Why Republicans Will Not Miss Obama

Jonathan Chait has an article in the New Republic called, "Republican Clinton Nostalgia." It can be quickly summarized as follows: those crazy Republicans hated Bill Clinton, and believed the worst of him at the time, and now they like him; today they are unhinged about Obama, but someday they'll look back on him with nostalgia just like Clinton. Chait helpfully demonstrates once again that many liberals are simply out of touch with reality.

There are a couple of reasons some, and only some Republicans, now have a more positive view of Bill Clinton. The most obvious is that he is not in power and no longer a threat. But more importantly, the economy was good under Clinton. Regardless of his personal problems, some Republicans view Bill Clinton as a competent politician who had a generally successful two-term presidency. And of course he looks good by comparison with the current occupant of the White House. Unless Obama's job performance changes drastically, there is no way he's going to be looked back on with nostalgia.

A much better comparison than Clinton, which Chait completely ignores, is Jimmy Carter. If anything, most Republicans despise Carter more now than when he was president. The vast majority of Republicans -- and others -- see a similar level of incompetent leadership. At the moment it is far more likely that Obama will be viewed as another Jimmy Carter, a figure of derision among Republicans and an example of the worst of Democratic leadership. If a GOP or partially GOP Congress is voted in, Obama moderates his views, works with Republicans, the economy turns around, the wars are brought to successful conclusions and various other major changes take place, Chait might have a legitimate point. But that's a whole lot of if's. As of now though, his assertion is pretty laughable.

Typical Big Government Reasoning

This time from Bill Clinton, speaking in favor of health care reform. What about the details of the bill? They don't matter, according to the former president.

"It's not important to be perfect here. It's important to pass, to move, to start the ball rolling," Mr. Clinton said. "And whatever they can get the votes for, I'm going to support."

Nothing is more important than just enlarging the size of the government, and getting its fingers deeper into the health care system. According to Clinton, "doing nothing was the worst outcome." How typical is that? It doesn't matter that the bill has all sorts of problem, or that there may be far better ideas for reform, to big government types, the government "doing something" is always the answer.

Fortunately there are a few Democrats with the rudimentary logical reasoning power to point out the obvious flaw in that sort of thinking. Senator Ben Nelson noted, "failure could be passing a bad bill." For some reason, the possibility (and often the high probability) that government intervention could make a bad situation worse just doesn't register. Unfortunately, things can always get worse. It's far easier to cause new problems than fix existing ones.

Clinton's North Korean Mission

Politico has a pretty good summary of reaction & opinion regarding Bill Clinton's successful negotiations that resulted in the release of two U.S. journalists. The more skeptical view from the right is probably best expressed by former Bush administration official Dan Senor, who said,

“It’s unlikely that [dictator] Kim Jong II would have agreed to a pardon [of the journalists] without something tangible in return. No matter how justified, given the lives on the line, those tangibles may make some people nervous, especially among our allies in the region.”

If there is a standard view on the right, this may be it: happiness that Clinton succeeded in freeing the two women, but worry about what we gave the North Koreans, and concern about setting a bad precedent. John Bolton of course is far more negative, but Bolton's views tend to be foreign policy outliers.

My take is as follows. In circumstances where U.S. citizens are seized by third-rate countries, I generally favor making a bloody, lasting example of the country in question. It would be nice if most states understood that molesting U.S. citizens would bring extremely negative consequences. But that clearly isn't practical with regard to North Korea. And even if it were, there is no chance a weak Democratic president with a Democratic Congress would ever contemplate the type of punitive action that might serve as a useful example. Under the circumstances, a Bill Clinton-led negotiating mission was probably one of the best options. And it succeeded. Given what we know at present, I believe criticism is misplaced.

The Obama administration denies that there was any quid pro quo, and there's really no reason to assume that there had to be one. The U.S. wasn't under any obligation to negotiate in good faith with hostage takers. Obama is not exactly known for his honesty, and if Bill Clinton is breathing, he's lying. I can't think of anyone better to flatter the North Koreans, tell them things they wanted to hear, free the hostages, and bring them home. Until we see actual evidence that the U.S. made concessions, why assume any?  No matter what Clinton told them, the Obama administration can deny any North Korean interpretation, or simply refuse to honor any promised concessions exacted under the duress of a hostage situation. Unless further information comes to light, at this point I have to say congratulations to Bill Clinton for freeing the journalists -- at a cost of nothing more than empty talk (a Clinton specialty).