The Debatable Land

George W Bush and Immigration

George W Bush seems to agree with me. This isn't as alarming as it might sound. Here's some of what the President had to say at his final press conference this morning:

I am concerned that, in the wake of the defeat, that the temptation will be to look inward and to say, well, here's a litmus test you must adhere to.

This party will come back. But the party's message has got to be that different points of view are included in the party. And -- take, for example, the immigration debate. That's obviously a highly contentious issue. And the problem with the outcome of the initial round of the debate was that some people said, well, Republicans don't like immigrants. Now, that may be fair or unfair, but that's what -- that's the image that came out.

And, you know, if the image is we don't like immigrants, then there's probably somebody else out there saying, well, if they don't like the immigrants, they probably don't like me, as well. And so my point was, is that our party has got to be compassionate and broad-minded.

Quite so. Now it's true that immigration reform is a tough subject for conservatives. True too, that when it comes to immigration there are some many on the restrictionist wing who consider Bush to be either a) a sentimentalist or b) corporate America's pawn or c) both of the above. Equally, the orthodox Republican position on immigration  - border enforcement first, then reform - is not desperately unpopular. But a popular (or at least not unpopular) position is only half of the matter: you have to sell it well too. And on a subject as contentious as immigration, that requires a degree of tact and sophistication that, by and large, seems alien to many Congressional and grass-roots Republicans.

Immigration reform isn't just a matter of courting the hispanic vote either. It's about white votes too, particularly college-educated, middle-class white votes. Pretty much every American under 35 has been educated in a system that is extraordinarily sensitive to racial issues; they are well-attuned to the nuances of language when race is discussed. They understand the code. Republicans too often seem to forget this. When they talk about immigration, they do so in tones that too often seem brutish, narrow and exclusionary. And this costs them support from voters* who might actually agree with the essence of the GOP position, but balk at signing on to it because of the way it is expressed.

So it isn't just that legal Hispanic immigrants might be turned off by the GOP's language on immigration, so too are educated, upscale white voters who don't like the idea of endorsing a party that gives the impression, unwittingly or not, of being hostile to immigration. The GOP's posture on immigration fosters the impression, fairly or not, that they're the "nasty party". As far as political branding goes, that's a toxic position for any party to find itself in. 

It's a shame, then, that Bush was never really in a position to make a real push for real immigration reform. That, like so much of his domestic agenda, was another victim of 9/11 and the resulting foreign policy distractions. This in turn persuaded Karl Rove to run negative campaigns in 2002 and 2004 that, by retreating to the base, abandoned any hope the GOP might once have had of expanding its support amongst Hispanic and black voters (though Bush did win 11% of the black vote in 2004, up from 9% in 2000, if I recall correctly). That was a perfectly sensible ploy in the short-term, but it hasn't done the GOP many favours in the longer-term. No surprise then that Bush's verdict on the Clinton years  -"So much promise, to so little purpose" - also applies to much of his own Presidency. 

*But what about working-class white voters? Ah, yes, that's a different matter entirely, worthy of consideration some other time.

UPDATE: See Weigel for the kind of thinking that will lead has led the GOP to ruin.

[Hat-tips: Dana Goldstein and MPG&S]

Respecting the Office

I think I've mentioned before that President George W Bush was said to find the British press corps lack of respect for his office somewhat grating. Unlike our American counterparts, British journalists declined to stand to attention when Mr Bush strode into the East Room or sauntered out into the Rose Garden for yet another press conference with ACL Blair. If the President was not disgruntled by this discourtesy he was certainly, as they say, far from gruntled.

The contrast between this and his cheery "For the record, it was a size 10" rejoinder to this week's shoe-throwing incident in Baghdad is striking. Just goes to show you that the rules are different for young, exhuberant, fizzing-with-disputation democracies than they are for the weary cynics accustomed to casting a baleful eye over the Mother of All Parliaments.

UPDATE: Toby Harnden asks the important question. Sure, the Secret Service might not be faulted for failing to anticipate the first shoe attack, but permitting the assailant to reload and launch a second shoe must be considered somewhat embarrassing, yes? Misfortune and carelessness, etc etc...

UPDATE 2: Ambinder has the tick-tock of how it went down.

