Hoping, audaciously

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
BACK IN JANUARY, I said — on video; you can view it on my blog — that this year’s presidential election presented the American people with a no-lose proposition.
    It was the first time in my career when the two candidates we (and I) enthusiastically endorsed for their respective nominations actually made it onto the November ballot. So how could we lose?
    Well, there’s one way — the guy we preferred between the two guys we liked didn’t win on Nov. 4. But now that the other guy has won (and did you ever really think he wouldn’t?), I’m putting that setback behind me and looking forward to what happens next, with Barack Obama as my president.
    You could say I have no choice, but you’d be wrong. Unfortunately, we have before us a plethora of examples of how to have a perfectly rotten, stinking attitude when your preferred candidate loses, from the “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bush” bumper stickers that appeared on Republican cars before Bill Clinton was even inaugurated to all that nonsense we’ve heard for eight years from Democrats about how the election was “stolen” in 2000.
    We always have the option of being mean, petty, poor losers. But not me. Call me audacious, but every day I see fresh cause to be hopeful:

• First, there’s Barack Obama himself. Just as John McCain was the best conceivable Republican to unify the country, Sen. Obama offered himself as the one Democrat most likely to put the bitterness of the Clinton/Bush years behind us. As we wrote when we endorsed him in the S.C. primary, “for him, American unity — transcending party — is a core value in itself.” In a column at the time, I cited “his ambition to be a president for all of us — black and white, male and female, Democrat and Republican.” When a guy like that wins an election, nobody loses.
• Sen. McCain’s gracious (and typical, for him) concession speech left his supporters no room for bitterness, as he wished “Godspeed to the man who was my former opponent and will be my president.”
• Sen. Obama’s promise that same night, in his first flush of victory, “to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn.” He said, “I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too.”
• The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff. He’s been called a partisan attack dog, but he was defended against those who called him that by our own Sen. Lindsey Graham, John McCain’s close friend and ally. Yes, he ran the Democrats’ successful effort to take over Congress in 2006, but he did it by recruiting candidates who appealed to the political center — something his party’s more extreme elements haven’t forgiven him for. In an interview just before he was offered the job, Rep. Emanuel said, “The American people are unbelievably pragmatic. Have confidence in their pragmatism. It’s the operating philosophy of our country.” (The Associated Press says exit polls back that up: “This year 22 percent called themselves liberal, compared with 21 percent in 2004; 44 percent moderate, compared with 45 percent; and 34 percent conservative, same as four years ago.”)
• The image of the Obamas visiting the Bushes at the White House a week after the election. No big deal, you say? It is after the way the current president has been demonized by many Democrats. The presidential election of 1800 proved the miracle of the American system — that power can change hands in a peaceful, civilized manner. That never gets old for me.
• After days in which the more partisan types in the Senate debated just what to do to Joe Lieberman in light of his unpardonable “sin” of supporting Sen. McCain, the president-elect said that of course the senator from Connecticut should still be allowed to caucus with the Democrats.
• The fact that on Monday, Sens. Obama and McCain will sit down at transition headquarters to chart ways to move forward together. “It’s well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government,” said an Obama spokeswoman Friday, adding that the two men “will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality.” They will be joined by Sen. Graham and Rep. Emanuel.

    You’ll notice a certain theme in my points, and just in case I haven’t hit you over the head with it hard enough, I’ll say it again: I draw my hope from signs that this country is ready to move beyond the stupid, pointless, destructive  polarization that has been thrust upon us by the two dominant political parties, their attendant Beltway interest groups, the blogosphere and the mindless yammering of 24/7 shouting-head cable TV “news.”
    You might say that mere nonpartisanship — or bipartisanship, or post-partisanship (or my favorite, UnPartisanship) — is not enough by itself. That’s true. But without it, there’s no hope. Fortunately, I see plenty of cause to believe we’re about to see something new, and better.

Join me in hoping at thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Comments

[Lee Muller]

Your celebration of the election of a Marxist is premature.

Liberals here, and in Germany, had the same giddiness at when 90% of Germans voted to affirm Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.

