flattering manner. First, he had a clear and convincing message. He carefully outlined his thoughts and principles on a wide-array of issues and policies. While the president claimed Romney did not offer specifics, this charge fell rather flat. In contrast to his campaign so far, Romney was a man of ideas and solutions. He offered a vision for the country, which displayed that he could succeed as a leader.

Up until the debate, this has been a horrendous failure of the Republican campaign, which has largely focused on attacking the president without offering much in the way of alternatives. There was some hope that by bringing the wonky Paul Ryan onto the ticket, that Romney would delve into policy. However, the opposite seemed to happen, with Ryan's intellectualism being silenced in favor of Romney-esque stoicism. This, as the campaign's poll numbers showed and the pundits screamed, was a foolish tactic.

However, last night's volte-face appears to have moved the campaign in the needed direction. CNN's live tracker, which followed the real-time sentiments of undecided Colorado voters, confirmed the merits of offering arguments about policy and principles. When either candidate spoke about his ideas the voters responded favorably, when they attacked their counterpart the voters soured. It seems that despite the accepted "wisdom" that negative campaigns work, voters want to hear proposals.

Second, Romney finally shed the defensive stance he has held throughout the campaign. Previously, Romney frequently looked like he was trying to back away from an issue or deny responsibility. This made him appear to be weak and indecisive and allowed Obama's attacks to stick. However, last night he was a different man. He owned his record and beliefs and explained why they are right. He fought back against the president's distortions and explained nuances in a clear and reasonable manner. This made Obama look petty and dissimulative, while giving the viewer a logical argument about the veracity of the Romney-way.

This simple tactic of owning and then explaining his principles and beliefs was an enormous step toward strengthening Romney's campaign. Voters want a leader who is confident, who has ideas, and who is able to explain his policies in a nuanced but understandable manner. The Romney who was on display last night succeeded at all of this.

Hopefully, he will maintain this momentum. Obama will undoubtedly come to the next debate more prepared. Romney has to continue to shine, turning his campaign into an expression of his vision for the country, while defending his principles and policies with poise and candor. While the election is quite near, Romney still has time to make his case. A Romney in this mold will be hard to beat.

Fear and Loathing in Benghazi

It seems the hordes of Muslim extremists are at it again. This time they have supposedly responded to an inconspicuous movie, which mocked the prophet Mohammed, by violently protesting outside of U.S. embassies and murdering the U.S. ambassador to Libya. However, as recent reports indicate, the film was not the real cause of the violence. Instead, the attacks were a well-planned terrorist plot, aimed at humiliating the United States on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, responding to the killing of terrorist leaders by U.S. drone attacks, and securing key documents from within the Benghazi embassy.

The violence has sparked a domestic row between the two U.S. presidential candidates. Governor Romney was criticized the administration's response, which initially apologized for the film for offending Muslim sensibilities. He said "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks." This was in response to the first statement from the U.S. government which stated that:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

The administration subsequently and sharply criticized the violence. In Secretary of State Clinton's words: "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today."

Nevertheless, judging by recent reports, it is apparent that the administration focused on the wrong aspect at the outset, validating Romney's criticisms. By portraying the event as an overly violent response to an offensive video, rather than a planned terrorist attack, the administration's goal was (wrongly) to assuage anger, not thwart enemies of the United States.

While there is an argument to be made about using carefully worded platitudes to calm a potential diplomatic debacle (success in international relations often comes to those who can artfully use words to avoid using action), there are proper and improper ways to wield diplomatic finesse. The Obama administration's initial response made a number of crucial mistakes that, in combination with past errors, display a profound and naive understanding of the Middle East and public diplomacy, shed insight into the president's misguided worldview, and lay a framework for further attacks on U.S. interests and personnel.

The administration's first error is that they seemingly believe that this sort of Muslim violence is a direct response to a Western provocation. Whether it is the recent film, cartoons printed by a Dutch newspaper, or  a Florida pastor burning copies of the Qu'ran, the administration presupposes that the response in the Middle East is understandable, even if its inexcusable (to be fair, the administration repeatedly and publicly condemns the violence as unjustifiable). The logic stems from a belief that if foolish Americans would just avoid such hateful acts, the Arabs now rioting in the streets would have little reason to resort to violence or detest America.

But as the unfolding story indicates, this logic is far from true. There are much deeper animosities, angers, and conflicting worldviews at work in the Middle East. The American condemnation of the film, alongside verbal, diplomatic, and coercive action against the perpetrators of the violence, did nothing to assuage Muslim angst. In fact, riots and protests broke out in Muslim capitals across the globe, directing Islamic wrath at U.S. embassies in a number of countries. Protests were even staged outside the Swiss embassy in Iran (the Swiss represent U.S. interests there) and in Israel. Jews and the "Zionist-American conspiracy" became instant rhetorical targets and some Arabs celebrated the September 11th attacks.

What is truly at work in the Middle East is an intricate and complex set of ideologies and emotions—a respect for and jealousy of the successes of the West combined with a distaste, even hatred, of Western values. These are often coupled with domestic woes—frustration with economic conditions and poor leadership. Finally and most significantly, there is the role of the jihadists, who exploited the film to further their goal of armed jihad against the West. Anti-Islamic films or cartoons are at most a trigger that set these forces in motion.

Obama's advisers presumably understand the complexities of the Middle East, which is why the president's responses are so befuddling. Apologies will not address the real tension between Islam and the West. Nor will they solve the domestic woes in the Middle East or dissuade fundamentalist terrorists. If anything apologies reinforce, to those Muslims who are so imbibed in societies where dictators can control such expression, the image of a malignant West. For those Muslims who understand that the U.S. government has little control, and thus little responsibility, for such publications (however offensive), apologies are simply condescending.

So then why apologize? It seems that the only reasonable explanation lies in Obama's faulty worldview. As has been argued before, Obama sees the world through a lens that can be aptly described as the "problem of the underdog." In a trend that dominates both his domestic and foreign policies, Obama places an emphasis on castigating those in power and bolstering the supposedly weak. The successful, the powerful, the rich, the former imperialist, the banker, Wall Street, the business owner or anyone else "on top" got there by pushing someone else down. All, by the virtue of their position, have a moral inferiority to those who occupy the concomitant underdog position.

As a representative of the most powerful nation, Obama thus has a responsibility to apologize for our supposed sins. His immediate reaction was to address the slight that allegedly sent the Arab street into an angst-ridden, violent frenzy. The gut reaction of the administration was to publicly atone, in the naive belief that self-castigation would dissipate the violence.