How Bush Made Life Easy for Europe

I've a piece up at Culture11 considering some of the problems Europe may face when confronted by the next American president. Snippet:

The election of a new American President is also a test. One which will determine, as is sometimes avowed, if European discontent is merely a manifestation of anti-Bushism rather than a more virulent, infectious anti-Americanism.

In truth, the two cannot be so easily disentangled. Yet Europeans may one day reflect that, unlikely as it may seem, Mr. Bush was a better friend to Europe than they ever imagined. Politics is always a matter of style and substance. Mr. Bush’s style permitted Europe to turn away from and reject the substance of his presidency. In other words, the brutishness of the Bush White House and Pentagon, it’s casual, cavalier disregard for the interests and favor of its friends, gave Europeans license to opt-out of the American worldview. Mr. Bush’s successor may not grant the continent that luxury.

Bush in Beijing

Unsurprisingly folk are having fun with the photographs taken when George W Bush called upon the US women's beach volleyball team in Beijing. My complaint is rather different however. Consider this AFP photo:

I imagine the cropping does the President few favours, but it's unfortunate that he should look rather like Grandpa Simpson. That's not the real crime however. What on earth is he wearing on his head? That sort of visor may be acceptable for a seven-year old playing mini-golf but it's out of bounds to anyone above the age of, I'd say, nine. The only thing that could make it worse - or more complete - would be if he were also wearing the ghastly shorts adult American men appear to think it seemly to sport in public. Thank heavens for small mercies, I suppose. But it remains a mystery why American pensioners feel the need to dress as children in public...

The Rhetoric of War

Breaking News: George W Bush is not Henry V. Shocking, I know. According to former General Ricardo Sanchez:

Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president.

During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk:

"Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal."

"There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!"

Of course, Donald Rumsefeld and the President did take the view, back when they planned the invasion of Iraq, that "the fewer men, the greater share of honour..."

Iraq and conservatism?

At Tapped Mori Dinaeur says no-one should be surprised by John McCain's lack of interest in policy detail. Well fine. The there's this, however:

After Iraq and Katrina, I don't think the public needs to be convinced of the link between conservatism [and] the failure of government.

Half of this, at least, is entirely wrong. The Iraq War has little or nothing to do with conservative, or governmental failure, rather it was the result, in more than just part, of an overweening, arrogant belief in the power of government to achieve anything it set its mind to. Granted, the Bush administration didn't foresee the problems that would arise and are properly culpable for that (me too, for that matter), but there's little that's recognisably conservative about the war, at least in terms of any conservatism of restraint, modesty and prudence.

As for Katrina: well maybe (and certainly I think Dinauer is right to suppose that the public blames the federal government for the debacle) but there is, of course, or at least there used to be, the question as to whether disaster relief is a matter the federal government should be taking the lead role in. That, of course, is an exceedingly old-fashioned view.

What Bush Hath Wrought

Via Marc Ambinder, this graph is not, shall we say, good news for the Republican party's long-term prospects.

Sure, some of these young voters will likely drift to the right in years to come, but most people tend to fix their party identification early and hold on to it doggedly. And of course young voters today aren't spooked by the legacy of the 1970s the way their parents' generation is. Equally, to the extent (possibly exaggerated) that Iraq will have a lasting, quasi-seismic impact on American politics it seems, right now, likely to damage the Republican party more than the Democrats. That said, I suspect that it's the GOP's domestic failures that will prove just as telling in the medium to long term. Which is another way of saying that I'm very much looking forward to reading Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's new book, Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.

Obama is Obviously Just the New Bush...

Lord knows there's no shortage of stupidity swishing around Barack Obama's candidacy. But this, from Victor Davis Hanson - the Cincinnatus of the National Review - is as dumb as a bag of spanners:

Whence Obama's problems? It is not that he believes in the venom of Rev. Wright, or that when he says something stupid like a "typical white person" he means to imply a stereotyped distasteful race. He doesn't.

The problem is instead the environment that he heretofore has navigated in — prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Chicago, or Illinois liberalism — is hardly representative of his own country. So what he can say among sympathizers and friends will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don't know him and won't give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on.

An elementary test of intellectual credibility is whether one applies the same standards to one's own side as one insists upon for the opposition. Perhaps I'm mistaken in suspecting that this is a test Mr Hanson (or Davis Hanson?) fails but if that's the case I'm sure some eager or diligent reader will explain why George W Bush's life at prep school, the Ivy League, the regional identity politics of Texas and feather-bedded capitalist ventures that go wrong with no price to pay is anything that "will not be excused or contextualized by average others who don't know him and won't give him the latitude he is accustomed to and apparently has counted on."?

Bushism of the Day

George W Bush's malapropisms aren't really terribly interesting anymore. (And, to be fair to the President, he's a much better speaker now than he was eight years ago.) Still, this one seems especially unfortunate given that he was speaking to Lt-Gen Ray Odierno, the former commander of the multinational corps in Iraq:

"I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who were trying to defeat us,"

Regrets, I've had a few...

Jonah Goldberg:

One thing I would like to know is what it says about Matthew Dowd (a perfectly likable fellow) that he eagerly signed up to work for Bush but now thinks the man's a moron. Makes you wonder about the guy's judgment, to say the least.

OK. I was, perhaps mistakenly, somewhat impressed by Bush when I covered the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia. In 2004 I could not stand the idea of John Kerry being on our TV screens every day for four (and it would only have been four) years so, faute de mieux, I suppose I was glad Bush won... But, really, is it not possible - even sensible - tohave changed one's mind since then? And shouldn't it actually speak well of Mr Dowd that he has, apparently, been prepared to do so?

After all, when the circumstances change I'm minded to change my appraisal. Wouldn't you, old boy?

Caption Contest!

Shamelessly pilfered from the good folks at Swampland, here's a splendid photo of Nicolas Sarkozy and George W Bush taken by Time's Brooks Kraft. You suggestions for the most appropriate (or funniest or filthiest) caption please:

What's all the fuss about?

Calm down people. Reasons' Brian Doherty has it right:

Bush comes out with a blood-curdling threat to Congress: if they don't confirm Michael Mukasey for attorney general, why then the U.S. will just have to go to bed without any attorney general at all for the remainder of his term. Can justice survive? Will chaos reign? Why don't we find out?

Elsewhere, Belgium has had no government for 144 days with, as best one can tell, precious few adverse consequences. At the very least no new bad laws are being passed which puts the Belgians one up and leaves the rest of us, naturally, one down.

Further Perils of Jogging

David Frum reads Robert Draper's Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, and reports [emphasis added]:

If he [Bush] has anything more to say, it will  have to wait for later. But my guess is that he has nothing to say. What Ulysses S. Grant said of himself is true of George W. Bush: He is a verb. He is able to do, to be, and to suffer. He cannot analyze or explain. His actions must be judged by results; any mysteries in the record will be clarified, to the extent they ever are, by the memoirs of his subordinates and the opening of the administration archives after the fact.

This does not mean that Draper's book lacks interest. On the contrary, it is very interesting, and especially interesting on the president's early life and his governorship... Draper captures some of the darker sides of the president's personality: his occasional petulance, his sometimes disdainful treatment of those who work for him, his sometimes excessive emphasis on his exercise program to the exclusion of other responsibilities.

Mitt Romney, of course, is a maniac jogger too and worth opposing just for that reason even if there weren't other excellent arguments (and, my word, there are!) for treating his candidacy sceptically.

Happily however, there are other options available to Republican voters in January. Fred Thompson, his ill-advised weight loss aside, does not strike one as a natural gym rat, while John McCain, for obvious reasons, has also avoided fetishising physical  exercise.

On the other hand, Governor Huckabee is ruled out of bounds on account of being most famous for shedding 150 pounds and, consequently, being likely to insist everyone else do so too.

Ron Paul, I'm glad to say, does not strike me as a man likely to place "excessive emphasis on his exercise program".*

Still, Frum's aside is one of the more damning assessments of Bush's character that one has seen from those who once worked for the President.

*UPDATE: Commenter Alexia informs me that Ron Paul is actually an "avid exerciser". Shame.

Who remembers the Armenians?

I'd been quietly, if feebly, sympathetic towards some of the realpolitik concerns about the forthcoming Congressional vote on recognising the Armenian genocide. Then the Washington Post came out fighting. Apparently the resolution is "Worse than Irrelevant"

The Post chuntered that Congressman Adam Schiff, the driving force behind the resolution thanks to the vociferous lobbying of US-Armenians in his California district (mere parochialism according to the Post because of course it's stupid to listen to one's constituents...) is up to no good. Worse still, the paper sneered:

How many House members can be expected to carefully weigh Mr. Schiff's one-sided "findings" about long-ago events in Anatolia?