[Randy E]

"typical for him"? I certainly respect McCain's concession speech which FINALLY showed McCain 2000. Typical grace has hardly been a hallmark of McCain 2008 and your continued "ignorance is bliss" approach to the gutter campaign he ran still surprises me.

Obama's post election approach reflects his judgement and may be THE reason many of us supported him. This has been his approach all along. When Clinton was slammed with the sniper question in the debate, he begged off the moderators question - he could have blasted her. Also, he NEVER questioned McCain's character even after McCain repeatedly questioned Obama's with "he wants to lose a war to win an election." Then contrast his response to the economic crisis and the gas price hysteria this summer with McCain - the former showed much greater poise.

All along Obama referred not to red nor blue states but the United States. His actions are speaking as loudly as his words.

[bud]

Let's see how long Brad champions his bi-partisan principals once the president orders a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. I can hear the howling now. Sometimes bipartisanship gives a result that runs counter to one's personal convictions. I believe in doing what's right and not harp on philosophy so much. We've had some pretty awful decisions made by bipartisan government. It's not always pretty.

[p.m.]

Bipartisan principals? Have a little homonym with your breakfast, bud. Most principals at public schools agree on the principles of democracy, but few are bipartisan, because virtually all of them are Democrats.

[Adolph Hitler]

I was raised in one country, but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.

I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy. and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this
was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker
who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.

Mine was a people's campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.

I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden, including persecuted minorities such
as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my
nation's leader. But anyone could have easily learned what I really
believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I
associated with. But they did not. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.

Who am I?

[bill]

Lee Muller?

[Harry Harris]

Brad, it seems that some don't share your hope. Others who share it would like to deny that you should have it because of your previous positions. In the kindest spirit I can muster, I'll just say "Screw 'em." Let's move on together with an open invitation to all to get over our personal issues and get about helping to move this nation (and world) forward. The hope Obama calls from us will not allow the coalition of the willing to get bogged down in arguing with those who would perpetuate the paralysis our divisions has created. I welcome you aboard.

[Michelle]

You do know of course that whomever uses the "Hitler" or "Nazi" analogy automatically loses the debate right?

[bud]

I do share one thing with Brad, optimism. Given the utter failure of the conservative brand of government rule how can one not be optimistic about our future? We now have a president and a congress who reject the failed conservative policies of the last 8 years. The failures of the GOP run deep and have caused much hardship. The failed foreign policy of Bush has led to the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a disasterous military occupation that has torn one nation appart and imparted a sense of legitimacy to an evil band of extremists called Al-Qaeda. How could this have happened given the good will America had following 9-11? Bush has so ruined our diplomatic environment that now even Iran looks like a moderate nation in comparison.

But I digress. We all know the horror stories. There really is no need to harp on the past. With President Obama we can begin the healing process. American troops will return from Iraq soon and we can put that mad episode behind us. The Iraqi people will be free of the tyranny of the Bush adminstration and they can determine their own destiny. Obama will utilize these freed military assets to go after the people who perpetrated the atrocities of 9-11.

The world has rejoiced in the election of Obama and they will work with us to make sure all people are treated with dignity and respect. At the end of the day this newly established good will will help the nations of the world pursue peace and prosperity as we did in the 1990s.

The disasterous failures of conservatism will be put to rest as one more philosophy that failed to live up to it's advanced billing. The party of talk radio idiots like Rush Limbaugh will have to re-make itself into something quite different in order to survive. Perhaps we will see something that focuses on the realities of the 21st century where the people are the beneficiaries of their toil rather than the elitist few who have been the only group who thrived during the Bush years.

Indeed with the death of the Limbaugh GOP we can all look forward to a better world. And not a moment too soon.

[Lee Muller]

So Michelle thinks it's okay for Obama to have some of the same programs as Adolf Hitler or some tinhorn communist dictator, and to even use their rhetoric in his speeches, but it is verboten for anyone to point it out.

Gee, that really is a lot like Hitler and Mussolini supporters would think.

Oooops! There I went, pointing out the truth again.