But such a worldview is naive. It, as the administration is now admitting, has failed to address the realities of the situation. It treated a terrorist attack like a PR matter, solidifying in many's minds, both in the West and throughout the Muslim world, that it was cruel and provocative Americans who's blasphemy against the prophet instigated the violence.

This weakens the United States' global stature. It gives credence to the argument that the United States is the crux of the world's problems. It creates and reinforces a false linkage between the individual acts of American citizens and the positions, influence and control of the U.S. government. But most importantly, it fails to address the real issues at work—the political, social, and economic plight of the Middle East, the ideological incompatibilities between political Islam and liberal democracy, and a passionate fundamentalist force that wants to overturn the West's dominance.

While the Romney camp has certainly oversimplified the issue in order to score political points, the administration clearly mishandled the situation at the outset. It is certainly courageous and noble to apologize when our country does something wrong—such is an act of diplomacy that is unfortunately underused—yet it is quite another to apologize for or even condemn the acts of one's own citizens, particularly when the government has little control over their behaviors.

The administration would do better to hold a posture that does not apologize for who we are as a nation nor fail to defend the values and principles that have made this country great. Instead the president should use the opportunities to not only condemn the violence against Americans but to educate the Muslim world, in its inchoate struggle for democracy, that the principles of America, such freedom of speech and expression, have tremendous value, even if they do come with costs.

Ship the Outsource Debate Overseas

Outsourcing (or offshoring) seems to be the political battleground of the week. Both presidential campaigns have launched into a finger-pointing offensive of claiming their opponent has contributed to the shipment of American jobs overseas. The outsourcing debate was sparked by an investigation into and a series of poltical attacks at Romney's activities at Bain. The Republican campaign retorted with recriminations regarding the handling of stimulus money.

While we'll leave the fact-checking to the newspapers, the entire debate is somewhat ridiculous, particularly from Romney's perspective—the supposed voice of economic reason during this electoral season. It is based on the ludicrous proposition that outsourcing jobs is an absolute negative for the U.S. economy. In simplistic political-speech, which assumes Americans are just too stupid to understand basic economics, the argument holds that when a company either hires a foreign company to perform a specific task or moves operations abroad that it is a unilateral loss for the domestic economy.

The first time I saw this "negative" ad from the Obama campaign, I could not help but think that the gist of the comments was true and Romney should proudly own it.

But such arguments ignore basic economic truisms that are taught in any introductory economics course. Trade, whether domestically or internationally, benefits everyone. The simple concept of comparative advantage—the situation in which one producer can produce a good relatively cheaper than its competitors—underpins this logic. By definition, every producer will have a comparative advantage, thus yielding an economic logic for specialization and trade.

In simple language, this is precisely what motivates outsourcing and offshoring. Other countries have a comparative advantage in labor. It is thus relatively cheaper for them to "produce" labor. Since they are comparatively better at labor, trade frees up American resources to do what we are better at (such as research and development). We can then, for instance, trade our research for their labor, creating products that benefit both sides of the transaction at a cheaper price. This specialization and trade helps both economies grow.

The real world is naturally more complicated (short-run costs of reallocating resources are very real), but the essence of the argument holds. Outsourcing and offshoring are good for the U.S. economy (if they are done without distorting effects of government meddling). But one must look at the entire effect, not just the outsourced job to appreciate this dynamic.

So how does outsourcing help? An outsourced job means that a domestic company can now get the work done for a cheaper price (it would not outsource the job if it was more expensive to do so). This frees up resources (money) to put to other uses. A company can either cut costs, passing along savings to consumers (maybe in an attempt to increase market share) who can then save or purchase more, or reinvest the saved money into expanding the business. In truth, both probably occur and both help grow the economy. As is usually the case, a growing economy creates new jobs, most likely in sectors in which the country has a comparative advantage.

If one thus looks at the economy on a holistic level, a cheaper input to production (cheaper labor abroad) will generally help an economy grow and create more jobs. A smart business leader, economist, or president will acknowledge that it is best to have the most efficient producer or worker do the job, regardless of national borders or any other consideration. Outsourcing is thus one piece of a broader economic puzzle, which allows an economy to operate at its highest and most efficient level.

But our politicians never try to explain this basic economic fact. Whether they think Americans are unable to comprehend such simple economics or are they beholden to special interests, both the left and the right seem to be stuck to a pseudo-protectionist argument. Arguably, much of this tenacity to the outsourcing-is-evil argument is due to political expediency. It is much easier, in a world of sound-bites, to make a a simple accusation of sending jobs to India, than explain an economic principle. But such expediency is damaging, not only by dumbing-down political discourse but by empowering certain groups to take-advantage of such language to further their own narrow desires (think unions and noncompetitive industries who want protection).


The Romney campaign would be wise to take a new angle in this debate. Much as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie does, Romney need to take an approach of separate, own, and educate. He needs to separate the fact from fiction, dismissing Obama's ridiculous conclusions about outsourcing, proudly own what he has done, and educate the people on why such actions are good. In other words, Romney has to stop looking like he is running from some greedy business transactions and start explaining how a smart economy works.

Such a change in tactic would not only benefit the United States by pushing our economic policy toward sound principles, but greatly help the Romney campaign. He'll regain the image of a responsible and educated economic steward, earn respect for standing up to smear campaigns and distortions of economic facts, make Obama look like the economic lightweight he is, and rise to a presidential level. It is a novel political strategy, but one that if properly employed will reap tremendous rewards for a candidate who is too often criticized for lacking a backbone.

He "Deserves" a Second Term?

If Obama's arrogance and sense of entitlement have not yet come through in his policies and his speeches, he has made it abundantly clear, in a recent interview with NBC's Matt Lauer, that he deserves a second term. When questioned yesterday by Lauer regarding Obama's 2009 statement, "“If I don’t have this done [the economy fixed] in three years, than this is going to be a one-term proposition,” the president responded by stating “I deserve a second term but we're not done.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Regardless of what one thinks about his policies, the hubris that emanates from such comments is revealing. As he has repeatedly demonstrated, Obama's leadership is steeped in a worldview that consistently demands and expects some to provide for others. His mentality and his policies are one of entitlement and obligation, unfortunately in direct contrast to an ethos of individual responsibility and self-reliance. This view is apparent whether the state is obliged to provide health insurance for all, bankers or the rich owe their money and wealth to others, or, now, the American people owe Obama a second term, presumably for his "well-deserved" hard work.

