The Day After

In case you are just waking up and this blog is where you come to for the news (and if so, we need to have a serious talk), Barack Hussein Obama became president-elect last night:

Barack Obama, a 47-year-old first-term senator from Illinois, shattered more than 200 years of history Tuesday night by winning election as the first African-American president of the United States.

A crowd of 125,000 people jammed Grant Park in Chicago, where Obama addressed the nation for the first time as its president-elect at midnight ET. Hundreds of thousands more — Mayor Richard Daley said he would not be surprised if a million Chicagoans jammed the streets — watched on a large television screen outside the park.

“If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where anything is possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer,” Obama declared.

Ultimately, I found the candidates' stances on issues so close for me, that it was a virtual dead heat. Despite my reservations about Obama's foreign policy experience, I decided to give change (doesn't every candidate run on 'change'?) a chance, mostly because I think that a single party running the goverment for too long isn't good. I believe that our nation stays healthy because we change our leaders so often..I'm looking forward to the next four years, just on the chance that Obama can do better, can make a difference. At the very least, it is thrilling to be living in a country where a black man was elected just forty years after the year that was 1968.

And now that the Democrats have swept the House and Senate, now I can hopefully have the haters SHUT THE F**K UP. Be careful what you wish for, because now the only fingers you can point are at yourselves. No more evil Republicans standing in your way. Get it done.

Update: Former right-wing politico Steven Den Beste, shares my sentiment, more succinctly encapsulating my thoughts in his "what are the good sides" list. Otherwise, his piece, while entertaining, is much darker and cynical than I about the next four years. I am not a doomsday believer (for either side's vilification), but I like to give equal time for another side's finger pointing!

It's easy to let yourself go in despair and start thinking things like "We are well-and-truly fucked" or "This is the worst of all possible outcomes". But it isn't true.

I think this election is going to be a "coming of age" moment for a lot of people. They say, "Be careful what you wish for" and a lot of people got their wish yesterday.

And now they're bound to be disappointed. Not even Jesus could satisfy all the expectations of Obama's most vocal supporters, or fulfill all the promises Obama has made.

I think Obama is going to turn out to be the worst president since Carter, and for the same reason: good intentions do not guarantee good results. Idealists often stub their toes on the wayward rocks of reality, and fall on their faces. And the world doesn't respond to benign behavior benignly.

But there's another reason why: Obama has been hiding his light under a basket. A lot of people bought a pig in a poke today, and now they're going to find out what they bought. Obama isn't what most of them think he is. The intoxication of the cult will wear off, leaving a monumental hangover.

And four years from now they'll be older and much wiser.

A lot of bad things are going to happen during this term. But I don't think that this is an irreversible catastrophe for the union. I've lived long enough to absorb this basic truth: the US is too large and too strong to destroy in just 4 years. Or even in 8. We survived 6 years of Nixon. We survived 4 years of Carter. We even survived 8 years of Clinton, God alone knows how.

The President of the United States is the most powerful political figure in the world, but as national executives go his powers are actually quite restricted. Obama will become President, but he won't be dictator or king, let alone deity. He still has to work with the House and the Senate, and he still has to live within Constitutional restrictions, and with a judiciary that he mostly didn't appoint.

The main reason this will be a "coming of age" moment is that now Obama and the Democrats have to put up or shut up. Obama got elected by making himself a blank slate, with vapid promises about "hope" and "change" -- but now he actually has to do something. Now he has to reveal his true agenda. And with the Democrats also having a majority in both chambers of Congress, now the Democrats really have to lead. And they're not going to do a very good job of it. It's going to be amusing to watch.

And the people who fell for the demagoguery will learn an invaluable lesson.

Oh, the Democrats try to blame failure on Republican filibusters, of which there will be many. But that's always been a factor in our system, and many people believe it's an important check on government excess. The tradition in the Senate is that it is supposed to be a buffer against transient political fads, and the filibuster is a major part of that.

If the Democrats go all in, and change the filibuster rule, then they'll have truly seized the nettle with both hands and won't have any excuses any longer. That's why they won't do it. It's their last fig-leaf. But even with the filibuster rule in place, they'll be stuck trying to deliver now on all the promises implied, or inferred, during this election. The Republicans can only filibuster on bills the Democrats have already proposed.

And it ain't possible for the Democrats to deliver what's been promised. Gonna be a hell of a lot of disillusioned lefties out there. A lot of people who felt they were deceived. A lot of people who will eventually realize that the Obama campaign was something of a cult.

Disillusionment will turn to a feeling of betrayal. And that will, in turn, convert to anger.