[Lee Muller]

The economy will continue to slide towards a recession as long as Obama and the Democrats threaten to tax the Productive Class, and continue to devalue the dollar by running monstrous budget deficits.

The only way to revive the economy is to not implement any of Obama's stupid Marxist campaign platform, and to abolish many of the Democrat programs which created this economic collapse, starting with FNMA and FMAC, and including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Of course the socialists will not do that. Just as they did under FDR, they will blindly pursue their Marxist ideology, and blame ever one of their failures on "the failure of capitalism".

[Karen McLeod]

Last night some friends and I were gathered to watch the Gamecocks play. Since they didn't, people drifted into other conversations. A few women got to talking about politics. One said she was Republican, and the other identified herself as Democrat. And whoo-boy! did the conversation go downhill from there. It soon became (apparently) a contest to see who could use the "f-word" the loudest and most often. This scenario, needless to say, became not a serious discussion, or even debate of differing ideas, but an ill-tempered shout-fest. This approach to polictics wins nothing, and tends to isolate those who engage in it (the rest of us moved away from that group). Brad, do ya really think there's any hope that we can move away from that form of "political discussion" and get some real work done? And maybe some real learning?

[jfx]

Actually, Lee, FDR harnessed the strength of our capitalist manufacturing base to defeat the Nazis and save the world.

The kind of fear-mongering you practice on this blog against Democrats is exactly the kind of fist-pounding rhetoric against the "bourgeois" and the "liberal elite" that Hitler used to whip crowds into an angry frenzy. Sprinkle in a generous dash of militant nationalism for good measure.

Lee, look in the mirror, and give yourself a big "Heil Muller!" Your smear fits YOU far better than it fits Obama.

[Lee Muller]

Actually, FDR's policies in the beginning were Herbert Hoover's platform, which FDR had ridiculed.

Unemployment was as bad, and the economy worse, in 1936 as it was in 1932. FDR improved economic activity the same way Hitler and Mussolini did, by arming for war and running huge budget deficits.

Unemployment was actually worse than the official figures, if you just look at manufacturing and other private sector jobs, and discount the socialist works projects run by the military, like the WPA and CCC.

Unemployment was finally reduced by drafting 4,000,000 men into the military.

[Randy E]

Karen, who won the fight?!?

[jfx]

OK, Lee, now we're getting somewhere. Let me see if I can tie the Lee Muller worldview together real quick:

Socialism = bad
FDR = Socialist
FDR = Hitler = Mussolini
Obama = Socialist
Hitler = National Socialist
Obama = Hitler
Obama = FDR = Hitler = Mussolini

Phew, finally the mystery of WWII is solved. It seems we were fighting ourselves all along! Ain't that a bitch! The Greatest Generation was just a bunch of stinkin' Socialists!

[Karen McLeod]

How would I know? I wasn't paying any attention to them?

[Phillip]

jfx, excellent. I also agree with Randy that the hope for a post-partisan Presidency was the reason I supported Obama, even more than for the sake of his policies. That means that on occasion I have to swallow my disappointment at some of his positions...the recent FISA legislation for example or his continued opposition to gay marriage, but I would accept some disappointment on specific policy issues if the main legacy of Obama's Presidency was to change the tone both in terms of our domestic politics as well as internationally, in the way that we see ourselves relating to the other nations (especially the other democratic nations) of the planet.

Brad, as someone who disagrees with you on some very fundamental principles (but not all, certainly) and recognizing that you supported the other guy in the general election, your editorial and your hopes for this administration are appreciated. Obama needs to seal the deal with folks like you. (To that end, watch for the Three Amigos---well, maybe two-and-a-half---to play a very important role in the next four years.)

We shouldn't kid ourselves that there are not going to be strong arguments. Not every decision can be "split down the middle." Sometimes you have to pick Choice A or Choice B. But those of us whose politics are perhaps inherently closer to Obama's than Brad's are should give Brad benefit of the doubt before we pre-emptively assume he will accuse Obama of departing from the post-partisan approach. For example, Bud, I think it's more likely that you and I are going to be the disappointed ones when Obama in the end sticks relatively closely to whatever timetable is set forth in the Status-of-Forces-Agreement with Iraq (tweaking things perhaps semantically to claim a faster withdrawal) than it is that Brad will be the one howling.

