The Debatable Land

The United States and the IRA

Responding to Stephen Walt's hypothetical (What if Gaza were full of jews?), Megan McArdle compares the Israel lobby to the Irish-American lobby. Ross Douthat says, OK, but the IRA was still considered a terrorist organisation. Daniel Larison dives into the weeds of US attitudes towards Irish terrorism. He writes:

The IRA was a genuine terrorist group, but it was listed as such by our government most of all because it was a sworn enemy of one of our closest allies. The record seems clear: terrorist groups that are useful to us or harmful to states we officially oppose are given a pass, while those that target us or our allies are condemned in the strongest terms. That’s the nature of things in the real world, I suppose, but it is something that none of the reponses to the counterfactual seems to be taking into account. Had things gone very differently in the last century and London and Washington became enemies once more, it is very easy to imagine that the IRA or similar groups would have been made into anti-British proxies of the U.S. government.

True enough. And of course the State Department did have the IRA on its list of terrorist groups. Nonetheless, the State Department is not quite the same as the US government. And in the 1990s there's no denying that Washington generally shared the (Irish) Republican analysis of the state of play in Ulster. Indeed the Clinton administration viewed itself as a kind of backstop looking after Sinn Fein's interetss and point of view. Crucially, that's how the Republican movement saw the Americans too. They were there to provide support and ballast for the nationalist viewpoint, countering the presumed pro-Unionist bias of the British. That is to say, Dublin and Washington would, together, counter the Brits in Belfast and London. It's peace, of a sort, but it's not a result that was supposed to happen. Nor is it one that many people would have found acceptable back in, say, 1994.

Sure, Clinton made plenty of phone calls and a visit or two. But when push came to shove he refused to put additional pressure on Sinn Fein and the IRA. Consequently the Good Friday Agreement was signed despite there being a crippling ambiguity on the question of decommissioning terrorist arms. The failure to resolve that problem would cripple the peae "settlement" for years, helping to hollow-out the centre of Northern Irish politics, leading us to the present happy state of play: government by bigots and murderers.

This wasn't, obviously, all Clinton's fault. Nontheless one reason Tony Blair lost faith in the american president was Clinton's habit of promising to lean on the Republican movement and then signally failing to follow his promises with, like, actual action. The State Department may have been hostile to the IRA  -it opposed giving Gerry Adams visas to enter the US - but the rest of the US government, including the likes of Tony Lake at the National Security Council was entirely sympathetic to the "cause" of Irish Republicanism.

Daniel says:

Were it not for our very close postwar relations with London, it is hard to imagine that modern U.S. policy would have been all that different from the tolerance for Stateside Fenian and IRB organizers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the rapturous welcome accorded to the republican extremist De Valera when he visited the United States. Popular opinion in the U.S. was very much behind the Irish nationalist cause and it spread far beyond the Irish immigrant community. For a country nursed on Anglophobia, Irish republicanism appeared as a sister movement to our own fight for independence.

True enough. However, as I say, I think that there was, despite all the public pronouncements to the contrary, a kind of sotto voce enthusiasm for the IRA and its aims if not always its methods!) that persisted, despite the powerful inducements to give the British the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, it's probably not entirely coincidental that Washington became more interested in the Irish problem once a) a Democrat was back in the White House and b) the Cold War had ended, lessening British influence in Washington and the importance of assuaging British concerns. (Also, of course, Reagan was not likely to look too favourably upon the people who tried to murder his great friend Margaret.) Still, when the "peace process" got underway it didn't come as much surprise to discover that the US was in the green corner. No suprise there and it might be, too, that this was necessary. But let's not pretend that Washington was a neutral player.

The Cult of the Presidency

Peggy Noonan is perhaps my favourite American political columnist. She's on good form today, not least because she takes some time to make a point this blog has long favoured:

During the postspeech coverage, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell spoke to a journalist about how presidents get advice and information. Mitchell noted that people often mean to speak hard truths but then "they walk into the Oval Office and get tongue tied." She was referring to the awe with which we view the presidency, the White House, and the famous office with no corners in which presidents so often feel cornered.

Here is an idea for everyone in Washington: Get over it. It's distorting the system. This week we saw the past four presidents standing in the Oval Office for a photo-op on the afternoon of their private lunch. As you looked at the pictures afterward you had to think: How flawed were they? How many were a success?

