Where Now for the Republicans?

Mark McClelland of the University of Birmingham offers this analysis and challenging questions:

Not a great night to be a conservative...

At least the Senate races weren't a complete disaster. Was surprised to see Coleman just about hang on in Minnesota (although there is bound to be a recount), McConnell won in Kentucky, and it looks like somehow the disgraced Stevens is going to win in Alaska. Chambliss won in Georgia but looks like he may be a few votes short though of avoiding a run-off. And Smith is 15,000 ahead in Oregon with 75% of precincts reporting. Given Obama's convincing victory, I suspect the Dems will have hoped for more victories on Obama's coattails. They have only really picked off the low lying fruit. Some good filibustering lies ahead. Small crumbs of comfort given the wider picture, but c'est la vie...

I'm interested in your thoughts on the McCain campaign. Given Bush's approval numbers and economic meltdown, was this the best result McCain could have hoped for? If you think he could have done better, do you think he should have completely avoided any negative campaigning and run positively as a centrist, or would McCain have been better served. as John Bolton suggested on the Beeb last night, by being far less restrained, taking the gloves off and systematically hammering Obama on his liberal record for the whole campaign, not leaving it until the last 10 days to do so. My feeling is that ultimately the campaign lacked cohesion, and would have been more successful (though still may not have won!) if he had focused on just one of these strategies, instead of trying to do both (badly) and falling between the two stools.

In contrast to shrewd reflection, George Will in the Washington Post goes in for a fatuous rallying of the troops:

Conservatives should note what their current condition demonstrates: Opinion is shiftable sand. It can be shifted, as Goldwater understood, by ideas, and by the other party overreaching, which the heavily Democratic Congress elected in 1964 promptly did.

Sorry to rain on your attempt to spark Republican fire, George, but you want to consider that the 1968 Presidential election was not won primarily by arch-conservative ideas or by the Great Society effort of 1964-68, but by the disaster of Vietnam.

By coincidence, I've just been debating the "Where Now?" question on BBC Radio Scotland with Robert McGeehan of Chatham House and Republicans Abroad. We hope to post a clip later.

48 Hours Later: Chuck Gannon on Obama and "Change"

On our big-sibling academic site, Libertas, Professor Chuck Gannon has written an outstanding article on Obama, America, and "change":

He will make mistakes; he will stumble; he will misspeak (and, far more frequently, be quoted out of context). But he has given us all hope again, and we can go on to finish the work that he will have only set in motion, whether he is to enjoy one term or two in the White House. He is not the most intelligent man, or the most moral man, or the wisest man: but he *is* the man who, being the right person at the right time, has midwifed a new hope into the world–-and for that alone, he is worth all the risks, all the uncertainties, and all the challenges that might lie before us. Lest adherents of real politick think this is anti-logocentric nonsense, I assure you otherwise: I simply observe that the quantifiable rules of economics and politics do hold sway 95 % of the time–but the other 5% see them swept aside and trumped by that most powerful of all forces: human hope and will.

Irreverent Election Postscripts (2): Bush Avoids Going Down the Sewer

Finally, I get news of perhaps the most important referendum of Election Night, via The Associated Press:

Turns out that San Francisco voters didn't think naming a local sewage plant after President Bush was a fitting tribute to the president — or the plant.

Voters on Tuesday rejected Measure R, which would have changed the name of the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant. More than 69 percent had voted against the idea.

The measure's supporters said it was an appropriate way to memorialize the 43rd president, who they blame for a long list of national woes from the Iraq war to the slumping economy.

But some critics had pointed out the name switch would have been unfair — to the hardworking sewage plant.

Irreverent Election Postscripts: America Overcomes "Crappiness"

A reader from Dublin points out this shrewd analysis from America's Finest Newspaper, The Onion:

WASHINGTON—After emerging victorious from one of the most pivotal elections in history, president-elect Barack Obama will assume the role of commander in chief on Jan. 20, shattering a racial barrier the United States is, at long last, shitty enough to overcome.

Although polls going into the final weeks of October showed Sen. Obama in the lead, it remained unclear whether the failing economy, dilapidated housing market, crumbling national infrastructure, health care crisis, energy crisis, and five-year-long disastrous war in Iraq had made the nation crappy enough to rise above 300 years of racial prejudice and make lasting change.

"Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have said, 'Things are finally as terrible as we're willing to tolerate," said Obama, addressing a crowd of unemployed, uninsured, and debt-ridden supporters. "To elect a black man, in this country, and at this time—these last eight years must have really broken you."

Added Obama, "It's a great day for our nation."

Carrying a majority of the popular vote, Obama did especially well among women and young voters, who polls showed were particularly sensitive to the current climate of everything being fucked. Another contributing factor to Obama's victory, political experts said, may have been the growing number of Americans who, faced with the complete collapse of their country, were at last able to abandon their preconceptions and cast their vote for a progressive African-American.

Citizens with eyes, ears, and the ability to wake up and realize what truly matters in the end are also believed to have played a crucial role in Tuesday's election.