Anyway, Brad, I'm glad to say I share your cautious optimism.

[Lee Muller]

jfx, you are just an uneducated, or miseducated, kid. All you can do is talk trash. You are completely unfamiliar with FDR and the failures of his socialist programs.

You cannot discuss history with us, much less challenge or explain away the historical facts.

[Lee Muller]

Unemployment under FDR

Unemployment (% labor force)
Year Lebergott Darby
1932 14.0 14.0
1933 24.9 20.6
1934 21.7 16.0
1935 20.1 14.2
1936 16.9 9.9
1937 14.3 9.1
1938 19.0 12.5
1939 17.2 11.3
1940 14.6 9.5 No improves so far!
1941 9.9 8.0
1942 4.7 4.7
1943 1.9 1.9 4,000,000 in uniform
1944 1.2 1.2
1945 1.9 1.9

Note:
Lebergott counts only those working in industry or agriculture, using the same measures as before 1933.

Darby counts those in socialist work programs like the CCC and WPA as being employed, even if they only worked part-time or for just room and board.

[Rich]

I think Lee just likes to stir things up. Too bad his views are not shared by the majority of academics in this country--or are they all conspiring against the Wisdom of Lee??

[Lee Muller]

I post the FACTS, which apologists for FDR cannot refute.

The majority of academics are liberals, progressives, or outright socialists and communists - of course they deny history, which contains no success for their ideology.

At least I am familiar with the details of the fantasy history of the New Deal, which is taught as a propaganda tool.

I am also familiar with the economists and historians who compiled the facts which refute the propaganda of Democrats.

Have you read any of Milton Friedman, Hayek, von Mises, Percy Greaves, or John Flynn, or Thomas Sowell?

Or are you just familiar with the few slogans memorized for your socialist professors?

[jfx]

Good grief! Lee, the very first thing you did in this thread was talk awful trash, equating Obama to Hitler. That's just sick. Warped. Mental. The man you demonize in such sick fashion is still your new President, you clod.

Hitler was a Jew-hating mass murderer who destroyed a continent and shot himself in the brain.

Get help, you comedian.

[Birchibald T. Barlow]

Lee - A few thoughts on some of your comments here...

1. To even attempt to compare President-elect Obama to Adolf Hitler is ridiculous. It either shows your lack of understanding and knowledge of who Hitler was and the extreme nature of his actions in Nazi Germany or it shows a desensitization to such disgusting crimes against humanity and thus a detachment from reality.

2. Freddie Mac is not abbreviated "FMAC." It is abbreviated FHLMC, as in the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The first time I saw it I let it go. But, the fact that you have posted "FMAC" more than once has to make one wonder if you have any inkling whatsoever when you post about such subjects.

3. You like to invoke the names of Hayek, von Mises, etc when criticizing the Democrats and their supporters. You even go so far as to call them "socialists." However, when Bush, McCain, and the Republicans support or push policies that conflict with your Economist Heroes not only do they avoid the "socialist" label, they get a free ride altogether. This gives you less of an appearance as the intellectual economic thinker you make yourself out to be and instead more of a Republican Party kool-aid drinker.

For someone with the educational and intellectual background that you claim to have, you really have no clue how to make an effective argument.

[david]

Brad, it is neither surprising nor disappointing that you are a faithful lap poodle for Obama now that he's in.

Nothing. No disturbing fact about Obama, no wildly leftist doctrine, no dangerous association he had with terrorists or anarchist or virulent racist preachers made even a dent in your unquestioning support for him.

Given that we know this about you, why should anyone who questions or doubts Obama EVER buy a State newspaper for the next four years? Can we ever really be sure that you'll actually do anything remotely resembling objective journalism where Obama is concerned?

For me the answer is quite clear: No need looking in The State...nothing Obama says or does, and absolutely nothing could possibly happen that will sour Brads' undying love and unquestioning support for Obama...never has, never will. I can save fifty cents, I already know what you think.

David