Did you notice how they all leaned away from Jimmy Carter, the official Cootieman of former presidents? It was like high-school students to the new girl: "You can't sit here, we're the Most Popular table."

The Founders, who were awed by the presidency and who made it a point, the early ones, to speak in their inaugural addresses of how unworthy they felt, would be astonished and confounded by the over-awe with which we view presidents now. We treat them as if they are the Grand Imperial Czar of the Peacock Throne, and we their 'umble servants. It's no good, and vaguely un-American. Right now patriotism requires more than the usual candor. It requires speaking truthfully and constructively to a president who is a man, and just a man. We hire them, we fire them, they come back for photo-ops. They're not magic.

True enough. But as Noonan must know - having been a speechwriter* for Ronald Reagan and being, more generally, a smart cookie - any hope that the pundits might treat the President as a mere flesh-and-bones mortal might as well be abandoned right now. There's a new Priest-King in town and he shall be called Hope. Not that Republicans can complain, given their sanctification of the late, blessed Ronnie. And of course it's been this way for a while: remember how George W came to power determined to "restore honour and dignity to the office" of the Presidency, speaking of it as though it were a throne that had been insulted - and sullied - by its previous occupant...

People talk about how cynical Washington is. I've never been quite convinced by that. In some respects and at least some of the time it's the least cynical, mushiest, most sentimental city in America, (I mean political-media Washington, not the city of born-and-bred Washingtonians) full of folk who earnestly want to believe. It's not that tough to impress official and semi-offical Washington; thankfully the general public are made of sterner, tougher stuff.

*She wrote the famous, and brilliant, Boys of Point du Hoc speech.

UPDATE: Of course to understand the Monarchical Presidency you should really purchase Gene Healy's excellent book,  The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power .Even better, if you do so via that link I receive a tiny commission, thanks to the wonders of Amazon Associates. (Ditto for anything purchased via the Amazon button on the right.)

Harry Reid's Miracle Cure

There's something rather charming about the way the United States Senate names its bills. Granted, there's something laughable about it too, but let's focus on the entertainment for now. Here, for instance, are some of the first ten pieces of legislation Harry Reid plans upon bringing to the Senate floor in the new Session:

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
• Middle Class Opportunity Act of 2009
• Homeowner Protection and Wall Street Accountability Act of 2009
• Cleaner, Greener, and Smarter Act of 2009
• Restoring America’s Power Act of 2009
• Returning Government to the American People Act
• Stronger Economy, Stronger Borders Act of 2009

Well, that was easy wasn't it! By the end of the year the United States will have recovered, the middle-class will have opportunity restored (what about the poor old working-class?), Wall Street will be accountable and every home will have its own firearm (are you sure that's what they mean?), everything will be cleaner, greener and, above all, smarter, Captain America will ride again and the people will have their government returned to them (by whom?). Not content with that, there'll be a stronger economy and stronger borders!

Once all that has been achieved they'll be able to cancel the next three years and just go home. Right? On the other hand, this sort of blowhard triumphalism has a certain consequence: folk look at Congress and see their representatives promising all these marvellous goodies and miraculous cures and then they look at their own circumstances and discover that though there may have been some, marginal improvement in their circumstances, the promised political rapture still seems some way off. No wonder they may feel that they're being cheated by Washington and, consequently, they may hold Congress in some contempt.

Memo to politicians: don't promise massively more grandiose treats than you have any right to expect you'll be able to deliver. If you do, don't complain when the punters come to despise you.

The Kennedy Interest

The conventional wisdom seems to be that Caroline Kennedy is, as Nick Confessore puts it, "too big to fail" in her quest to succeed Hillary Clinton as the junior Senator from New York. Perhaps so. There is, of course, one person who could decide that it's not in the public interest to bail-out the Kennedys. With just two phone calls - one to David Paterson, the other to Kennedy - Barack Obama could put an end to this and suggest that New York have, like, an election or something shocking like that...

But conventional wisdom also says Obama will do no such thing, not least, or perhaps largely, because he owes Clan Kennedy for Teddy's early and enthusiastic endorsement of the upstart challenger to Queen Hillary's throne. Maybe so, again. During the campaign Obama spent a lot of time lambasting the "special interests" that were, apparently, running and ruining Washington. This would Change when Hope returned to the Capitol.

Well, what are the Kennedys if not a Special Interest? Now, granted, Obama meant that he disapproved of special interests bar those goals he shares, but I can't help but feel that permitting Kennedy to glide into the Senate is not exactly the sort change We Can Believe In that we were promised.

Conversely, there might be a political upside to stiffing the Kennedys: it would send a message that even the new President's friends should not take his friendship for granted; nor should they presume to abuse it. The good old days of stitch-ups and back-scratching are, outwardly at least, gone... Or something of that sort.

And no, I don't really believe this will happen either.

Mr Webb Returns To Washington

There were all manner of reasons for Barack Obama to pick someone other than Jim Webb as his running-mate (though there was a case to be made for Webb too). But, via Ross Douthat, here's a reminder of why Webb is, as he might put it himself, a serious politician:

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."

It is a gamble for Webb, a fiery and cerebral Democrat from a staunchly law-and-order state. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, and it trails only Texas in the number of people it has executed. Moreover, as the country struggles with two wars overseas and an ailing economy, overflowing prisons are the last thing on many lawmakers' minds.

But Webb has never been one to rely on polls or political indicators to guide his way. He seems instead to charge ahead on projects that he has decided are worthy of his time, regardless of how they play -- or even whether they represent the priorities of the state he represents.

I don't blame the Washington Post reporter for focusing on the political risks Webb runs in taking this stance. That's the natural horse-race way to view these things. More notable is the note of surprise, even wonder, in that final paragraph: Imagine charging ahead on worthy projects regardless of how they play! How long can a guy like that survive in Washington?

Now it's true that Webb's bill only seeks to create a national panel that will make recommendations on improvements to a criminal justice system that currently incarcerates nearly 2.5m people. Clearly this is a long way from actually pressing states to reform their prison systems. But it's a start and a reminder that, for all his excesses of pride and cussedness, Webb's one of the more interesting, even admirable*, members of the United States Senate. 

Anyway, it would be good  - chnge we can elieve in, even - if the new President supports Webb. (Politically, of course, Webb's doing Obama a favour: the President-elect has an interest in these matters, but it's more convenient if the initiative comes from the Senate, not the White House.)

As always, I can't really recommend Robert Timberg's The Nightingale's Song strongly enough. It's still, I think, the best book on Webb. (And one of the best on John McCain too.)

[*That's just because he's embraced stuff you like, ain't it? Plus the whole Appalachian, Scots-immigrant thing. If he comes out in favour of school vouchers you'l be totally in the tank. You betcha.]

The Kennedy Gall

Andrew suggests that Caroline Kennedy is, in most important respects, less qualified to be Senator from New York than Sarah Palin was to be Vice-President of the United States. There's something in that, for sure, and Caroline's sense of entitlement is nauseating. Still, Andrew writes:

The model now, of course, is similar - finding a way to get elected without actually exposing your inadequacies.

This seems harsh. After all, that's what everyone standing for election hopes to achieve. At least, that's true of the more self-aware breed of pol; some of them, I dare say, don't think they have any inadequacies that could possible be exposed...

Senate Selection

Joe Klein on the self-styled Worlds' Greatest Deliberative Body:

The point is, that the Blagojevich fiasco and now the Kennedy play have turned the selection of new Senators into a skeevy travesty. The best way to change the story would be go in the exact opposite direction--go completely high-minded.

He suggests some worthy folk, but nothing so high-minded as, you know, an actual election. Sure, it would be expensive but all the pols are telling everyone they should spend some more money, so consider this a stimulus for the political consultancy industry - a trade that's been badly battered by the bursting of an inflationary bubble in the first week of November...

Anyway, the selection of new Senators has always been a "skeevy travesty". To take but one pleasing example of gubernatorial chutzpah: in 2002 Senator Frank Murkowski was elected governor of Alaska and, as the new governor, appointed his own daughter, Lisa, to his own unexpired Senate seat. Granted, it's Alaska, Jake but there's still something impressive about this.

DC Statehood!

Yglesias supports the idea of DC becoming the 51st state. This would be great news for Democrats since the party would be rewarded with a brace of Senators and an additional Congressman. That's one reason why it will never happen.

Still, DC's lack of voting representation in Congress is a boon for foreign correspondents needing an idea every so often. I reckon you can squeeze a piece out of the matter at least every 18 months. And it's true that foreigners are astonished to discover that residents of the US capital have no votes in Congress.

