The Year of 2013 In Reflection

2013 was about as substantive a political year as one can have in an odd-numbered year in the United States.  Here is a look back at what, in my opinion, are the 10 biggest news stories of the year from a political standpoint:

10.  The Crazy New York Mayor's Race
Anthony Weiner's weiner was back on display with sexting abounding.  Christine Quinn was handed a gimme and proved to be an absolutely abysmal candidate.  Bill de Blasio, the boring looking white guy with the hip interracial family (I mean, come on, who doesn't love Dante and his afro?) sneaks in to win a resounding victory.

9. Cory Booker Takes the Next Step
There are quite a few of us in the political realm that have been watching Cory Booker for some time and think that he is probably Presidential timber.  Some in the past have questioned his sexual orientation, but I frankly think that is MUCH less of an issue on the national stage than it was 20 years ago and it is one he has handled adeptly.  Booker has moved his political career at a deliberate pace, choosing to stay as Mayor of Newark for over 7 years, when he almost surely could have moved to a larger office sooner than that.  With his election to the Senate by a solid (although less overwhelming than some imagined) 11 point margin, Booker immediately becomes at the top of the 2016 VP candidate list and near the top of the 2020/2024 Presidential prospects.

8. Democrats Win in VA, Republicans in NJ
The results of an actual election would typically top the year's stories, but this year's results were largely affirmations of things that we already knew.  First, in Virginia, when you run a wing nut in a swing state, as the GOP did, you generally lose, even when you are running against a horrible candidate, which Governor-Elect Terry McAuliffe certainly was.  In New Jersey, Chris Christie proved again that center-right pragmatism CAN win in the northeast - maybe a model for a national election?

7. The Death of Nelson Mandela
First, a word of explanation.  Nelson Mandela deserves to be much higher than number 7 on virtually any list that you could conceive.  His story is amazing, from violent revolutionary to prisoner to quiet, forgiving, strong leader that ushered South Africa peacefully and successfully into the post-apartheid era, Mandela is one of the largest figures on the global stage in the past century.  Mandela's story largely happened in prior years, however, with his biggest moments coming after his release from Robbin's Island and his rise to lead the first post-apartheid government and share a Nobel peace prize with apartheid leader F.W. De Clerk.  Mandela was a great man, worth remembering.  His death is a loss to the world.

6. Pope Francis
The first Latin American (although ethnically Italian) pope has made his mark early, casting a strong contrast with his predecessor by urging the church to de-emphasize condemnation of abortion and homosexuality (although he has maintained the existing church doctrine) and focus instead on serving the poor and presenting a more modern, positive image of the church.  This is a huge and badly needed shift for the church and one that will have political impact both in Europe and the US.

5. The Boston Marathon Attacks
For a brief moment, we were all reminded in a most horrific fashion how free nations will always remain vulnerable to terrorists.  This story hit me personally as I was staying in Boston at the time of the attack.  Since September 11 through a combination of good intelligence, smart preventative measures, a weakened Al Qaeda and some good luck, we have had a precious few damaging attacks.  The Tsarnaev brothers unfortunately changed that for reasons which are still not entirely clear.

4. Syria - Airstrikes / No Airstrikes
In one of the most bungled pieces of foreign policy in recent memory, President Obama declared that the US would conduct limited air strikes in Syria and that he didn't need Congress' permission to do so.  He then sought that permission, didn't get it and didn't conduct the air strikes.  Syria then bailed him out by agreeing to dismantle it's nuclear program (we'll see.)  It's an odd world.

3. Gay Marriage Everywhere
My favorite story of the year.  First, Maine, Washington and Maryland brought in the new year by becoming the first three states to legalize gay marriage by public ballot.  Then, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, Hawaii and Illinois all legalized gay marriage via bills passed by state legislatures and signed by their respective governors.  Then, the SCOTUS struck down a key provision in the Defense of Marriage Act and essentially forced the federal government to recognize gay marriages performed by states where it is legal for federal benefits.  While the ruling stopped short of legalize gay marriage nationally, the reasoning of the fifth vote for the 5-4 decision from Anthony Kennedy made it pretty clear to most of us that SCOTUS inevitably will make such a ruling but was simply buying some time.  On the back of the SCOTUS decision, judges in New Jersey, New Mexico and Utah have forced those states to legalize same-sex marriage.

All told, in December of 2012, there were only 7 states that had legal gay marriage.  There are now 18.  Anyone want to bet whether we make it to 50 in the next 2-3 years?

2. The Shutdown
In the most visible show of disfunction in at least 20 years, the federal government partially shut down as a budget deal seemed elusive.  We learned a few things in the debacle - the Tea Party was willing to push for its agenda even in the face of certain defeat, John Boehner was unable to control his caucus against the Tea Party (he has since lashed out at far right interest groups - I think he has had enough), shutdowns actually cost more than the government running and Democrats ruled the day....that is until our #1 story took place.

1. The Obamacare Mess
Oh what a disaster in the execution.  Democrats and the President have given up untold capital and the Affordable Care Act has given up massive credibility as the federal government failed to be able to design a website with over 3 years warning.  While I don't think that the initial execution is indicative one way or another as to the prudence or long-term success of the law, it will surely cost the President any hope of driving the congressional agenda next year and will undoubtedly cost the Democrats seats next fall.  Any dreams of regaining the House that Democrats may have had after the shutdown are gone and whether they retain the Senate or not is a open question at this point.

Happy New Year, everyone!

If you like this site, tell your friends.