State of Class Warfare

Last night's State of the Union Address was rather dull. The President offered little in the way of anything new. He continued to spin his usual bombast and, while trying to portray himself as a cross-aisle conciliator, continued his divisive rhetoric and class warfare. He even went as far as to acknowledge (and failed to deny) that many might perceive his proposals and language from a polarizing perspective.

As the State of the Union Address and Obama's past record both indicate, class warfare is a key ingredient in the Left's worldview. It is a perspective that relies upon separating Americans into groups—classes—where the supposedly more fortunate have certain responsibilities to members of other classes. The Left tries to portray itself as the defender of the lower- and middle-classes, against the excesses of the uppermost classes. Accordingly, the Democrats attempt to cast the Republicans as defenders of the rich. Naturally, a dynamic develops, a divisiveness and a sort of warfare, of two-sides where the Democrats, from their perspective, try to claim the mantle of defending the average American against Republican-backed elite.

Unfortunately, this plot line is often successfully bought by the media and many in the electorate. But it unfairly distorts the Republican position. The Republicans (at least most) are not defending the rich, but are defending every American's right to own and keep their property.

This is an inclusive agenda. All Americans should be treated the same, regardless of one's income level. Each has the same claim to the product of his work or investment, whether labeled low-income, middle-class, or rich. In fact, the Republican ideology, if allowed, could completely do away with all of these labels. From the perspective of the government and its laws, there should be no class separations. All Americans should be afforded the same rights and should be treated equally under the law.

This stands in direct contrast to the Democratic worldview, which relies upon labels and divisiveness. The Left loves to classify and categorize individuals, grouping them by economic background, race, or other arbitrary division. Each group is then offered unique treatment, privileges, or responsibilities. This separates Americans and creates undue tensions between truly artificial groups.

Grievously, many accept this portrayal of American society. They cannot help but view America through this lens of autonomous and distinct groups, even though there are far more cross-cutting similarities among Americans than there are Balkanized group identities.

Nevertheless, many other Americans see through this distorted worldview. The low-income Republicans that many academics and pundits like to claim consistently vote against their economic interest are a prime example. It is not necessarily true that the so-called rural social conservatives choose social policy over economic interest. Instead many see the Republican economic position for what it is meant to be—a defense of every American's economic interests.

Whether one is rich or poor, it is in one's interest to have a system that believes that the product of each American's work is his or her own property. The government does not, as the Left likes to believe, have an a priori claim on one's income, thus graciously allowing individuals to keep the residual amount after "proper" [arbitrary] redistribution has occurred. Instead, our income and wealth are our own property and we have the right to do with it as we please. Taxes are to be paid to support the essential services that a government must provide, but these should be based on the proper needs of the system and our responsibilities as citizens to meet these needs, not on some arbitrary definition of "having too much."

Obama and the Democrats continue to distort this message, attempting to confuse Americans into believing that somehow some Americans owe something to others. This is simply not true, yet deeply divisive. Americans are in this together. We have one country in which we must share responsibilities and we should have one set of laws that treats everyone the same.

Great Friends of Israel

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and President Obama failed to turn off their microphones when they decided to bash Israeli ally Prime Minister Benyamin Netanayhu. Sarkozy was overheard saying that, "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar." Obama responded with sympathy stating,"you're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."

While the two are certainly entitled to their opinions, one would think it wise not to let such criticisms come out in such an embarrassing and public fashion. No one has doubted Obama's animosity towards the Israeli government (and, well, the French were never questionable on this front), but such statements only confirm the dismal relationship that the president has developed with an important ally. Such gaffes can only continue further deterioration in the US-Israeli relationship and hinder any ability for the US to serve as an honest mediator in the peace process. If Obama has not done enough to thwart a just peace in the Middle East through his foolish foreign policy, this vocal outburst certainly helping the cause.

Obama Turns to the Rabbis

President Obama is starting to worry about the growing divide between the administration and American Jews, a normally solid constituency in the Democratic base. Last week's special election in NY represented the most recent signal of the Jewish voter's distaste with Obama's administration.

According to recent Gallup poll numbers, 40% of Jews disapprove of Obama, while only 55% approve of the president. This represents a sharp falloff from historical numbers. Obama received 78% of the Jewish vote in the 2008 election.

Aside from general economic concerns, much of this decline in support is due to Obama's lackluster policies in the Middle East. His attempts to push an Arab-Israeli peace have unsurprisingly backfired. His two major sins—pushing Israeli PM Netanyahu on settlements and demanding an agreement based on the 1967 borders—have greatly angered many Jews. These policies have led to stalemate, as they forced both Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to become locked into non-negotiable positions.

Obama's naive meddling has led to the most recent disaster today at the UN—a unilateral call for statehood by the Palestinians. Not only has this dealt a blow to the possibility of peace, but it has put Obama in an untenable position. If, as expected, this petition goes to vote in the Security Council this coming Monday, the United States will use its veto, undermining Obama's futile attempts to reach out to the Arab world. The administration's poor foresight has boxed them into a horrible corner, leaving them with little saving grace in the eyes of the international community. Somehow Obama has managed to anger everyone on all sides of the issue.

While there is little to be done about the international community at this point, Obama is apparently desperate to shore up the Jewish vote—a key constituency in what is an increasingly uphill battle for reelection. Obama  has directly reached out to a wide community of rabbis, attempting to garner Jewish support by sprinkling High Holiday^[1] sermons with administration talking-points:

...[T]he Obama administration on Thursday convened a conference call with several hundred rabbis and Jewish leaders. According to a participant on the call, President Obama promoted his jobs bill—noting that those who have been more blessed should pay their fair share—and briefed the rabbis on U.S. efforts to counter the push for a declaration of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

Phone calls with religious leaders is apparently a regular event, but one that has increasing importance as the president gears up for the 2012 election. The administration is clearly on the defensive, sending out Democratic National Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (a Jew), to assure pundits that Obama has firmly maintained the Jewish vote. Wasserman Schultz rejected any indication of trouble with the Jewish vote, stating:

That is absolutely not the case, and it will be demonstrated in the election next year that the natural home for Jewish voters, both domestically in terms of policy and in our Israel policy, is the Democratic Party and President Obama as our candidate.

Wasserman Schultz must either live in la-la land, oblivious to the poll numbers, or simply be hoping that if she states the illogical enough it will become true. Unfortunately for Obama, it is unlikely that simple rhetoric will help his waning support among Jews—or other demographics, for that matter. If Obama wants to win reelection he has to change his strategy: cut out the meaningless speeches and actually show some good policy. The administration needs to turn around the economy and straighten out foreign policy, not beseech rabbis to indoctrinate their congregations.

---

Note:

[1] The Jewish High Holidays, Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) will occur over the next two and a half weeks.

A Rebuke Against Obama

One of America's most Democratic congressional seats has gone red.  NY-09, the district once held by former Congressman Anthony Weiner, was won last night by Republican Bob Turner in a special election to replace the disgraced former congressman.  The loss of this long-held district is a huge blow to the Obama administration.

The Democratic pedigree of the district is astounding and the statistics say it all.  The district, currently a bastion of (mostly Orthodox) Jews and Catholics nestled in Queens and Brooklyn, has been held by Democrats since 1923.  It has produced such notables as Chuck Schumer (current senator from New York) and Geraldine Ferraro (vice presidential candidate for Walter Mondale).  Only two Republicans have held the seat since 1874 (for a total of six years) and over the entire history of the United States, Republicans have represented the district for approximately nine years.

Yet even if the statistics are insufficient to convince naysayers of the impact, local Democrats concede the results are a clear rebuke of Obama. For instance, Democratic analyst Hank Sheinkopf said:

The Democrats said no to Obama, no to his economic plan, and no to his position on Israel.... It’s major smack at Democrats, a definite rejection of President Obama and it’s a warning that says if Catholics in the most blue of blue states can vote for the Republican they can do it in other states as well and the Democrats may have real trouble.

But while Sheinkopf is correct to focus on the Catholic vote, Obama should also worry about the second major demographic that makes up NY-09:  the Jewish vote.  New York Democratic leader Ed Koch outwardly supported Turner's campaign as a message against Obama's approach to the Middle East. Many Jews, a large Democratic staple, have become increasingly frustrated with Obama's caustic policies towards Israel and have turned against the administration.  This vote is a major indicator of that trend.

Dan Senor, in the Wall Street Journal, details a laundry lists of administration affronts to Israel, but sums up the meaning of the vote rather succinctly.

A Public Policy Poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was winning by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved of President Obama's handling of Israel.

This trend, should it continue, does not bode well for the president and will certainly aid the Republicans come 2012.  Obama is getting hit hard in the supposedly safe bastions.  His mismanagement of the economy, poor foreign policy, and general inability to manage the political climate in Washington, have alienated many of his traditional voters.

And yet despite this wealth of evidence, many Democrats have tried to disavow any linkages to the administration's policy.  This is foolish.  Democrats can choose to ignore the lesson, but the interpretation of the special election as a rebuke against Obama stands rather solidly.  Even Turner acknowledged that there was little daylight between his and former opponent's, Democrat David Weprin, positions, particularly regarding Israel.  The voters, he argued, were not so much voting for him as sending a message of discontent to Washington.  Hopefully, for Obama's sake and the country's, the message does not fall on deaf ears.

Showdown at the UN and a Setback in the Middle East

According to the New York Times, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has confirmed the Palestinians' decision to appeal to the UN for unilateral statehood.  While the vote will undoubtedly fail to pass the Security Council, there is a good chance that it will pass the General Assembly, where the US does not possess a veto.

While in a practical sense the vote is meaningless - the General Assembly does not have the power to grant statehood - the decision to press for unilateral recognition will have severe negative consequences for the Israeli-Arab peace process.  Abbas's decision to proceed follows extensive pressure by Israeli, American, and other diplomats to avoid making an international scene at the UN.

The vote could serve to severely raise tensions in the region, already inflamed by the Arab Spring.  Some pundits believe that it could spark rioting and Israeli reprisals within the West Bank and Gaza.  It has already led to increased divisiveness in the world community as the US Congress has moved to cut funding to any UN organization that supports unilateral Palestinian statehood.  But worst of all, it may force Israel, already feeling isolated and abandoned, particularly by its number one ally, to retrench, granting further power to anti-peace extremists.  Ultimately, the vote will cause greater polarization between the sides and move them further away from an attainable peace accord.

Undoubtedly, the Obama administration's shoddy handling of the Middle East has contributed to this unfortunate turn of events.  Obama's insistence on Israeli preconditions for negotiations, namely an immediate freeze on building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a bold-faced demand for a settlement based on the 1967 armistice lines, has all but terminated any common ground for negotiations.  While these terms will likely be incorporated into any final peace accord, they cannot serve as starting points for negotiations.

Obama may understand the need for these terms in any final agreement, but he has allowed his policy wonkery to get in the way of sound politics.  His vocalized demands have forced the Israelis to harden their positions, especially given the right-wing basis of the governing Likud coalition.  Likewise, such explicit preconditions have boxed-in Abbas, who can no longer come to the bargaining table deprived of these assurances (the Israelis won't be giving them) without appearing to undermine his people.

This is clearly a huge factor in precipitating Abbas's turn to the UN, a move that angers both the US and Israel.  According to the NYT:

Mr. Abbas says for direct talks to begin, Israel should carry out a short-term freeze in settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as agree that the basis of the talks would be the lines drawn in 1967.

This is shame.  The Middle East peace process has enough hindrances already and sorely does not need more.  Accordingly, any forward movement on a Palestinian state will be thwarted the moment the issue is put to a unilateral vote before the General Assembly.  Hopefully, the Palestinian leadership realizes this before it is too late.

Has Perry Helped Romney?

Dana Milbank has an interesting thesis:  Rick Perry's rapid rise to the top in the race for the GOP presidential nomination has helped former front-runner Mitt Romney.

[Perry's ascent] has, by unburdening Romney of his head-of-the-pack status, released him from the tedious and timid campaign he was running. Relieved of the high expectations, Romney is free to take sides unapologetically in a battle over whether the Republican Party will reclaim its mainstream traditions or remain a protest movement.

Romney, who has led in the vast majority of primary polls over the summer, has recently and summarily been replaced by Perry, who shot to the top following his recent entry into the field.  Perry has strongly appealed to the Tea Party movement, but has caused some consternation among moderates and independents.  His entry has also notably hurt Tea Partier Bachmann, in addition to Romney.


Whatever Perry's immediate success has been, Milbank's argument cuts to the core of the Republican primaries.  Simply put, they are a battle between the moderate establishment and the far-right Tea Party.  Ultimately, the GOP (particularly the far-right) is going to have to decide if it wants to select a candidate that hews the Tea Party line or choose someone that has a greater chance of wooing moderates and thus defeating Obama.  


If Milbank's argument is right, Romney now is in the best position to portray himself as the only one that can beat Obama.  According to Milbank, Romney has successfully began recasting himself a moderate, pro-market, Republican by presenting reasonable conservative economic solutions and announcing a mainstream team of economic advisers, while shedding the fire and brimstone of the Tea Party.  When it comes down to the actual primaries, such a tactic may swing the vote in favor of Romney, who can appeal to the sensibilities of the GOP: "Select me or Obama gets four more years."  The Republican base may be fired up about Tea Party candidates, but if such a candidate cannot beat Obama in a national election, he is useless.

American Exceptionalism, the Left, and Obama

What is American exceptionalism?  And, what is Obama's and the American left's view of it?  Shelby Steele has the answer in a well-crafted essay in the Wall Street Journal.

American exceptionalism is, among other things, the result of a difficult rigor: the use of individual initiative as the engine of development within a society that strives to ensure individual freedom through the rule of law. Over time a society like this will become great. This is how—despite all our flagrant shortcomings and self-betrayals—America evolved into an exceptional nation.

Steele's link between this "difficult rigor," essentially the American character, and our own exceptional standing as a global leader is aptly made and far too often not discussed or even considered by many.  Our own commitments to hard-work, sacrifice, innovativeness and ingenuity, individuality, and, amongst other attributes, the rule of law, have played an enormous role in developing the United States as a singularly powerful and desirable (in the terms of other people and nations wanting to be like us or join us) nation.  However, many in America, particularly on the left, do not agree with these values and especially our exceptionalism.  Steele outlines how America's imperfect history has become, for some, a cloak of repulsiveness over America's current successes and the values that helped us achieve them.

At home the values that made us exceptional have been smeared with derision. Individual initiative and individual responsibility—the very engines of our exceptionalism—now carry a stigma of hypocrisy. For centuries America made sure that no amount of initiative would lift minorities and women. So in liberal quarters today—where historical shames are made to define the present—these values are seen as little more than the cynical remnants of a bygone era.  

... 

So we Americans cannot help but feel some ambivalence toward our singularity in the world—with its draining entanglements abroad, the selfless demands it makes on both our military and our taxpayers, and all the false charges of imperial hubris it incurs. Therefore it is not surprising that America developed a liberalism—a political left—that took issue with our exceptionalism. It is a left that has no more fervent mission than to recast our greatness as the product of racism, imperialism and unbridled capitalism.

This self-loathing is bad enough as is.  It is never practically or emotionally commendable to look in the mirror and hate what you see - this is why psychologists make quite nice salaries helping individuals understand that their flaws or historical missteps do not obscure their true value.  But as so often occurs in individuals, Steele correctly argues that this systematic recasting of American values and exceptionalism as morally defunct has lead to the undermining of the very greatness of the American way.   

Since the '60s we have enfeebled our public education system even as our wealth has expanded. Moral and cultural relativism now obscure individual responsibility. We are uninspired in the wars we fight, calculating our withdrawal even before we begin—and then we fight with a self-conscious, almost bureaucratic minimalism that makes the wars interminable.

America seems to be facing a pivotal moment: Do we move ahead by advancing or by receding—by reaffirming the values that made us exceptional or by letting go of those values, so that a creeping mediocrity begins to spare us the burdens of greatness?

In Steele's analysis, this is not just a historical force of the left, but a very real problem of the current administration, who's leaders were raised in the heyday of this sort of political thinking.  Now, as leaders of the very institution they were raised to detest, they are torn between pursuing their responsibility of advancing America's position and being true to the elixir of principles they imbibed as youth.

Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil—an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom. 

...

As a president, Barack Obama has been a force for mediocrity. He has banked more on the hopeless interventions of government than on the exceptionalism of the people. His greatest weakness as a president is a limp confidence in his countrymen. He is afraid to ask difficult things of them.

All-in-all, this leaves America and the left in a very precarious position.  How do we trust a leadership that wants to "take the country down a notch" or wants to "lead from behind"?  How can the people be comfortable with representatives that were raised on an opposition ideology, who have fixated on what is wrong, not what is right with our system?  But most importantly how can those who ascribe to such beliefs reconcile the fact that their ideology is in many ways at odds with the responsibility of ruling?

Redefining Poverty

There is a problem of definitions in American politics.  Although not a new phenomenon, it is unfortunately one that is rarely discussed.  In many instances, challenging the accepted political definition of certain words leads to harsh, acerbic, and often unwarranted attacks by those who wish to defend a political definition for their own partisan uses.

In a recent report, the Heritage Foundation has courageously taken a stand against the definition of one of these words - "Poverty".  The abstract to the full report states the following:

For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population. Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem.

The report continues by discussing the standard of living experienced by most "poor" Americans and how high these are, both in historical comparisons and vis-à-vis other countries.  It makes the key argument that there is a need to separate the truly destitute (eg. those that chronically lack shelter, food, or clothing) from those that are just defined as poor.  Due to limited resources, this expansive definition of poverty has not only injured the truly destitute but provided for those that are arguably not needy.

The U.S. Census Bureau, which determines the poverty thresholds, bases their calculation of these thresholds on a 1963 study that looked at the Department of Agriculture's low cost food plan.  Surprisingly, it was not designed to reflect the daily needs of an individual or family.  "...[They] did not develop the poverty thresholds as a standard budget... a list of goods and services that a family of a specified size and composition would need to live at a designated level of well being." 

While the Census Bureau's "poverty thresholds" are only used for statistical purposes, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) further complicates issues by setting forth "poverty guidelines" for administrative purposes.  While these are generally based on the Census Bureau's numbers they are modified for various programs (for instance scaled up by some percentage).  These guidelines are what are used in most welfare programs.

Arguably both the Census Bureau's and HHS's definitions are exceedingly arbitrary.  As the Heritage report empirically supports, far too many are able to achieve substantial luxuries while nevertheless being deemed poor by the government.

A secondary source of definitional challenge comes from politicians who often use the term "poverty" in a relative sense.  A relative definition of poverty signifies that poverty is determined by some distance from a measure of "middle-class" - for instance the median income. This necessarily implies that the problem of poverty can never be solved, unless all incomes become very narrowly distributed around a median income.  Taken to its logical conclusion, in some perverse world, poverty could easily be eradicated by evaporating the wealth of the richest in a country without any concomitant change in the position of the poorest. By thus diminishing the "wealth gap," relative poverty would no longer exist. Obviously such a precept is laughable - no state would be better off by removing wealth from society - but it nevertheless is the natural conclusion of a doctrine of relative poverty.  In reality, "relative poverty" is nothing but a euphemism for "income inequality."

