David Brooks may sound a bit doom and gloom in his latest piece in the New York Times, but they are the realities a Democratic President will face if elected.
When Reality Bites
By DAVID BROOKS
There’s a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven’t. There’s been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.
But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.
The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.
[snip]
Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.
It’d be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton’s Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.
This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsides to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation’s long-term fiscal health. (more…)
If folks do not start thinking about this kind of stuff now, the same people out there now who are now caught up in the rapture of love with Obama (I’m talking about folks out there who cannot tell you at least two of his positions) will be forced to defend this mess for the next four years JUST–LIKE–THEY–DID–WITH–CLINTON.
Although Obama is left of Clinton, I don’t believe he will be any further from the left than Bill Clinton if elected. As David Brooks pointed out in his piece, Obama would be a fool to pull out the troops earlier than what our generals are recommending. And how will his backing off a campaign promise be spun? “This is President Obama’s way of reaching across the aisle”.
As far as the national budget goes, you can’t promise fiscal discipline and announce million/billion dollar initiatives in the same breath. I refer to that as digging a hole to fill another. Saying stuff like “We should take that money we are spending in Iraq and use it to help the poor in our country” will guarantee a candidate a lot of cheers, but has anyone stopped to realize that we have been waging war against poverty since President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration? That was back in 1964—yeah, an over 40 year old war–and poverty still persists.
Now I know for many of you out there, a post like this automatically has placed me in the ‘Obama (or Clinton) hater’ category simply because I am not one of those basking in the glow of the possible first Black president. While that is certainly a great milestone that I will gladly celebrate with family if it happens, I tend to be one of those folks whose mind is already on Monday morning right in the middle of a great weekend. Like it or not, Monday morning is coming for Obama and all the fine speaking in the world will not be enough to out-maneuver himself away from these very important issues. Label me as you wish, but like I stated in an earlier post, it may very well turn out that I will end up defending Obama as soon as folks begin turning on him for his inability to walk on water.
John Quincy Adams nails it: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
So does Lady Nancy Astor: “The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds.”
For my solid Democratic readers out there, here is your bone (if you need it).
As far as a McCain presidency goes, I feel that he will take the Republican party further from its base: Conservatives. Despite all of his mea culpa speeches (I heard that he is supposed to be on Sean Hannity’ radio show in yet another attempt to gain confidence with conservatives), his record speaks louder than any campaign promise he could make at this point. I think that he will continue spend like there is no tomorrow just like President Bush. As far as his position on the war goes, he also would be foolish to play D.C. general.
Pick your poison.
Sphere: Related Content