Is This What the Next 3 Years Will Look Like?, The Myth of the Democratic Dove

If You Ever Want a Case Study in Poor Leadership...

...figure out how to take a military intervention that had public support eight months ago and turn it into two-to-one opposition in your own party.  Claim Presidential authority, then ask for permission but swear that you don't need it, then really need it and beg for it, then probably get denied it.  Or try declaring a red line, then waiting to act on it, then signal the enemy that you are going to act on it, then have the military plans leaked so as to let the enemy blunt the effectiveness of such an attack, if it ever happens.

The Obama Administration's handling of the Syrian conflict is pathetic.  There is an argument to be made for limited military intervention in Syria - it is clear to me from just the unclassified evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against rebels, which is atrocious and demands some sort of international response.  And intervention on humanitarian grounds has both the support of key allies in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and the potential to begin to improve our tarnished reputation in that part of the world.  There are also some strong arguments against intervention - the rebels have Al Qaeda ties which could be destabilizing and against American interests were they to gain power.  And nobody seems to have a great answer to the key foreign policy question that should be the first question asked of any proposed military intervention: "and then what?"

On balance, I'm inclined to oppose the intervention as presently proposed.  The terms of victory are unclear as are American interests.  While humanitarian intervention is laudable, it is insufficient, in my mind, to warrant intervention, unless we want to be involved in about a dozen conflicts around the world all the time.  And replacing dictators who are evil but fundamentally rational with unknown leadership that may be less rational may actually be contrary to our security.

But this isn't really about my views on Syrian intervention, an issue which is a close call and over which rational, well-informed people can disagree.

It is about the President's leadership.  While I have been critical of the President basically throughout his administration for not plotting political strategy nearly as well as he plots electoral strategy, his second term has brought about changes for the worse in his approach to leadership.

While many might argue that the President should have gotten more done in his first two years when he had large majorities and that he wasn't involved enough in the details of legislation, he did get some big things done.  One of his first major acts was signing into law by far the largest economic stimulus in American history - Bill Clinton with similar Democratic majorities couldn't get a stimulus 1/60th the size of the ARRA passed.  He also succeeded where every Democratic President since JFK had failed - in passing something close to universal health care - and it is worth noting that all of those Presidents had majorities in both houses of congress for all or part of their terms.  On foreign policy, the President was decisive and consistent - a managed exit from Iraq and a surge, followed by a definitive timeline for withdrawal in Afghanistan.  Sure, he flubbed a few - Gitmo is still open, after all.  Cap and trade was a bust.  The public option was a no go.  But the President fundamentally led and got things done, under very divided circumstances.

I don't know if it is that the players have changed and the B-team is now advising him, but the Syrian conflict is a mess.  A firm majority supported intervention in a poll late last year.  Then the President asserted his unilateral authority to authorize a strike and spent a bunch of time explaining why he had the authority.  This provoked a response from both parties in congress and public support plummeted. Then he abruptly reversed course last week and sought congressional approval, feeling sure no doubt that congress would not ultimately block action.  Today, despite support from prominent mainstream GOP leaders such as John Boehner and John McCain, the resolution appears at real risk of not passing.  That two thirds of Democrats are opposed to action in polling is reflective of Democrats deep suspicion about military intervention following the debacle in Iraq and the long war in Afghanistan.  Many liberals seem sure to oppose the President on this one, particularly in the House.  And while he may pull over some neo-con support, the neo-cons are not as strong in the GOP as they once were - for every John McCain there is a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz, libertarian non-interventionists that seem almost sure to oppose the resolution.

This all still could end well - congress may authorize the strike.  Our fine military may be able to surgically damage the Syrian governments chemical weapons capabilities.  This could work out like the conflict in the former Yugoslavia did, where our airstrikes allowed a dictator to be deposed and peaceful, democratic governments to take hold.  But if it does, it will be in spite of Obama's approach, not because of it.

Real leadership would have involved one of two things.  First, the President could have gone in alone.  The War Powers Act clearly authorizes 60 days of military intervention in the absence of Congressional approval.  Certainly long enough for a surgical strike.  And if there was a mission beyond that point, Congress may well have agreed to extend a military action that was working.

Or the President could have gone to Congress early.  He could have articulated the need to have some limited authorization of air force in the event that the executive branch could certify chemical weapons use.  It might well have worked last year, when the American people were largely behind such an intervention.

The in-between and about-face approach chosen instead paints the administration and the country in an uncomfortable box and one with more negative possibilities to our standing in the world than positive ones.  It is a shame.  The President has over 3 years left in office - he needs to get his act together.

On a related note, many of you may have noted that I have taken an increasingly critical tone of the President as of late.  This is not a part of some ideological shift on my part.  I'm just calling balls and strikes as I see them.  And of late, there have been a lot more strike outs than anything else.

Democratic Doves?  Who?

A friend of mine repeated a familiar line that the President was bucking a history of military dovishness by proposing military action in Syria.  This is common belief that is completely false.

Consider:

FDR went into World War II

Truman dropped the atom bomb and got us into Korea

Kennedy stared down nuclear war at the Bay of Pigs

LBJ got us into Vietnam

Clinton went into the former Yugoslavia and bombed weapons factories in Afghanistan

Of all the Democratic Presidents of the modern era, Jimmy Carter is the only one that you could even make a reasonable case as being a dove.  In fact, prior to W. Bush, most of our major wars were started in Democratic administrations.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, just that the popular perception about partisan foreign policies is plainly false.

If you like this site, tell your friends.