Instead, poverty should be measured in relation to what a person needs to achieve certain necessities, such as food, shelter, and clothing. By using an such an absolute measure, poverty is defined by essential characteristics not an arbitrary statistical formulation or relative comparison. This is undoubtedly a more just definition of poverty and puts the state in a better position to provide resources to alleviate poverty. It also provides proponents of the welfare state with a better position from which to defend the need for state assistance in eradicating poverty.

[By claiming the American definition of poverty is wrong, one does not mean there are not people who truly are in need, nor that there are not those who are truly poor in America.  But it does imply that a changed definition can have significant implications for welfare policies.]

It is to be expected that vested interests will attempt to avoid any discussion, let alone any changes to the definition of poverty.  Expansive definitions of poverty allow numerous constituents (particularly but not exclusively of the Democrats) to gain benefits at the expense of others.  It is unlikely that recipients of handouts (whether low- or high-income) will be willingly to abdicate their lucrative positions.  This is unfortunate and unfair.  In such times of economic difficulty and budgetary disorder it is necessary to carefully study if our current definitions and resulting policies have stepped beyond what is appropriate and into the realm of social and economic largess.

Arguably, much of our welfare state has become a system of wealth redistribution rather than a social safety net.  This is not so much a critique of the concept of the welfare state but of its abuse to fulfill abstract notions of social justice.  As Heritage points out, our working definition of poverty has become one much more about "income 'inequality'" than one of need.  This has arguably caused the state to venture far outside of its appropriate bounds and has indubitably contributed to our expanding fiscal woes.  According to the authors of the study, "President Obama plans to make this situation worse by creating a new 'poverty' measure that deliberately severs all connection between 'poverty' and actual deprivation... giving the President public relations ammunition for his 'spread-the-wealth' agenda."  A redefinition of "poverty" to more accurately reflect individuals' needs may not only help alleviate America's budgetary problems but allow a misappropriation of the system to revert to its moral underpinnings.

A Message from Chaz

Charles Krauthammer sends a message of warning to the GOP to not take the debt limit fight to the cliff.  Arguing that Obama has politically "outmaneuvered" the Republicans, he believes that the GOP needs to forgo a large reform package in order to "call Obama's bluff".  Instead they should opt for a short-term package and then address the reform issues later, putting the burden of failure on the Democrats.

If conservatives really want to get the nation’s spending under control, the only way is to win the presidency. Put the question to the country and let the people decide. To seriously jeopardize the election now in pursuit of a long-term, small-government, Ryan-like reform that is inherently unreachable without control of the White House may be good for the soul. But it could very well wreck the cause.

This seems to be sage advice.  As John Podhoretz reports at Commentary, a recent Quinnipiac poll suggests that if the US defaults on its debt, Republicans will be blamed by a margin of 48-34.  Republicans are right to be angry at the left's intransigence and unwillingness to seriously address our crumbling fiscal condition and are correct in the prescribed medicine of entitlement and tax reform.  Nevertheless, they must not lose perspective of the broader conflict.  It will be impossible to make the needed ideological shifts in our government, if the GOP cannot maintain a position of leadership.

The McConnell Escape Plan

Poor Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is getting slammed for what he has called "a sort of last-choice option[in the debt debate]."  The senate minority leader has proposed what seems to be a reasonable way for the Republicans to escape from the stalled negotiations over the debt limit, while putting the Democrats on the defensive.  Yet, very few seem to be thrilled with McConnell's proposal.
The proposed plan would allow Obama to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling at set times and set amounts with Congress possessing the right to prevent an increase with a 2/3 vote.  This would go into effect without any deal on taxes, entitlement reform, or spending cuts.
At first glance, such a proposal appears to be a timid withdrawal and much of the far right base is livid.  Over at RedState, Erick Erickson calls McConnell "Pontius Pilate" for his "historic capitulation".  Michelle Malkin howls that it is "another mortifying McConnell head-banging-against-the-wall moment."

While the base is right to be angry at missing the opportunity to really reform the system, their anger is woefully misplaced.  McConnell's plan certainly is not optimal.  Any ideal plan should reform both the tax and entitlement systems.  However, it is a second-best backup plan - one that is preferable to realizing too late that the Democrat's truly are willing to sink the country's economy in order to maintain a surfeit of entitlements.

The Wall Street Journal spells out the logic the best.

Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday he's concluded that no deal to raise the debt ceiling in return for serious spending restraint is possible with President Obama, and who can blame him? 

... 

The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won't vote for one, then what's the alternative to Mr. McConnell's maneuver?  

Republicans who say they can use the debt limit to force Democrats to agree to a balanced budget amendment are dreaming. Such an amendment won't get the two-thirds vote to pass the Senate, but it would give every Democrat running for re-election next year a chance to vote for it and claim to be a fiscal conservative.  

... 

Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He'll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He'll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he'll own the U.S. credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor's so decides.  

We'd far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won't go along, there's no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.

Essentially, if no deal is possible then McConnell's plan lets Obama take the fall for raising the debt ceiling without cuts (a surefire way to look like an economic dunce), absolve the Republicans of charges of being obstinate and causing economic turmoil, and salvage the economy in the short-run in order to fight the entitlement battle another day.  The alternatives?  Sign on to the Democrat's plan or allow the economy to run off a cliff.  If a deal with the Democrats truly isn't possible, the McConnell plan seems like a healthy way out.

The Escape Clause

In light of today’s meeting between congressional leaders and the White House over the debt ceiling and entitlement cuts, two Republican senators have voiced strong support for a balanced budget amendment. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) state that:

A constitutional amendment to balance the budget is imperative if we are to provide continuity of fiscal responsibility, and ensure we never return to the recklessness of the past and present. It's time Congress passed the amendment and gave the states—and "We the People"—their say.

The senators’ argument not only has wide support amongst the base and Republican politicians; all 47 GOP senators have endorsed such an amendment; but is sound and well articulated. The irresponsibility of continuous spending beyond our means is ruinous for the economic future of the United States. As Snowe and DeMint argue, “the only way to compel lawmakers to maintain their [fiscal] responsibility forever is a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.”

