By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, January 01, 2017
Man, that did not go as planned at all.
Remember 2008. President George W. Bush, who had planned
to spend his presidency reforming education and overseeing a Texas-style
economic renaissance on a national scale, had been for years mired in the
unpopular and thankless project of trying to build liberal democracies for
backward desert tribesmen who have neither the capacity nor the desire for
them. Vast sums of money were spent, many fine soldiers gave their lives, and
no obvious progress toward that larger end was made. The American people grew
weary of it, and then grew frightened for their own immediate economic
prospects as a financial crisis followed by a series of unusual government
interventions into the economy gave them every reason to believe, and to resent
the fact, that the politically connected were playing by a different set of
rules. People in decaying Rust Belt towns and other communities that had failed
to thrive in the early 21st-century economic order asked, not unreasonably, why
it was that Wall Street firms were “too big to fail” but their former employers
were not.
And so they turned to Barack Obama. He was young,
eloquent, and at times inspiring, apparently unflappable, and, in spite of his
origins as a jumped-up Chicago ward-heeler — or perhaps because of them — he
was, he assured us, above anything so petty as ideology. He was vague enough:
“Hope and change” at the macro level, “do what works” at the operational level.
To the extent that he had anything like a substantive vision, it was, roughly:
Stop spending all that money over there, and start spending some of it over
here. It was a message we had heard before and have heard since, not only from
populists such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump but also, in some form, from
more-traditional Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton and from
libertarian-leaning conservatives such as Rand Paul. That sentiment has long
been a part of mainstream Republican rhetoric: It is what Dwight Eisenhower
meant when he said that every dollar spent on bombs and bullets was stolen from
the poor and the destitute.
Obama’s mandate (here I use the ordinary sense of the
word, not the special political sense) was clear enough: stabilize the economy
and get it back to regular growth, bring our active military entanglements in
the Middle East to some sort of orderly and honorable conclusion, and use the
savings to fund some sort of national health-insurance benefit.
It is a shame that Lyndon Johnson did not live long
enough to see his 1964 election reprised.
Johnson ran as the peace candidate in 1964, promising to
get us out of Vietnam or at least to stop any escalation of American
involvement there. The opposite happened. Johnson promised that Medicare would
be efficiently run and financially self-sustaining. The opposite happened.
Johnson said that his Great Society programs would usher in a new kind of
America, one in which government-directed investments in anti-poverty campaigns
and educational projects would not only lift up the poor but would, by helping
them to maximize their own economic value, lift the entire country, too. The
opposite, or something close to it, happened there, too. Johnson, who in
Congress had opposed not only a great deal of civil-rights legislation but even
anti-lynching bills, would in 1964 reinvent himself as a civil-rights champion.
It is pleasant to think that, in whatever afterlife he finds himself in, he is
both amused and pleased to see himself politically reincarnated as a black man.
The key difference is that while Johnson may have been a
rotten S.O.B., he knew what he was doing, more or less. He didn’t fumble into
Vietnam in 1965 — he lied about his intentions in 1964. He was sufficiently
intelligent, and sufficiently a man of the Senate, to understand that the
particulars of legislative architecture were going to be the deciding factor in
the success or the failure of his programs. He knew that they would have to be
revisited over the years. He was a deeply weird man — and a monster — but he
was also a resident of the real world.
Barack Obama? Less so.
In the eight years of his presidency, we have both
abandoned and re-invaded Iraq, launched new engagements in the Middle East and
in Africa, and contributed mightily to the mess in Syria with President Obama’s
empty talk of “red lines” and sundry ultimata, none of which was taken
seriously in Damascus — or Moscow, or Tehran, or Beijing, or Washington, for
that matter. The United States and Russia are at the moment engaged in an
escalating tit-for-tat confrontation over Moscow’s minor-league meddling in the
presidential election, which is, of course, what President Obama really cares
about: Vladimir Putin can annex Crimea and test out new weapons on civilians in
Syria, but release a bucket of embarrassing DNC e-mails (the veracity of which
is, incidentally, not in dispute) and the Obama administration swings into
action.
On foreign policy, the predictions of President Obama’s
most trenchant conservative critics have come to pass: Neither our allies nor
our enemies have confidence that we will say what we mean and do what we say.
Beyond the squabble with Russia and the mess in Syria, our relations with
Israel (speaking of meddling in elections overseas) are in tatters, our
critical allies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are
both confused by our meandering indecision and alienated by the Obama administration’s
pettiness and arrogance. The Europeans, who had hoped for so much from the
Obama administration, have returned to their traditional view of the United
States as the rich, powerful, oafish uncle kept at arm’s length until the
moment of crisis, when he is irreplaceable.
Obama’s record at home is no more impressive. He punted
his health-care reform bill to his team in Congress, where the fine legislative
minds of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid oversaw the creation of what the president
proudly called “Obamacare,” which has created absolute chaos in the
health-insurance market. The artificial marketplaces it created are collapsing,
insurers are abandoning the program, premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing,
consumers have fewer choices rather than more numerous ones, Medicaid is
swollen, and the American people, who elected Barack Obama in no small part
because they thought he could apply that cool intelligence for which he was
famous (at least in the pages of the New
York Times) to the health-insurance mess, absolutely hate what he has done.
The Affordable Care Act almost certainly will be undone in the coming months,
and the people who supported Barack Obama will be happy to see it go.
It is foolish (and superstitious) to credit the president
with the overall performance of the economy. But, holding President Obama to
his own standard, things do not look too good there, either. Growth has been
anemic for most of his presidency, and the outlook for employment and wages has
been mediocre. Obama likes to boast of being the green-energy president and has
been a terrible adversary for the traditional fossil-fuels business, but the
fact is that much of the recent improvement in GDP growth is related to the
recovery of the oil-and-gas business. The American energy renaissance is to be
celebrated, but, at the same time, we should be mindful of the dangers of
relying too heavily on any one source of growth and wealth. American homeowners
felt pretty good about their economic prospects when housing prices were skyrocketing
in the run-up to the financial crisis, but prices move both ways, including the
price of oil, “peak oil” nincompoopery notwithstanding.
Republicans know what Barack Obama has accomplished: The
GOP practically has never been in a better position politically, with the state
legislatures and governorships, the House and the Senate, and a newly minted
Republican president. (A ritual acknowledgement of Hubris, who is also a
jealous god, is here appropriate.) But Democrats should be asking themselves
what Barack Obama has accomplished, too: He has decimated their party. The
things they care the most about are, from the progressive point of view, mostly
either in stasis or in regress: climate-change legislation, economic
inequality, abortion, transnational governance, etc. The Left is strangely
focused at the moment on exotica such as which dressing room transsexuals use
at the gym and whether nonconformist bakers can be obliged at gunpoint to bake
a cake for Bill and Ted’s excellent wedding. Their national leaders are
elderly, intellectually narrow hacks of the kind who give hacks a bad name.
Their great hope is an author of self-help books who smoothed her academic
career by pretending to be a Cherokee.
Barack Obama, bless his heart, still hasn’t figured out
that the job of the president isn’t giving speeches. And when was the last time
he gave a speech that was worth a damn, anyway?
No, that did not go as planned, at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment