Obama, Security, and Sham History

We live in historic times. Certainly those who felt the power of the long polling lines, the nervous energy, and the spontaneous celebrations across the country on Nov. 4 will remember where they were, what they were doing, at that moment, for many years.

Some would rather these times weren't this historic. Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard has written a somewhat (less than) generous opinion piece lamenting that more of the country didn't see things his way. He is concerned that we, as a country, are now suddenly at a greater security risk than we would have had a septuagenarian and his girl-novice sidekick been elected.

I grant Kristol his opinion. But his justification comes from a bizarre historical narrative. He suggests that the American electorate has, since WWII, followed a consistent pattern in voting. Republican administrations make us strong and feared about the world, and then we feel happy enough to elect Democratic presidents who muck things up by being soft and squishy.

Consider:

Encouraging Americans' tendency to take hard-won national security successes for granted--once they are won--is the key to how Democrats, in modern times, win presidential elections. Dwight Eisenhower pursued a cautious but not ineffective foreign policy. Voters were unimpressed by the peace and stability of 1960 and chose John Kennedy. Partly as a result of Kennedy's initial weakness, the Berlin Wall went up and the Cuban Missile Crisis followed--and then, partly out of a felt need of Lyndon Johnson's to appear strong, we escalated in Vietnam.

Let us forget for a moment that Eisenhower was elected primarily to extricate America from an unpopular war started by a fist-pounding Democrat, and that Kennedy campaigned as a stanch cold-warrior to the more moderate Nixon. Let us forget that the Soviets did not need anyone's permission to build the Berlin Wall and weren't "waiting around" to do it. Let's keep our eye on the larger narrative. Kristol continues:

The voters elected Richard Nixon to extricate us from the quagmire in Vietnam with honor, which he did, and Gerald Ford attempted to prevent the Democratic Congress from walking away from our ally and our responsibility. Voters decided, however, to give the presidency back to the party of JFK and LBJ--by this time more the party of George McGovern--and we got the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

So Americans elected Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and--stunningly--they won the Cold War virtually without firing a shot. (Bush also drove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.) Voters were able in 1992 to take peace for granted and to focus on domestic policy. "It's the economy, stupid" was stupid but successful just as its equivalents had been in 1976 and 1960.

Kristol is right that we elected Nixon to extricate ourselves from Vietnam, presumably with honor. He ended up bombing Cambodia. The bombing continued for years before he left with the same terms he could have gotten at the beginning of his tenure as president. Given the recent evidence that Kissenger may have sabotaged the peace talks under Johnson in order to prolong the war for an incoming Nixon administration, the idea of Nixon's failed Vietnam policy amounting to "peace with honor" is something of a joke. The Iranian Revolution occurred--if I read Kristol correctly--because we were not hard enough on Iran? As if the secret police we trained for the Shah and the support we gave him to keep Iran a client state was not enough. Would he prefer we had provided more weapons of repression to that regime? Does he really suppose that the Iranian revolutionaries cared who was president back in the United States? Nor did the election of Ronald Reagan do anything to convince the Soviets to leave Afghanistan. And the USSR's protracted presence in Afghanistan played its part in its own demise--a lesson we may want to take to heart before we jump into any more wars in the name of strength and national security.

What is most disheartening about Kristol's analysis are the assumptions that govern it. Events that occur during a presidency--carefully selected and pruned of any meaningful context--are attributed to the sitting president. One could just as easily construct a counter-narrative which is even more compelling.

Start with World War II, instead of avoiding it as Kristol does. Our Democratic president and his Democratic successor achieved the impossible: getting powerful, industrialized fascist countries to surrender unconditionally. Harry Truman, in his zeal to stop the totalitarian Soviet Union from expanding its reach, combatted communism in Korea. The American people, confident that we were powerful enough to stand some peace, elected Dwight D. Eisenhower. By the end of his term, the Soviet Union had achieved the H-Bomb, was more powerful than ever, and ready to move on Berlin and Cuba. Americans elected John F. Kennedy--a chest-thumping cold warrior--over the more moderate and level-headed Richard Nixon. Kennedy met the Russians face-to-face and took us to the brink of nuclear war in order to defend freedom, including engaging in a hot war in Vietnam. Nixon would be elected in 1968 to extricate us from the war, much as Eisenhower had before him. Nixon ended up pursuing a policy of appeasment with communist Russia and communist China. Reagan's administration fared no better than Carter's, given our meager victory in Grenada and the more substantial embarrassment that was Lebanon.

I could go on, but there is no point. The counter-narrative is just as empty and inspid as Kristol's narrative. I use it only as a heuristic device, and only to demonstrate that Barack Obama's election does not signal that a confident public believes it has been protected by the last administration and now is ready to "take a chance." Many Americans rightly believe that this last, failed presidency has seriously weakened us as a country, that we can no longer defend ourselves the way we might have eight years ago. Kristol's inability to acknowledge this simple truth is, on his part, both an intellectual and a moral failure.