However while the merits of such an amendment are clear to nearly all on the right and the more sensible on the left, there is at least one potential drawback that needs to be considered in the language of any acceptable proposal. While in nearly all instances there really is no reason to maintain an imbalanced budget, there are a few possible exceptions to the rule. Any balanced budget amendment must include an escape clause in order to prevent hamstringing future leaders (or daresay lead to a repeal of this amendment).

The most obvious exception is the case of major war or national catastrophe. It would be extremely difficult for any country to wage a large scale war, like WWI or WWII, without resorting to debt. Not only would such a restriction be impractical, but it would arguably be immoral to prevent our leaders from taking necessary measures to protect the country.

Concomitantly, there is an argument to be made that the costs of such a war (WWIII) should be spread over multiple years, if not multiple generations. After all, the sacrifices of those who fought in WWII were not just for the benefit of their generation but their progeny as well. It may be impossible for future generations to shoulder past sacrifices in terms of lives; however, it is possible to spread the financial costs. Utilization of debt is a prime tool to balance the costs of such conflicts over multiple years and generations.

Obviously, such instances are exceptionally rare and thus the use of an “escape clause” would only be warranted under extreme circumstances. Nevertheless, the point remains that debt or even a deficit is not always a bad thing. In certain other instances such as significant national projects (how to define the worthy ones is a tough issue) and severe economic decline, deficit spending might have beneficial uses. Just like the responsible use of debt by the individual – a homeowner who takes on a mortgage or a student who takes out loans to pay for college – there are instances where government debt is acceptable, even beneficial.

Debt isn’t intrinsically bad. The excessive abuse of it is the problem. Funding programs (and entitlements) that the government should not even be involved in is bad. The current mentality of spending more than we produce on a yearly basis even goes beyond the Keynesian economics it purports to be based on (Keynes argued for deficit spending during economic downturns with surpluses in upturns, not deficit spending every year). Such a mentality needs to be eradicated and the balanced budget amendment is a fabulous way to do so. Politicians should just be careful that in their haste to solve a serious problem they don’t create a new one by failing to consider the potential benefits of debt. It is a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Technology Isn't The Problem

Russell Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University and research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, writes a strong critique in the Wall Street Journal of Obama's foolish attacks on technology.  He quotes Obama's comments blaming technological change as a structural issue and cause of job losses.

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.... You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.

This argument, as Roberts successfully explains, it complete bunk.  Productivity increases are the backbone of a successfully growing economy.  Such increases free up resources to be used in new industries, thus raising the standard of living for everyone.  Roberts argues that,

Somehow, new jobs get created to replace the old ones. Despite losing millions of jobs to technology and to trade, even in a recession we have more total jobs than we did when the steel and auto and telephone and food industries had a lot more workers and a lot fewer machines.

Roberts' economic argument is sound and history bares out his logic.  Tellingly, despite years of technological progress, unemployment rates have fluctuated around a band of 2.5% to a little over 10%.  If Obama's assertion that technology causes job losses and hurts the economy is correct, we would arguably see much greater unemployment, particularly as our history progressed.  After all, millions have left the agricultural industry, for instance, over the US's relatively short history.

The attempt to link technology growth and jobs loss is not only poor economics but down-right bad for the future of our country.  We already see this problem rampant in the discussion over free trade.  By confusing the masses, these arguments only help special interests gain from the loss of the country.  Technology, like trade, helps everyone in the long-run.  While some may be hurt in the short-run transition, there are far better and more efficient ways to help them than by criticizing or tampering with technological growth.

Obama and other politicians (this happens all too frequently on both sides of the aisle) should think before they whip out the rhetoric - it only serves to distract, "miseducate", and ultimately drive our country down the wrong policy paths.

Huntsman Has Some Potential

Former Utah governor and ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman has formally announced his candidacy for president.  He joins a thick field in the GOP primaries, most directly competing with Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty for the moderate and establishment wing of the party.

However, Politico seems to think there is little room for Huntsman in the mix, although conceding that

The former governor’s aim is to appeal to independents and moderate Republican voters that the rest of the field has so far largely ignored. While Huntsman’s opening video calls him the “ultimate conservative,” he has taken moderate positions on the environment, immigration and supports same sex civil unions....

Depending on how Huntsman's campaign shakes out, these moderate positions may very well be the ticket the GOP needs to successfully court independent voters and give Obama a much needed one-way ticket back to Chicago.

Nevertheless, some on the right have already ripped into Huntsman for his role as Obama's ambassador to China, claiming that by working with the president he has become tarnished goods.  Rush Limbaugh cries that "I also know that Reagan never served in Jimmy Carter's regime or administration.  Jon Huntsman did serve in Obama's; he was ambassador to the ChiComs."

Fortunately this argument is completely backwards.  What better ammunition against the current administration than someone who served in it and left.  Not only does Huntsman have more (and highly relevant) foreign policy experience than Obama did when elected, but he has the endorsement of his (potential) opponent. Obama would be ill-at-ease to criticize the foreign policy of a man he appointed to lead the relationship with one of the world's most important nations.  Just imagine Huntsman's potential response to Obama's foreign policy criticisms during the first presidential debate!

"Yes, Mr. President, I believe it was you that expressed confidence in my ability to manage foreign affairs when you chose me as ambassador to China!"

Shame on the America

Hopefully, today’s release of Obama’s long-form birth certificate, will finally quiet the Birther movement. The Birthers – a rabble that questions Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, due to doubts about his birthplace – have been a political nightmare for Republicans and ultimately America for the past two years.

The truth is that the release of the long-form certificate was not necessary. It has been abundantly clear, for some time now, that the Birther claims were unfounded. As Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH) said in response to today’s release, “This has long been a settled issue.”  What is most upsetting, however, is that this matter has reached such a crescendo that it has distracted the nation from a host of very serious problems.

Politically, the Birther movement has, at best, gotten Obama’s opponents nowhere. However in all likelihood, it has actually caused damage to the Republican Party and the anti-Obama agenda. For many Republicans, centrists, and others, the movement only serves as a marker of the eccentricity, anger, and irresponsibility of the Right. It thus drives people away from the Republican brand, making the election of Republicans more difficult, and hence injuring the ability of the Right to enact responsible policies. Furthermore, in a guilt-by-association manner, it can tarnish the very sensible ideas that are rooted in conservative ideology.

If one takes a moment to think of the politics of the issue, it becomes abundantly clear how politically unwinnable the argument was (or is for those who inevitably will find cause to dismiss this latest proof of Obama’s citizenship). First of all, there has been no credible evidence to suggest that Obama was not born in the United States. As is now hopefully even clearer, there has, in fact, been much evidence indicating the contrary. Obama previously released a short-form birth certificate and numerous officials have affirmed the veracity of his Hawaiian birth. The Birther argument had nowhere to go. Impeachment was an illogical and a politically-impossible outcome, one that would clearly have torn the country apart.

