Notes From D. R.

Shattered Glass

Kevin Whelan on Barack Obama's ability to make history.

Weekend Box Office: Your Secret Love

National Treasure: Book of Secrets stays on top for a third week.

Trouble

Why Mike Huckabee would move America to the left as President.

Breakdown

George Will on the (grim?) future of the American conservative movement.

Obama Nation

If Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States, he should thank George W. Bush for making it possible.

The pundits have pointed to Obama’s caucus win in predominately white Iowa as proof that race no longer matters in American politics. Like him or not, President Bush has a lot to do with that: by appointing the most diverse Cabinet in Presidential history, Bush made white Americans comfortable with the notion of nonwhites being in positions of power.

It’s quite possible that Colin Powell decided not to run for President in 1996 because he feared that white voters, uncomfortable with the notion of a person of color in charge of the United States government, would not support him at the ballot box. Powell should have run for President, and would have likely unseated President Clinton, but his fear of rejection was apparently too great.

Whatever fear white voters once had of nonwhites in charge has largely been reduced thanks to Bush’s multiracial Cabinet appointments. Americans may have disagreements with the actions of some of Bush’s nonwhite appointees, but it is beyond dispute that Americans have now become accustomed to minorities holding power in Washington.

Because racial diversity in the highest corridors of power is no longer unusual, white voters have largely lost whatever irrational concerns they may have had about nonwhites controlling critical aspects of government. Since old prejudices have subsided, there is a distinct possibility that if he secures the Democrat nomination, Obama could succeed Bush as President.

Obama’s victory would only be regrettable in terms of his very liberal politics. While Republicans will never countenance his views, conservatives will applaud an Obama victory as proof that America is a fundamentally fair country, and that a qualified person can become highly successful here regardless of his or her racial or ethnic background.

Bush will likely be the most prominent Republican figure heralding an Obama victory as evidence of America’s social progress. One shouldn’t be surprised if Bush is constantly at Obama’s side between November 2008 and January 2009, aiding him in every way as he prepares to assume the reigns of power. Liberal cynics will accuse Bush of trying to symbolically atone for the perceived federal mishandling of post-Katrina New Orleans, and conservative critics will accuse him of siding with an ideological enemy, but Bush won’t care. Bush came of age during the civil rights movement: like most baby boomers, he regards racism as America’s original sin, and longs for the day that bigotry is finally conquered in this country. Bush sought a diverse Cabinet not for reasons of shallow tokenism, but because he truly believes in inclusion. He will sing Obama’s praises once the Illinois Senator is elected, because he will regard an Obama win as the ultimate symbol of racism on the retreat.

Of course, Bush will never get any credit from his liberal critics for his efforts to make diversity normal. Yet he has clearly set the stage for an Obama victory. Prior to the beginning of his administration, most Americans were still accustomed to white males being in charge of crucial aspects of our government. Yes, there were some prominent nonwhites in previous administrations, but how many of those minorities were in “main event” Cabinet positions? Before Bush, the notion of nonwhites in charge of the State Department, Justice Department and Department of Education would have been considered absurd. Now, thanks to Dubya, it’s no big deal.

If Obama wins in November, I’m sure he’ll deliver a speech giving credit to those who paved the way for him to become America’s first black President. He probably won’t list the now-despised Bush as one of the folks whose actions benefited him, but he should. Say what you will about the 43^rd President, but you cannot deny that he shattered multiple glass ceilings, placing people of color in charge of Washington’s most important tasks. Bush demonstrated a commitment to equal opportunity in his appointments; he showed political courage by nominating folks from a wide variety of racial and cultural backgrounds to occupy seats of power. Over the course of the 2000s, white Americans became less uncomfortable with the idea of nonwhites running the show in Washington—and this decline in discomfort has allowed Obama to become the first black Presidential candidate with a legitimate chance of winning a general election.

Obama could deliver an outstanding performance in the ’08 American political concert. However, let’s not forget the man whose actions helped Obama get to the show.

Reese's Pieces

The Boston Globe on Reese Hopkins' unusual journey to the Boston talk-radio market. A great read.

The Big O

Barack Obama wins the Iowa Democrat caucus. More from the Washington Post.

UPDATE: Rick Brookheiser: "A man who could not have used certain restrooms forty years ago is in the center ring, not as a freak in the manner of Alberto Fujimori or Sonia Gandhi, nor even as a faction fighter in the style of Jesse Jackson, but as a real player. One of our great national sins is being obliterated, as the years pass, by the virtues of our national system. I don't agree with Obama and I don't particularly like him, but I am proud of this moment."

Plus, Fred Barnes: "He is an African-American with remarkable appeal across racial and cultural lines. Obama is now not only the favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, he's the candidate in either party with the best chance of becoming the next president."

