The Democratic Albatross

I teach a group of young people who are a mixed bag of intentions.  Some are really nice but there is another group who pretend to be nice or more accurately, are nice because of the social advantages it heaps on them.  They are ticking boxes that will ensure their success – good grades, positive relationships with teachers and a healthy amount of extracurricular activities and volunteerism.  I’m reminded of those students when I see and hear Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She is one of the most well-known and visible Democratic and ipso facto the favorite for the Democratic nominee.  It is just one of the many reasons why she should not occupy the White House.

Her popularity, to be frank, has always been a bit puzzling to me.  Every time I see her interacting with the hoi polloi, it always seems contrived and forced.  There are certainly politicians who have a genuine connection with those they represent but not Hillary Rodham Clinton.  With the former secretary, perception does not match up with reality.  She is a feminist poster child who nevertheless stood by a serial Lothario.  She is a self-proclaimed and noted hawk whose time as Secretary of State was marked by inaction and the proliferation of terrorism and territorial ambitions.  She has blasted Republicans in the past for improprieties while she is currently embroiled in a series of illegalities that would derail most candidacies. 

In launching her 2016 bid, her campaign began with a video that included every ethnic group and disadvantaged persona that one could incorporate.  So blatant was her attempt at inclusiveness, it came across has calculated and cynical.  Then, there is the baggage of the name.  Had her husband not been an unabashed cavorter, Bill Clinton’s time in office would have been seen as the most successful Democratic presidential term since Franklin D. Roosevelt.  As it is, the former president has been marginalized and pushed to the peripheral by every significant Democrat (read, candidate) since 2000.  Ms. Clinton now stands as a continuation of that legacy and Democrats must be scratching their heads, wishing for someone else.

Are there other Democrats out there that could legitimately challenge Ms. Clinton?  The former Maryland governor Martin O’Mally has expressed interest in the brass ring.  The hunky former governor certainly looks like presidential material but he’s received very little attention.  There is always Vice President Biden but there cannot be anyone in the Democratic Party that takes that candidacy seriously.  A serious candidate could be former Virginia Senator Jim Webb who has the backstory (former Marine officer turned politician and diplomat) and the toughness that could challenge Ms. Clinton.  However, in the end, only the former First Lady is being discussed and covered…ad nauseam. 

So, as she sets out on her “common folks” tour, her lack of the common touch grows daily.  Yet, she is still the presumptive favorite and will be talked about and exalted on a daily basis in the press.  In short, she is not going anywhere – hopefully, that prediction extends to the White House.  The Republicans have a great chance to make a powerful case against the former First Lady.  I hope they are disciplined enough to make it.

The Return of the Boys of Summer

With the advent of the 2015 baseball season at hand, I would like to share a quote by the baseball philosopher George Will on the position of baseball as a true democracy's sport.

Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience. That means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half-loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season, where small, incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose; there's no certainty, no given. You know when a season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time, the worst team's gonna win a third of the time. The argument over 162 games: that middle third. So it's a game that you can't like if winning's everything. And democracy's that way too.

My friends may disagree but as a wise man once said, "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas."

The New Chamberlain

At the onset of President Obama’s term in office, there seemed a desire to deal with Iran.  Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has sought a deal with the totalitarian state to inhibit through diplomacy its nuclear ambitions.  This might be seen as a continuation of the type of diplomacy that began under President Nixon to limit our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities.  However, previous agreements have been done from a position of strength.  The president, so anxious to get any deal done, has created the opposite and the Iranians are better for it.

For the Iranians, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the elimination of international sanctions that have been in place for so long that the Iranian economy’s decline is in an inverse relationship with civil unrest.  The Iranian leadership, exhibiting a dictatorial nature that they once bemoaned personified in the Shah, is cracking down on dissent while trying to turn the corner on their own Great Depression. 

Just as the Iranian government was left grasping for answers, they received a bit of salvation in a rather obliging deal with the U.S.  The fact that the Iranians are praising the deal while threatening to build nuclear weapons if anyone backs out should give the powers that be pause.  The Israelis are particular concern because their relationship with Iran is not diplomatic but pragmatic.  It is they who stand to face obliteration at the hands of a nuclear Iran.  While the president opines rhetorically, the Israelis are faced with a very real problem.  For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is not a personal ambition but a national one given the results of recent elections that returned him to power.

The blithe sanguinity with which the president sees Iran’s compliance is thankfully not shared by the Congress.  The ball is now in their court to put some teeth back into this deal or nix it altogether.  Still, while Congress can frame the approach, it still lies with the president to act on it and Mr. Obama does not seem keen to do so.  With a naïveté reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter with the Russians and President Woodrow Wilson with the European Powers, President Obama is banking his entire approach on the “will of good men” in Iran.  Never mind that Iran has done nothing to give the impression that such men exist within its government, the president’s approach continues to hold the faith. 

I must admit that I admired initially the president’s willingness to speak to Iran.  He is right that nothing can be achieved without communication.  However, cock-eyed optimism is no way to deal with such an adversary.  There must be iron in our words and a willingness to lower the hammer if our interests are ignored.  We have taken on the responsibility to negotiate and the worst thing that we can do is to disregard our commitment to friends and regional peace by settling for anything at any price.  The president, in a way not unlike pre-World War II British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, has done just that.