Second, even if one assumes that the Birthers were correct and an impeachment trial not only occurred, but was successful in removing the president, where would America be left? With Joe Biden as president (not to mention with even deeper polarization of the political landscape). None of the underlying problems that the right has with Obama would be miraculously cured. While Biden would undoubtedly have some different policies than Obama, the fundamentals would remain. Those who wish to see America’s problems solved and who believe that the Democrats’ agenda cannot achieve this, would be no closer to their real goal.

The point is that the entire argument fails to solve, or even address, the actual issues that are facing this country. This is not meant to imply that the narrow constitutional issue of Obama’s eligibility is not important – it is. However, with the evidence that existed prior to today wholly pointing in one direction (now with hopefully the final nail in the coffin), the Birthers only served as a distraction from pressing issues like the economy and as a great prop for the Democrats to marginalize the Republicans with.

Ad hominem attacks like this should have no place in American politics (of course they are only ad hominem when, as in this instance, there was clearly no substance to the argument). Instead, arguments need to be made to refute the foolish policies of the administration and offer meaningful alternatives. Vitriol and fight need to be turned into discourse and debate.

If Republicans and conservatives want to be viewed with any seriousness and hope to be elected into the positions to right the course of this country, they must focus on solutions to the real problems we face. Fortunately, most mainstream Republican leaders have long-ago distanced themselves from the rhetoric of the Birthers. Nevertheless, the vocalized minority has all but drowned out rational discussion.  As Obama said in a statement after the release,

We’ve got some enormous challenges out there…. We’re going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions…. And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates… but we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other…. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.

America – both left and right – has a duty to move past these petty squabbles, take some personal responsibility, and fix our broken system, before it is too late.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

[Note:  To be fair, the Birthers are by far not the only group that has served to cause distraction from the real issues.  All across America, different groups and individuals are failing to focus on the problems the country faces.]

The Psychology of Obama

Dana Milbank writes in today's Washington Post on the ramifications of Obama's cerebral nature.  Without taking a stance on whether this is good or bad, he explores, through consultation with academics, how Obama's seemingly inconsistent policies are the result of a high level of analysis and thought.  Milbank credits this with being the root of many of the criticisms and frustrations people experience with Obama.  Milbank argues that unlike Bush, Obama's psychology makes him difficult to read and thus immensely frustrating to the average voter.

While Milbank dances around the obvious conclusion, it seems clear that if his characterization is correct - and it is quite convincing - Obama possesses a set of detrimental characteristics that, while possibly making him a great policy adviser, make him a poor president.  Milbank writes, "In an ideal world, complex and rational thought would be virtues. But in politics, these attributes can make Obama seem ambiguous, without toughness or principles."  The unfortunate conclusion seems to be that the high level of emotion and rhetoric needed in today's politics makes a thoughtful academic a poor politician.  Accordingly, Obama's intellectualism has failed to rally his own base, while angering both the opposing side and his own supporters with unpopular polices.

Time to Support Obama

As the far-left has assumed its normal, although currently somewhat subdued, opposition to war, many Republicans have begun to position themselves against the administration’s actions in Libya. Seemingly, much of this opposition on the right comes from politically- not ideologically-motivated origins. While budgetary concerns are certainly high in the minds of many Tea Party-infused congressmen, the GOP should be careful to avoid opposing a policy just because Obama initiated it.

A number of Republicans have begun speaking out against the mission. Some of this questioning is certainly appropriate. For instance, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) was correct to press Obama on the objectives of the mission in a recent letter sent to the president. However, like many Republicans, Boehner walks a fine line between assisting the war-wary president to define the United States’ goals and commitments and, on the other hand, fomenting an unwise charge against the intervention in Libya.

As outlined in the letter, there are a number of tactical considerations that must be publically clarified. Presumably some of Obama’s hesitation is due to the image of the anti-war president that he assiduously crafted as a candidate. But while questioning these tactical and even broader strategic concerns is valid, the underlying need and motivation for intervention should be off the table.

Not only would such partisan attacks smack of raw politics but they would establish a huge contradiction within Republican ideology. Republicans have spent over a decade defending the need to promote democracy across the globe. While there have arguably been missteps in the implementation of this mission, the underlying goal is sound. For a few partisan points in their political battle with Obama, it would be foolish to throw all of this away.

Instead, Republicans should jump on board with the no-fly zone, throwing their support behind the president and showing America that when the Democrats choose to do the right thing, bipartisanship can prevail. Not every policy initiated by the current administration need be opposed; fighting across the aisle is only warranted when the other side is grossly out of line, for instance as the Democrats were on Obamacare. Americans want to see this country moved in the right direction; they do not want to see consistent bickering.

The call, by some Republicans, including Utah’s congressmen, Jason Chaffetz, for congressional authorization of the no-fly zone is a prime example of this misguided policy. Relying upon Obama’s own asinine comments made to this effect while a candidate, Chaffetz argues that the president must turn to Congress for approval. This argument, though, is a straw-man, used by the opposition party for decades. Congress has not officially declared war since World War II, while numerous military actions have been initiated by presidents in the years since. The ability of the president, as commander-in-chief, to send troops into battle has been a long-settled issue. While Congress should undoubtedly be consulted prior to military action and should maintain certain controls and inputs into its execution, the current criticisms are nothing but transparent attacks on the office of the president.

Republicans should not join the far-left in this attack. That ground should be left to Dennis Kucinich and his loony friends who are mulling impeaching Obama. Instead, if the GOP feels the need to separate itself from the administration, it could look to some of the mistakes made in the implementation of the no-fly zone, in particular the long delay in its initiation. Jonah Goldberg, at National Review Online, makes the most poignant argument in this regard. While fully supporting the mission, he argues that the delay in getting it started has added some considerable difficulties. Goldberg blames this on Obama’s desire to be a multilateralist and fear of “too much unilateral hot-dogging” if the United States had taken the lead. His analysis is quite astute and correctly separates the tactical blunders made by the administration from the strategic necessity of intervention.

For Republicans who cut their teeth on opposition to this president, throwing their weight behind him will be a bitter pill to swallow. But doing right, by American interests, their principles, and the Libyan people, is far more important than partisan brownie points. Republicans need to show their principles and their mettle and support the president.