According to a CNN exit poll, 42 percent of voters said that the nation's financial woes had finally become frightening enough to eclipse such concerns as gay marriage, while 30 percent said that the relentless body count in Iraq was at last harrowing enough to outweigh long ideological debates over abortion. In addition, 28 percent of voters were reportedly too busy paying off medial bills, desperately trying not to lose their homes, or watching their futures disappear to dismiss Obama any longer.

"The election of our first African-American president truly shows how far we've come as a nation," said NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. "Just eight years ago, this moment would have been unthinkable. But finally we, as a country, have joined together, realized we've reached rock bottom, and for the first time voted for a candidate based on his policies rather than the color of his skin."

"Today Americans have grudgingly taken a giant leap forward," Williams continued. "And all it took was severe economic downturn, a bloody and unjust war in Iraq, terrorist attacks on lower Manhattan, nearly 2,000 deaths in New Orleans, and more than three centuries of frequently violent racial turmoil."

Said Williams, "The American people should be commended for their long-overdue courage."

Obama's victory is being called the most significant change in politics since the 1992 election, when a full-scale economic recession led voters to momentarily ignore the fact that candidate Bill Clinton had once smoked marijuana. While many believed things had once again reached an all-time low in 2004, the successful reelection of President George W. Bush—despite historically low approval ratings nationwide—proved that things were not quite shitty enough to challenge the already pretty shitty status quo.

"If Obama learned one thing from his predecessors, it's that timing means everything," said Dr. James Pung, a professor of political science at Princeton University. "Less than a decade ago, Al Gore made the crucial mistake of suggesting we should care about preserving the environment before it became unavoidably clear that global warming would kill us all, and in 2004, John Kerry cost himself the presidency by criticizing Bush's disastrous Iraq policy before everyone realized our invasion had become a complete and total quagmire."

"Obama had the foresight to run for president at a time when being an African-American was not as important to Americans as, say, the ability to clothe and feed their children," Pung continued. "An election like this only comes once, maybe twice, in a lifetime."

As we enter a new era of equality for all people, the election of Barack Obama will decidedly be a milestone in U.S. history, undeniable proof that Americans, when pushed to the very brink, are willing to look past outward appearances and judge a person by the quality of his character and strength of his record. So as long as that person is not a woman.

Return to the World: The Stories We're Watching

US BOMBING RAIDS IN NORTHWEST PAKISTAN:

General David Petraeus, who has just taken over the US Central Command, met Pakistani officials on Monday. The Pakistani Defence Minister claimed that he warned, "Launching further missile strikes in the country's troubled tribal areas could increase tensions between the two nations." Pakistani President Asif Zardari warned, ""Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counter-productive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government. It is creating a credibility gap." Petraeus offered no public reaction.

The meeting should be set against a significant if curious column by David Ignatius of the Washington Post. Ignatius claimed that Pakistani officials were quietly endorsing the US attacks: "The country's new chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, visited Washington last week for talks with America's top military and spy chiefs, and everyone seemed to come away smiling."

Ignatius added, "The secret accord was set after the September visit to Washington by Pakistan's new president, Asif Ali Zardari. It provided new mechanics for coordination of Predator attacks and a jointly approved list of high-value targets. Behind the agreement was a recognition by the Zardari government, and by Pakistan's new military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, that the imminent threat to Pakistan's security comes from Islamic terrorists rather than from arch-rival India.

The Ignatius piece is clearly the case of a reporter being used by the US military and intelligence stories to put out their version of events. What is unclear is whether that version corresponds with the Pakistani understanding. If both the civilian, military, and intelligence branches of the Islamabad Government are all on the same page, then the US Government may have finessed a situation where Pakistan publicly condemned unilateral American action but privately accepts the operations. On the other hand, if some in the Pakistani Government are working with Washington but others are opposed to the acceptance of US bombing, then there could be turmoil within the Government which dwarfs the unrest in the Northwest Frontier.

US BOMBING AND CIVILIAN DEATHS IN AFGHANISTAN:

href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/afghan-villagers-say-airstrikes-killed-civilians-993287.html">Associated Press reports that a US attack on Monday killed or wounded dozens of women and children in a wedding party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern in a message to Barack Obama: "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with air strikes. This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties."

US TO MEND FENCES WITH AFGHAN OPPONENT?:

The Washington Post reports: "With casualties among foreign forces at record highs, and domestic and international confidence in Karzai's government at an all-time low, U.S. and Afghan officials may have little choice but to grant [Gulbuddin] Hekmatyar a choice seat at the bargaining table."

Hekmatayar has been a player, often a dangerous and chaotic one, in Afghan politics from the 1980s. He was a leader of the US-supported insurgency against Soviet occupation but, after the Soviet withdrawal, he fought other Afghan factions for power. His rule in Kabul, marked by bloodshed, was ended by the Taliban's accession to power in 1996. Hekmatayar was opposed to the US strategy, including support of the Northern Alliance, to oust the Taliban in 2001; within months, US forces were seeking his assassination.

If true, the report could herald a modified version of General David Petraeus's strategy of talking to former anti-American insurgent groups to turn them against "real" enemies, in this case, the Taliban rather than al-Qa'eda.