Apparently given:

the high risk to vital U.S. security interests, the Armenian genocide resolution cannot be called frivolous. In fact, its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible.

And yes, for sure, passing the resolution is symbolic rather than substantive - or rather it would be if it didn't also suggest, quite powerfully, to Turkey that it's past time it acknowledged the darker aspects of its history. Certainly EU membership should not even be a matter for discussion until this happens.

I dare say, of course, it's anti-semitic to suppose that anyone  - say, the Iranian president! - adopting this sort of attitude towards the Jewish holocaust (Needs more study, not sure, you know, about these one-sided "findings" about events that are, well, "long-ago" anyway. Really, why the fuss?) might enjoy a different reception from the Post's editorial page.  (For lots on the Jewish angle on this, see the invaluable and excellent chaps at Jewcy)

Ultimately it's pretty simple: you either treat genocide as genocide or you don't. But if you don't at least have the decency to stay quiet about it rather than offering weasel excuses about the national interest and all the rest of it.

Besides it is humiliating to give in to Turkish bullying. To wit:

A top Turkish official warned Thursday that consequences "won't be pleasant" if the full House approves the resolution.

"Yesterday some in Congress wanted to play hardball," said Egemen Bagis, foreign policy adviser to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "I can assure you Turkey knows how to play hardball."

Screw them.

Of course there is that old Mario Cuomo line about campaigning in poetry but governing in prose. If memory serves, Bill Clinton trotted it out to justify any decision that betrayed any previous promise. The tough and manly and courageous thing to do is to shake your head and wish that matters were otherwise and sigh that, you know, given the realities of the world we live in and all the rest of it... Half a tear and a quivering lip can't hurt either. 

I dare say the current President feels the same way. Apparently it's irresponsible for Congress to even discuss the Armenian genocide - sorry, "mass killings". It wasn't always so, but who cares about a little flip-flopping on genocide? Here's Bush in 2000:

The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension and commands all decent people to remember and acknowledge the facts and lessons of an awful crime in a century of bloody crimes against humanity. If elected President, I would ensure that our nation properly recognizes the tragic suffering of the Armenian people.

Shame is best borne silently; it shouldn't be trumpeted as a virtue.

I hate kids too. Just for different reasons...

I have no real interest in the SCHIP brouhaha and am puzzled by Bush's to veto a bill that would expand children's health insurance. This can't be a very sensible move, politically-speaking. Anyway, my only interest in the matter was in the proposal that it be funded by taxes on tobacco.  I was interested to see (former smoker) Matt Yglesias say this:

The bill would also raise cigarette taxes, which, again, is a good thing to do since higher cigarette taxes cause either more revenue (a good thing) or else less smoking (a good thing) or else some combination of these two good things.

Well, ain't that a pretty thing: let's make the poor pay for health insurance for middle-income people. Now you may say that this is fine; poor people should be discouraged from smoking too. Fine. But most of them won't be and will, consequently, be paying for SCHIP. It's a very regressive way to do these things. (Indeed, the supposed concern for the poor smoker is bogus: you need them to keep smoking otherwise you can't fund your program. So the task is to find the optimum level of tax that won't drive folk to the black market. You need smokers, otherwise how can you exploit them? All of which would be fine if it weren't accompanied by the sanctimonious tut-tutting so characteristic of the health crusaders).

My suspicion is - if memory serves - that the available evidence from the UK and other countries with much higher tobacco duty than the US is that cost is the significant factor for a minority of smokers who choose to give up the noble weed. Most grudgingly accept price hikes as the costs of pleasure/addiction. Or they bypass unjust rates of duty by purchasing smuggled or otherwise contraband cigarettes.

The bottom line is that raising tobacco taxes is really just punishing the poor for habits the wealthy disapprove of. (The same is true, of course, of proposals for "fat taxes"). I'm tempted to conclude that this means that if you really want to help the poor you would - at least in highly-taxed places such as New York - reduce tobacco duties to the healthy level enjoyed by citizens of, say, the Carolinas...