In the mean time, Obama and Congressional Democrats will do things that cause harm, but very little of it will be irreversible.

I would have enjoyed watching lefty heads explode if McCain had won. But we're going to see lefty heads exploding anyway; it's just going to take longer.

In the mean time, those of us who didn't want Obama to be president have to accept that he is. And let's not give in to the kind of paranoid fever dreams that have consumed the left for the last 8 years. Let us collectively take a vow tonight: no "Obama derangement syndrome". Obama is a politician. He isn't the devil incarnate.

So what are the good sides of what just happened?

1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.

2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.

3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.

Now, a few predictions for the next four years:

1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.

2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.

3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.

4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)

5. There will eventually be a press backlash against Obama which will make their treatment of Bush look mild. Partly that's going to be because Obama is going to disappoint them just as much as all his other supporters. Partly it will be the MSM desperately trying to regain its own credibility, by trying to show that they're not in his tank any longer. And because of that they are eventually going to do the reporting they should have done during this campaign, about Obama's less-than-savory friends, and about voter fraud, and about illegal fund-raising, and about a lot of other things.

and 6. Obama will not be re-elected in 2012. He may even end up doing an LBJ and not even running again.

One last thing: I'm not saying I'm happy with this outcome. I would much rather have had McCain win. But this is not the end of the world, or the end of this nation. We've survived much worse.

And now we need to show the lefties how to lose. Our mission for the next four years is to be in opposition without becoming deranged.

UPDATE: One other good thing: no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration's Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.

Further UPDATE: Old adversary and overall-wearing cat-loving writer and pundit Jaquandor returns to the blogging airwaves. His lefty take on the result is a muddied-mirror reflection of my own, to an extent:

Will he live up to all this? Who knows? Probably not; he's a human being and human beings screw up and are always disappointing at some point along the line. (I can understand his reasons for not doing so, but it would have been nice if Obama had taken a strong public stand against California's odious Proposition 8.) But I like his chances. Curiosity, in my book, always beats out disengagement. Respect for knowledge and expertise always beats out callous disregard for same. Thoughtfulness always beats out rock-solid convicion in one's own instincts and sensations about people. Also, Obama has been surrounding himself with people who know how Washington works and who will have the relationships and understanding to get things done, and Obama has been running as a change agent, which is different from running as an outsider. Frankly, I've never liked the whole "outsider" thing. Sure, a fresh set of eyes and perspectives is good, but too often this is couched in the assumption that everything in Washington is bad, bad, bad, and that what's needed is someone to show up who has no idea at all of what goes on there. (Of course, this is no guarantee of anything either; while Jimmy Carter was notable in his failure to understand how to work the mechanisms of Washington to get things done, George W. Bush surrounded himself with people who did understand those mechanisms, to results that may be even more dolorous than the ones Carter produced.)

Election Day

I am so happy election day is here. Not so much because I am looking forward to voting this afternoon, but to get rid of the canvassers, the spammers, and the haters. Yes, especially the haters, those who are so solidly on one side or another that they cannot fathom how someone can vote for the other party. Worse, they view their opponents as stupid.

I know a lot of these people, and every time someone yells "Bush is the worst president in history!!!" or "You don't want socialism do you??" at me, it makes me want to vote for the other party just out of spite. Luckily, idiots exist in equal numbers on both sides enough that there is just not enough spite to go around.I am still on the fence on this election. I have reviewed both candidates' stances here, and to be perfectly honest, it is a dead heat. As both parties represent my interests to a near draw (and both have things I don't like, naturally), the outcome of the election for me will be little more than a curiosity. Also of interest will be seeing the idiots go "Thank God our country chose RIGHT!" or "I'm moving to Canada!!!" And then witness the ensuing bar-room scuffles that always accompany election night in the Washington, DC, area. Fun.

My sentiments are also aptly summarized by Glenn Reynolds:

We've had eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Before that, we had eight years of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. And though people forget it now, President Reagan inspired a lot of anger and hatred, too. Can I ask that, regardless of who wins, we tone things down a bit?

There's been a bit of leadership on this front in the blogosphere. Rightish blogger Rick Moran, in a post entitled If Elected, Obama Will Be My President, wrote: "An Obama election will mean changes – not all of them for the better. So be it. We will fight like hell against what we believe to be wrong. But we [will] not do it by trying to delegitimize the elected president." In response, leftish blogger (and famous science fiction writer) John Scalzi wrote: "This is exactly right. And this is why, you'll notice if you crawl the Whatever archives, I have made a point of noting that George Bush is my president. … One of the reasons I have always registered as an independent voter is that I believe my highest allegiance as a voter is not to a political party but to the Constitution of the United States, the foundational document of our law. Our Constitution sets up the system we use to choose a president. If a candidate--any candidate--fulfills the requirements of that system to become our president, then I believe it's my duty to acknowledge that, yes, that candidate is now my president. I can criticize that president, argue with that president, loathe that president and work to replace that president in the manner allowed for by the Constitution … but what I can't do is deny that he or she is my president. That's wrong, factually and morally, and it's dismissive of the Constitution of the United States."

I agree. I thought it was wrong when Bush supporters in 1992 slapped "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush" stickers on their cars before Clinton was even sworn in. The simmering Clinton-hatred was bad for the country and, for that matter, for Republicans. Likewise, the even more over-the-top Bush-hatred of the past eight years has been bad for our polity, and for the haters. Now I hope that whoever wins, the nation will follow the lead of Moran and Scalzi.

You don't have to love the "other guy." You don't have to hold back on fighting against policies you don't like. You don't have to pull punches. But once someone is duly and legally elected president, you do owe some respect to the office and the Constitution. And to your fellow Americans.

I'm not an Obama fan, particularly, but a lot of people I like and respect are. To treat Obama as something evil or subhuman would not only be disrespectful toward Obama, but toward them. Instead, I hope that if Obama is elected, their assessment of his strengths will turn out to be right, and mine will turn out to be wrong. Likewise, those who don't like John McCain or Sarah Palin might reflect that by treating Palin and McCain as obviously evil and stupid, they're disrespecting tens of millions of their fellow Americans who feel otherwise. And treating a presidency held by a guy you don't like as presumptively illegitimate suggests that presidents rule not by election, but by divine right, so that whenever the "other guy" wins, he's automatically a usurper.

We don't have to agree on issues, or on leaders. But if we can't agree that a free and fair election can produce a legitimate president even when it's not the candidate we like, then we've got a very serious problem.

In short, go vote, and save the crying for your like-minded followers and let the smart people have peace.

W.

I think I was as surprised as my girlfriend that I was interested in going to see W. in the theaters. I'm not tremendously political, but I certainly lean heavily (at least financially and foreign-policy wise) towards the "right". But even more surprising was that I liked the film, and that my expectations were completely wrong.A friend of mine asked me, "What kind of movie is it? Satire? Dark-comedy? Political propaganda?" She's the kind of person that likes to know just what to expect, and I can't blame her in this case. I was most intrigued by the film because of Josh Brolin's purported great performance (not to be underestimated) and the fact that I wanted to see for myself just how Oliver Stone paints our 43rd president. My answer to her question was that it has humor, but it is by no means a comedy or satire. The picture still defies to be put in a category, other than a creative biopic that is entertaining, informative, conspiracy-theoried (Stone, naturally doing what he does), and thought-provoking. It wasn't what I expected.

That reminds me of another question that was posted to me by a VERY liberal woman (I would say she drinks the kool-aid), the kind that believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy and Bush is evil, etc., etc. She was surprised that I went to see it (my right-leaning rep is well-known) and asked what I thought. And I said the most surprising thing is the most sympathetic, well-developed, and human character in the movie is George W. himself. She looked visibly deflated and said, "oh". I suspect anyone with a similar POV will be disappointed that Oliver Stone's film actually conveys a compassion and understanding for W., instead of making a cheap pot-shot mockumentary. This is by no means saying the film is pro-Bush, but that Stone is trying (and I believe succeeds) to tell a story about real people, and real people are shaped by real events, real emotions, and other real people.

Now, where Oliver Stone takes liberties with characters (one assumes) is with W.'s cabinet. In the film, W. is portrayed as a person who believes in good and evil, and as a metaphor for his own views, the good in his own cabinet is Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfus) the evil. Karl Rove (Toby Jones) comes off as both affable and slimy as the same time, but Thandie Newton's caricature impression of Condoleeza Rice is show-stoppingly distracting. That and Rice is made to be mostly a 'yes' person and doesn't appear to have much in the way of an opinion.

For me, it was most interesting to see the origins of W.'s christian faith -- assigned to a local election beating, where his opponent used those themes to beat him. Afterward, W. vows never to be "out-Christianed or out-Texaned again", even though he knows the themes are irrelevant and dishonest. Amazingly, I came out of the film with a better feeling about W. than when I walked in, and I think in this age of being besieged by cries of "worst president ever", I never say that coming.