And, James Taranto: "Could Obama win the general election? Why not? He is obviously a more attractive candidate than either Al Gore or John Kerry, both of whom came close to beating George W. Bush. Bush, of course, will not be on the ballot, but this points to another advantage of Obama's upbeat style of campaigning: He seems less likely than Mrs. Clinton or Edwards to make the mistake of running against a lame duck."

What The Huck?

Mike Huckabee wins the Iowa Republican caucus. More from Red State, Hugh Hewitt, Peggy Noonan, Kimberly Strassel, the Washington Times, John Ellis, Terry Eastland and Howie Carr.

No Surrender

A bizarre story involving Fred Thompson.

UPDATE: Would a Thompson-Romney ticket seal the deal for the GOP?

"No Marigolds In The Promised Land, There's A Hole In The Ground Where They Used To Grow..."

Yet another embarrassment for Mike Huckabee.

UPDATE: More from Hugh Hewitt.

Color By Numbers

A depressing column by the Boston Herald's Margery Eagan about blacks who are convinced Barack Obama cannot win a general election. Let me say it again: Obama transcends race. America will not regard him as a "black man" but as a man. I don't agree with Obama on any issue, and thus I wouldn't vote for him--but anyone who truly believes that Obama cannot win a general election is either race-obsessed, not a close follower of politics, or simply not that bright.

Hard To Read

A new publisher for legendary author Tom Wolfe.

Turn Right, Or Left?

George Will on Rep. Charlie Rangel.

Oh, What A Rush!

Rush Limbaugh strongly implies that only Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson are suitable candidates for Republican primary voters.

So You Think You Can Dance?

A new career for once-popular rapper MC Hammer.

So Proudly We Hail

It’s the last year. Can you believe it?

On January 20, 2009, President Bush will leave office. “In disgrace,” says the left. “In honor,” says the right.

It’ll be a little difficult to adjust to Bush not being in the White House any longer. Bush’s eight years in office will never be forgotten. Not since Ronald Reagan has a President presided over so much political and cultural change.

Think about where we were as a country on January 20, 2001. We were three years into a New Culture War—and eight months removed from the beginning of the War on Terror. We had just witnessed one of the most controversial elections of modern times. The strong partisanship that had dominated the late-1990s was beginning to harden into rigid ideological intolerance.

Have we become bitterly divided as a nation during the Bush years? Sure—but we would have been just as divided had Al Gore won the Electoral College.  (Of course, Gore is now considered the Martin Luther King of the environmental movement, while numerous countries and half of this country loathes Bush. Sometimes you have to wonder who got the better end of that deal…)

I can’t wait for Bush to finally leave office—but not because I dislike the man; I voted for him twice. Rather, I’m anticipating Bush’s departure because Americans will not be able to accurately assess his legacy until after he’s stepped aside.

I remain convinced that history will not be as hostile to Bush as the mainstream press and the Democrats currently are. Bush-hatred is a sport that will inevitably lose its popularity; just as it was once “cool” to despise Reagan, so too is it now in vogue to reject Bush and all he stands for.

Once the era of anti-Bush scorn passes, Americans will remember the man who stood tall in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the man who liberated two countries from dictatorship and oppression, the man who renewed a spirit of patriotism and national pride not seen since Reagan’s heyday.

Will they remember the flaws, too? Of course—and they should. Bush was a flawed President. Some of his ideas—No Child Left Behind, the planned appointment of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court, the Dubai Ports Deal, “comprehensive” immigration reform, the “new tone”—weren’t the wisest things in the world. He dropped the ball on Social Security reform, missed numerous opportunities to take the Democrats to task for their extreme partisanship, and failed to anticipate the perception-is-reality problem that was post-Katrina New Orleans.

Yet the Bush administration has been far from a flop. Two exemplary judges sit on the Supreme Court. Thanks to his tax reduction policies, the national economy remained far stronger than one would have expected it to be after a terrorist attack and two expensive wars. In addition, his accomplishments in the realm of national security have been nothing but impressive.

The boos will turn to cheers for George W. Bush, given time. Back in 1988, Reagan wasn’t the most popular fellow around; while hardcore Republicans still embraced him, his public image was somewhat tarnished by the Iran-Contra mess and his failed bid to place Robert Bork (and later, Douglas Ginsberg) on the High Court. Only after Reagan left office did America finally begin to appreciate his work in neutralizing the Soviet Union’s threat and keeping the economy strong.

Bush has never harmed himself the way Richard Nixon did with Watergate. Absent a scandal of that magnitude (and no, the prewar intelligence about WMDs doesn’t count as a Watergate-level scandal), it’s inevitable that Americans will eventually let go of their negative feelings for this President. It’s unlikely that a man who received the votes of 62 million Americans in the 2004 election will be permanently reviled in the American memory.

Bush has nothing to be ashamed of. He made mistakes, some of them severe, but he did his job to the best of his ability. He never dishonored the Oval Office, and always placed the interests of average Americans in mind. He was not a perfect President, but he was the best man we could have asked for in these perilous times.

Bush has one more lap to run in this race. Then he can return to Texas and continue the fight for American security and freedom on other battlefields. Say what you will about Bush, but he’s always been a fighter…and in these post-Presidential fights, he’ll also be a winner.

Behind Every Great Man

Tragedy hits conservative author Dr. Walter Williams.

Talent On Loan From God

Can David Limbaugh encourage his brother to endorse Fred Thompson? More from Human Events.

Acting Out

The New York Times on actor Kevin Kline's career.

Three Kings

This year, we will mark the fortieth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the twenty-fifth anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s signing of the bill making Dr. King’s birthday a national holiday.  Although Jimmy Carter was the first President to endorse the concept of a King holiday, it’s somehow more historically appropriate that Reagan was the man whose signature made the King holiday a reality.

King and Reagan agreed on very little in terms of politics; in fact, in 1964 King denounced Barry Goldwater, the Republican Presidential candidate Reagan had endorsed, because Goldwater misguidedly opposed the ’64 Civil Rights Act on libertarian grounds. By the late-1960s, King had firmly placed himself on the Left; in 1967, he delivered a controversial speech strongly condemning the United States’ involvement in Vietnam.  After he died, the civil rights movement King once led became harshly, dogmatically anti-Republican; many of King’s philosophical heirs took pleasure in demonizing Reagan as a racist, despite clear evidence of Reagan’s commitment to colorblindness.

Yet King and Reagan are linked by history; they stand out as twentieth-century icons because of their commitment to freedom. Both men believed in the dignity of the individual; both men believed that the government should not impede or obstruct the individual’s right to achieve his goals and utilize his God-given talents. While they approached the question of freedom from different perspectives, their objectives were similar.

King and Reagan have inspired millions, and they always will. Both men believed in the importance of faith and the potential of mankind; just as King regarded domestic bigotry as a repugnant opponent of freedom, Reagan regarded international communism as an evil enemy of liberty. King and Reagan were committed to breaking down barriers, and anyone who wages war against ideological intolerance can look to both men to find a template for triumph.

It’s often been noted that we will never find individuals with the courage and character of Reagan and King. That’s both true and false. Reagan and King had to have monumental levels of courage and indestructibly strong characters, due to the size of the respective challenges they faced. Racism and communism have both declined as a result of their efforts. However, the world provides new challenges, and there will be leaders with the courage and character necessary to confront these threats.

I’ve often noted that President Bush has never really filled Reagan’s shoes. That may have been a little unfair on my part, since Bush and Reagan didn’t face the same challenges. The challenge of Islamofascism is a relatively new one; the modern-day threat of Islamofascism began under Carter and continued to grow under Reagan, although Reagan could not pay full attention to that gathering storm since he was already trying to protect the country from the hurricane of Soviet communism. Yet Bush has shown sufficient courage to combat the enemy he faces. A more pusillanimous President would have long since quit Iraq, and probably Afghanistan as well. A more poll-focused Commander-in-Chief would have never supported antiterrorism initiatives that the worldwide left finds intolerable. A weak, timid President would have placed poll numbers far ahead of principle.

Yet Bush has stood firm, ignoring the hostile critics and media character assassins. Just as King refused to submit to segregationists, and Reagan opted not to concede to Communists, Bush will not abandon his vision merely because his ideological enemies curse his name. What the Bush-haters call stubbornness is actually commitment to a cause—in this case, the same cause of freedom that motivated Reagan and King.

Despite the current wave of hatred directed towards the man, Bush will be remembered as the most significant American leader since the King-Reagan era. Like those men of courage and conscience, Bush has an unwavering commitment to human liberty and dignity. He properly regards Islamofascism as being just as much of a threat to freedom as racism and Communism were, and is determined to bring about its defeat by any means necessary. Just as King faced intense scorn from some Americans in his attempt to bring civil rights protection to all Americans, Bush has been demonized by large segments of the country as he labors to protect the entire country. Even if he disagreed with Bush’s political vision, I’m sure King would appreciate the irony.

Who could have imagined back in 1999-2000 that Bush would become such a consequential figure? Then again, who could have imagined the leader of a bus boycott becoming a worldwide hero, or a Hollywood pretty boy bringing down a totalitarian regime? Greatness is often found in places one wouldn’t expect.

Reagan, King and Bush will be remembered as heroes of history, men who saw institutionalized injustices and were determined to bring those injustices to an end. These men were viciously condemned by their enemies, but when the American story is told, only these men, not their enemies, will stand out. All these men worshipped the same God—and it’s hard to argue against the notion that, in each man’s own way, they served Him well.

End Of The Line

The AP on President Bush's final year in office.

UPDATE: Bush takes action on Darfur.

Unbound

George Will on Barack Obama's ability to transcend race.

Irrational Exuberance?

Jed Babbin's hopeful about the GOP's chances for '08.

The Walk

Never underestimate the Washington Post's desire to make religious conservatives look like idiots.