Guantanamo, War, and the Rule of Law

A few reflections on a subject probably not on most people's minds on the eve of the Election: what to do with Guantanamo Bay and the prisoners we hold there. It is of great relief to me that both candidates have signaled their willingness to close Guantanamo and proceed in an honorable and legal fashion against the detainees, which includes releasing those who are not threats and who are held in error. The solution will require some practical policy decision-making as well as principled constitutional action. The most recent test of this is Kiyemba v. Bush, currently before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief supporting the release of the petitioners who--by the administration's own admission--are not and were never enemies of the United States and ought to be released post haste.

Elections are constitutional moments, and 2008 is something special in this regard. But we should not lose sight of the fact that one of the most important constitutional issues of our day was decided in the months leading up to this election, when the Republican Party made John McCain and not Mitt Romney its candidate. Romney, we should recall, promised to "double" Guantanamo. He repeatedly invoked the stark language of "good" and "evil" in his foreign policy discussions. And despite these moral absolutisms, he was not willing to repudiate the use of torture.

One constitutional issue for the electorate to decide has, therefore, been decided already. It is up to all of us now--or at least those of us who wish to see our government restored to lawful, rational, and moral behavior--to hold the next president accountable. Guantanamo must be closed, and the prisoners there either released or charged with crimes.

See you all on the 5th.

Not an endorsement, really...

Students of constitutional history need to monitor the actions of the next president--whomever he may be--over his first six months in office. Both the candidates have signaled their desire to end the executive excesses of the Bush Administration and restore something like dignity to the notion of constitutional government. Given that warrantless wiretapping is still an open issue, Guantanamo Bay remains open, and unaccountable military actions seem the norm these days, it is an enormously important that our next president demonstrate self-restraint. At the same time, the Congress is going to have to grow a pair if it is ever to restore constituional balance to the system. Back when revelations of George W. Bush's mendacity concerning the war in Iraq were coming to light, only Arlen Specter (a republican from Pennsylvania) talked seriously and openly about the possibility of impeachment. It would be nice if Congress prepared to defend its constitutional prerogatives, especially the power to declare war.

Meanwhile, I still harbor tremendous doubts about the Republican choice for President. Sadly, much of this comes from McCain's selection of Sarah Palin, who has now been identified by some as the "hope" of the Republican Party. If this is true, then the Republican Party deserves the drubbing it will receive on November 4. It deserves to become a permanent minority party. As George Will--in something a little more than a statement of good will and a little less than an endorsement of Obama--put it:

Some polls show that Palin has become an even heavier weight in John McCain's saddle than his association with George W. Bush. Did McCain, who seems to think that Palin's never having attended a "Georgetown cocktail party" is sufficient qualification for the vice presidency, lift an eyebrow when she said that vice presidents "are in charge of the United States Senate"?

She may have been tailoring her narrative to her audience of third-graders, who do not know that vice presidents have no constitutional function in the Senate other than to cast tie-breaking votes. But does she know that when Lyndon Johnson, transformed by the 1960 election from Senate majority leader into vice president, ventured to the Capitol to attend the Democratic senators' weekly policy luncheon, the new majority leader, Montana's Mike Mansfield, supported by his caucus, barred him because his presence would be a derogation of the Senate's autonomy?

Perhaps Palin's confusion about the office for which she is auditioning comes from listening to its current occupant. Dick Cheney, the foremost practitioner of this administration's constitutional carelessness in aggrandizing executive power, regularly attends the Senate Republicans' Tuesday luncheons. He has said jocularly that he is "a product" of the Senate, which pays his salary, and that he has no "official duties" in the executive branch. His situational constitutionalism has, however, led him to assert, when claiming exemption from a particular executive order, that he is a member of the legislative branch and, when seeking to shield certain of his deliberations from legislative inquiry, to say that he is a member of the executive branch.

McCain has been careless in this campaign, and it does not bode well for America should he be elected. He seems to fly by the seat of his pants, makes decisions from the gut, and has abandoned his former virtues of moderation, independent thought, and coolness. The Economist opined the same sentiment when it endorsed Obama earlier this week--the editors clearly pined for the old McCain, but cannot see him leading in any real way as President.

As a constitutional scholar concerned about the preservation of rule of law in this republic and the advancement of human rights worldwide, it matters less to me who is president than what the next president does. Personally, I can't wait until this election is over. It has been exciting, but it is quickly approaching tedious. I'm looking forward to casting my ballot on Tuesday. I'm then looking forward to holding whoever is elected to account for his actions for the next four years. And I would like to see some constituitonal history in the making, reversing the trends begun by Bush, Cheney, and that lawless crew that has run the White House like it was a biker bar for the past eight years.