So yes, it's nice that DC car license plates carry the slogan "Taxation Without Representation". But what about a grand bargain? In return for not having a vote in Congress, how about abolishing the federal income tax for DC residents? I suspect there are many who'd be all in favour of that. And of course such a move would do more to repopulate the city - complete with the kind of urban density Matt's in favour of - and regenerate its schools and so on than just about anything else...

Waiting for the Call

Steve Clemons posts a very droll email purporting to be from an anxious Democrat wondering what, if any, job he (or she) might receive in the Age of Obama...

Like you, I keep a secret "A list" of positions I would kill for, including all manner of ambassador slots, sub-secretary -ships and senior director positions.

I have my secret "B list" of fall back positions I would also kill for, including senior advisor, special assistant, and even the Deputy Assistant Secretary-ship. Of course, I tell almost no one about these lists.

If people saw the B list, that might reduce my chances of getting an A list job. And if they saw the A list, people might think I was too arrogant, too demanding, and too self-delusional to serve in the administration. It takes a lot of skill to project A-list, aspire to B-list, and secretly wonder if you're on any list at all.

Like you, I have started to act like a person in the know. I never mention except to my closest friends that no one from the transition team has called me. When anyone mentions the transition in conversation, I nod silently and knowingly. I start every sentence about politics by saying "I am not officially part of the transition but...

It reminded me of this (sadly non-embeddable) classic moment from Yes Minister in which Jim Hacker ponders what might happen to him in the next cabinet reshuffle. If there is a reshuffle, of course...

Best, Brightest, Fabbest Cabinet, like, Evah

I'd been meaning to write something about how all the cheering at the supposed brilliance of Obama's cabinet picks was reminiscent of the huzzahs that greeted George W Bush's peronnel choices. But Ezra Klein has beaten me to it:

"Isn’t it amazing," asks Krugman, "just how impressive the people being named to key positions in the Obama administration seem? Bye-bye hacks and cronies, hello people who actually know what they’re doing. For a bunch of people who were written off as a permanent minority four years ago, the Democrats look remarkably like the natural governing party these days, with a deep bench of talent." That certainly feels true. But the Bush administration started out with a fairly deep bench. Colin Powell as Secretary of State. Paul O'Neill --a former deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget and a past chairman of the RAND Corporation -- as Secretary of the Treasury. Columbia's Glenn Hubbard as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice providing foreign policy expertise. Indeed, the Bush team was lauded for being such a natural entity of governance: These were figures from the Nixon and Ford and Bush administrations, and they were backed by graybeards like Baker and Scowcroft and Greenspan. What could go wrong?

Now of course this doesn't mean that the Obama administration is going to go down the tubes like the Bush one did. But it ought to remind everyone - including those who should not need reminding - that there's no sure thing in these matters and that at least some of Obama's appointees are likely to prove disappointing. That's just the way it is. One trusts, however, that their disappointments will be less grievous and less damaging than those of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell et al.

UPDATE: Megan argues, however, that Obama's economic team is much more impressive than Bush's first-term appointments. Which is just as well since they've got a heck of a job to do.

The Days of a Do Nothing Presidency, Alas, Are Gone

Gail Collins, short of an idea for a column this week, clutters-up the NYT op-ed page with the fanciful suggestion that George W Bush stand down now and let the cool new guy takeover. Well, fine. Whatever dreams tickle your fancy. Collins also drops this in, however:

“Doing nothing is almost the worst thing a president can do,” said the historian Michael Beschloss.

This is almost the worst advice you could give a President. Doing stuff is often the problem. One of the better things about Candidate Bush in 2000 was his apparently modest agenda. Of course, it didn't work out that way. But with the exception, one might argue, of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration's sins have been ones of commission not omission.  Of course, Bush's particular brand of hapless government activism opened the door, not unreasonably, to a revivified activist liberalism to repair the damage Bush hath wrought.

Granted, the times - terrorism on the one hand and economic woe on the other - make the populace susceptible to promises of grand, decisive action. In politics, as in so much else, modesty is out of fashion. Ah well...

Meet the New Boss, Not So Different From the Old Boss?

Sure, last month Barack Obama was an un-American, terrorist-coddling, muslim threat to every American Ideal every true-blooded, stout-hearted, tub-thumping patriot held dear. Now, however, things are a little different. We can seem more clearly these days, now the nonsense has receded. Ross Douthat offers a prediction:

Among right-wing hawks, there will be strange-new-respectful talk about Obama's centrist instincts, his Scoop Jackson-ish tendencies, his Reaganesque blend of idealism, pragmatism and strength. Meanwhile, the rest of the right-wing coalition will be getting steamrolled.

Quite so. Viewed from outside the United States, the foreign policy "debate" in Washington is a curiously curtailed affair. It concentrates on means, not ends and this rather tends to obscure the fact that, on many and perhaps even most issues, there's less between the parties than might be thought.

Take Iran, for instance: as the world knows, Obama has talked a good deal about talking with Tehran. (Ignoring, conveniently, that there's already a good deal of "dialogue" between Iran and the West). This is all very well and good. It would be a fine thing if Iran were persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Perhaps it can be. But what if it can't? Obama has repeatedly said that a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable". That means military action remains an option. It is still - as you may say it must be - on the table. Which is to say that the goal of American policy has not changed, only the emphasis placed, perhaps, on the various possible ways of reaching that goal.

Similarly, in Afghanistan, the goal of American policy remains just what it would have been had John McCain somehow won the election. Again, I make no judgment (now) on whether American policy is sensible or realistic, I merely suggest that either candidate would have found themselves retooling and, indeed, tooling up in the Hindu Kush. The difference, to the extent there was one, lay in Obama's greater willingness to openly support incursions into Pakistan. Again, this may or may not be a Good Thing but it's hardly the sort of policy likely to endear him to his own party's left-wing is it?

Ditto in Latin America. Obama has, to my knowledge, shown few if any signs of breaking with Washington orthodoxy on issues such as Plan Colombia or the wider drug war. And anyone hoping that relations with Cuba might be normalised is likely, I'd hazard, to be disappointed.

So too in Europe. Obama may well be in a better position to demand more from europe in, say Afghanistan, but that too, generally speaking, represents an intensification of existing US policy, not a break from it. And recall, also, that the new President also supports, like McCain, NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine. Maybe that won't happen, of course, but right now you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Obama's foreign policy thinking marks any substantial break from the general Washington consensus.

What's more likely, I think, is a reordering of priorities and shifts in emphasis but little alteration to long-standing US goals. Perhaps, as Steve Clemons suggests, Hillary will play "bad cop" to Obama's "good cop" in a renewed push for a solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem. That would not be a bad thing, though I confess I've little idea how it can happen, absent a renewed willingness to talk on the part of the warring parties themselves.

But what about Iraq? True, Obama has talked about bringing the boys home by the summer of 2010. And that may yet happen (though don't be surprised if there's slippage on the timetable). That is a difference from McCain, but either man would have been charged with managing and making the best of a mess.

Still, at the most basic level, the new President whistles the same old tune. His job is to maintain, preserve and protect american hegemony. Like his predecessors, Obama is of the view that the United States has the right to intervene in any part of the planet it sees fit. This may (Pakistan) be in the pursuit of the national interest or, more nebulously, on humanitarian grounds (the Sudan) if Obama, as seems perfectly possible, picks up the Albright-Clinton baton and runs with it.

I don't say that any, let alone all, of these are necessarily illegitimate ambitions, merely that, when you get down to the bottom of it, Obama hasn't yet given much indication that he either wants to, let alone will, break from the broad thrust of the Washington foreign policy consensus. That being so, why should hawks on either side of the aisle have anything to fear from him? Means matter, of course, but so do ends.

She's Back! (Maybe)

I don't know. You go away for an internet-free weekend and everything seems more or less normal. You return and discover that there's much talk that Hillary Clinton could be the next US Secretary of State. Blimey! Andrew is, I think, depressed by this but concludes that shoving Hillary over to Foggy Bottom means she can't damage Obama without also, presumably, damaging her own chances of succeeding him. Perhaps! On the other hand, Mike Crowley says:

A stint at State, incidentally, would set Hillary up pretty nicely for 2016, if she's interested. (She'll be 69 years old on Election Day of that year.) No longer would people doubt the validity of her "experience."

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. On the one hand, she'd have the "experience" card (presuming she didn't have to resign in disgrace) but Foggy Bottom hasn't sent anyone to the White House since James Buchanan (The other five Secretaries of State to have become President? Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQ Adams and van Buren.) Perhaps that's just a coincidence, but maybe it's not! 

There is also the problem that the Democratic party will face: it's tough for either party to win three presidential elections in a row. Its only happened once since Truman was President. That doesn't rule Hillary out, even aged 69, but it does suggest that her life will be more difficult. And by 2016 Hillary will have been in the public eye for more than a quarter of a century; too long for her to win, I think. Remember the Rauch Rule? LBJ is the only President since Teddy Roosevelt who took more than 14 years from their first significant election victory to become either President or Veep. And of course he needed Lee Harvey Oswald to get him the top job too.

Now maybe Rauch's Rule is a fluke too, but combine it with the State Department's status as a final destination, not a springboard to higher office and, well, the stars might not be so very well aligned for Hillary after all.

That still doesn't explain why Obama would consider giving her the top job in the cabinet. If she wants out of the Senate - and is there any indication this is so? - then a place on the Supreme Court would seem a safer, more logical (and, granted, more powerful) position. This is supposed to be Obama's Presidency: why give your most high-profile cabinet slot to someone whose mere presence cannot help but challenge and, potentially, undermine the central thrust of your administration: how is Hillary "Change we can believe in"? Well, she ain't. So I can't quite believe this will happen...

Also: what about Bill's relationships with dodgy oligarchs around the world? Much embarassment lies ahead there. 

Still, this is fun, isn't it? Obama hasn't even been sworn in and we're already moving on to speculate on the 2016 election (presuming, I guess, that he'll be pretty easily re-elected in 2012...) At this rate the betting markets will open for 2020 business by the end of the month...

Choice is for me, not for thee

Gabriel Sherman's written a very entertaining piece on the furious competition between Washington's elite private schools to enroll the Obama daughters next term. Enjoyable as it is, you may find yourself wishing they could all lose. However, the piece reveals one of th egrubbier, more ghastly sides of the city.

Nonetheless, the issue of where the Obama girls go to school is interesting. Back in 1992 the Clintons toyed with the notion - perhaps even promising? - that Chelsea would attend a bog-standard public (ie, state) school. That didn't survive a recce of the DC public school system (though I suspect that the Secret Service had a say too) and I doubt many people really think the Obamas are going to put their kids into a public school. So Sidwell Friends (where Chelsea went) or Georgetwon Day seems most likely.

And that's fair enough. Here's the thing however: all year long Obama said that, with regard to healthcare, it was only fair that every American have access to the kind of privileged healthcare plan members of Congress have thoughtfully provided for themselves. Nothing wrong with that either. But sauce for healthcare is sauce for education: if everyone should be able to make the same choices as Congressmen and Senators in healthcare, why shouldn't ordinary voters have the same - or similar -  range of choices available to them as do the Wahsington elite when it comes to choosing what school they send their kids to?

I don't think Obama is being especially hypocritical in sending his own kids to the best school he can afford. I just wonder why he doesn't do more to help more families have some of the same choices he does?  What's the difference - apart from the teaching unions' contributions to Democratic politics - between healthcare and education? That is, what's the logic in supporting choice in healthcare but opposing it in education?

Is it 'cos he is black?

Like Clive Davis, I don't much mind that Peter Hitchens has some fun with the more extravagant claims being made for an Obama presidency. But then there's this:

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street* – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world...

And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Well! Let's just observe that I doubt Hitchens - Christopher's brother - would have written this dreary, bilious tripe had Barack Obama been white. I suppose we should be happy that the descent into the third world will be "long" and slow."

I wasn't in Washington on election night. Then again I didn't need to be to know that Hitchens is talking rot here. The immigrants - legal and less legal - in my old neighbourhood don't, you know, have any desire to reduce the United States to third world status. What would be the point of leaving the third world, if that were the case? On the contrary, it's precisely the idea of America that draws them from El Salvador, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Albania, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Korea and so on. They celebrated Obama's victory because a) they'd Democrats and b) for multi-coloured, polyglot America his election confirms the possibilities of the American Dream.

It's fashionable, of course, to deny the existence of any such dream but the mere fact that not everyone can, even with hard work and good fortune, make it does not invalidate the wider, more general point. After all, the existence of President Barack Hussein Obama rather makes the case for you. So the joyous street parties on U St and in Mount Pleasant were celebrating the idea of America, not saluting its imminent demise. This is not a difficult point to grasp.

Also, one has to admire Mr Hitchens' ability to determine someone's citizenship just by the colour of their skin. Then again, I guess h thinks the only "real" Americans are white and Christian and that Hitchens, like Melanie Phillips, is another casualty of this election season.

*Actually, it's 16th St that runs north from the White House and to the extent that there's a frontier between black and white Washington, it's moved east to 10th St or so now. But why quibble?