In the last decade, however, Liberals in both the leadership and the rank-and-file have abandoned this moniker in favor of the even more misleading nom de guerre, “Progressives.”

Classical liberalism has always been a powerful and attractive concept to the American mind. Established at the pinnacle of the Enlightenment, liberalism is America’s founding philosophy. Progressives enjoyed early success by latching onto liberalism’s principle of freedom from oppression, but in recent decades that principle has been perverted to mean freedom from any manner of inconvenience or hardship. Today, liberalism essentially has no champions – Republicans can fill that void.

Why does liberalism have no followers?

The Left’s ultimate rejection of liberalism has been a long time in the making.. “Progressivism” implies a forward-thinking movement of individuals dedicated to the momentum of all the optimizing forces of history. But Progressives seek to abandon most of those forces in favor of an illusory collective compact where the individual is subject to an endless variety of social experimentations. Sadly, these optimization efforts often require the individual surrender their personal aspirations and freedoms.

As Progressives have abandoned the contrivance of calling themselves liberal, Republicans can retake this hard-fought ground. Conservatism, as a restorative movement that seeks to secure for the future all that was most effective about the past, can enjoy great successes in claiming that the true heir to the legacy of liberalism is in the Republican Party.

Republican Party members and conservatives have spent so much of their time combating Liberals on the Left that adopting the mantle of liberalism may prove a bridge too far. It will take a concerted and conscious effort to reclaim this noble, deep-rooted movement. Today there is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the GOP to reclaim the word and a broad swath of the center of the country with it. First, however, liberalism must be clearly defined.

What is Liberalism?

As Independence Day looms, the following concepts are always fresh in the patriotic mind. It never hurts to repeat them, however, as the limited and specific meaning of liberalism has been so diluted over the centuries.

The freedom of commerce: The freedom to engage in trade of whatever kind the individual sees fit. A liberal government does not seek to impose restrictions on trade or commerce in order to benefit one or several segments of society, but rather it embraces the freedom of the individual to make choices and manage their own affairs. A liberal government abhors trade restrictions, tariffs or taxation to restrict or create incentives to trade. Period.

Freedom of thought and expression: Liberalism seeks to ensure all peoples have the maximum freedom of expression, and that opposing ideas come into contact with one another as often as possible. Laughable ideas, such as prejudice or bigotry or economic repression for political gain, will be mocked out of the public square, but only if the freedom to hear those ideas fully and unapologetically voiced is preserved. The instinct to keep sensitive groups, which have been historically plagued by oppression and bigotry, free from contact with derogatory comments or sentiments is noble, but it is not liberal.

Freedom in private affairs: This includes the preservation of the individual’s freedom to practice whatever religion or politics that they see fit to in their private homes. This is perhaps America’s the most cherished but least practiced freedom. Ideas or religions that may not be to the taste of the public square must nevertheless be tolerated within the confines of an individual’s private home and should not be infringed upon. If you have ever heard a friend or neighbor utter the phrase, “I’m all for freedom of (insert freedom here), but…,” then you have encountered the ignoble instinct to limit the freedom of private affairs.

What are the obstacles?

When times are tough and the issues surrounding elections represent national survival, the opposition’s perennial inflated gripe that conservatives want to kill grandma and put homosexuals into camps are easily dismissed by thinking voters as a blusterous attempt to derail the conversation away from the serious issues of the time. In better times (see the 1990s) these attacks create doubt in the Republican Party. Perhaps, the persuadable voter thinks, Republicans are not as liberal as they claim. Freedom for all, without exception, must be repeated and repeated often by the party’s leaders. The case for liberalism must be made in this year’s Republican presidential primaries emphatically and by every candidate.

Republicans in Washington in the last quarter century have been too eager to leverage the tools of government against individual property and trade rights in order to benefit their various constituencies. The reclamation of liberalism must be engaged by the Right in deed as well as in semantic posture.

Finally, this is not a combative tactic to be employed against the opposition. Reclaiming liberalism is essentially a unifying and conciliatory posture. Former liberals should be engaged as the former Confederacy was engaged following Reconstruction – as a noble people with some laudable instincts toward freedom, which had simply lost their way. Your sins are forgiven. Now come home.

18^th Century liberalism is attractive because of its successes – it has a powerful hold on the American imagination as the principle that motivated our founding fathers to engage in the American experiment. It was a crime that its constructs were abandoned in favor of their direct antecedents as the Left reinterpreted liberalism. However, this hard-fought ground has been ceded by the opposition, and it is our time to seize it. It would be folly to ignore this opportunity to win a major battle for the public imagination.

Many describe 1994 as a referendum on the presidency of Bill Clinton and some are describing this years midterms as a similar referendum on Obama. If it is a referendum on the President, than there should be some connection between the job approval numbers of President Clinton and President Obama as they relate to potential losses in the House of Representatives. Those indicators, however, prove deficient.

In 1994, ABC News exit polls showed that President Bill Clinton’s popularity by region factored heavily how voters felt about the Democratic Party and why 1994 became a referendum on the Democratic Majority in Congress.

ABC News found that President Clinton’s approval relating directly to seats lost:

Northeast – 52 percent approval

Midwest – 45 percent approval

West – 42 percent approval

South – 39 percent approval

In the North, where Clinton was most popular, the Democrats only lost 3 seats in the House. In the South, where Clinton was least popular, the Democrats lost 19 seats.

In Gallup’s daily tracking polls, averaged from January to June, 2010, those 1994 approval ratings are similar to President Obama’s approval ratings:

Northeast – 56.3 percent approval

Midweast – 45.9 percent approval

West – 45.3 percent approval

South – 43.7 percent approval

These numbers are not reflective of the downward trend in approval that the president experienced this summer, but the comparison is still relevant. In August 15 – 16, 1994, Clinton had a 39 to 52 percent approval rating in Gallup. In 2010, between August 14 and 16, Obama’s numbers were similar: 42 to 51 percent.

From August 1st to the 15th, Gallup shows that, among registered independent voters, 47 percent are leaning towards Republicans, while 34 percent are leaning towards Democrats. A full 19 percent are undecided. If those undecideds break evenly for Democrats and Republicans, then the GOP will garner 56.5 percent of the independent vote. ABC News exit polling in 1994 found that exactly 56 percent of independent voters pulled the lever for Republicans. The comparisons continue to show that 1994 is going to be similar to 2010 in many ways.

What is not relevant, however, is presidential popularity relative to House seats lost. ABC’s polling notes that President Clinton’s Democratic Party lost only 3 seats in the Northeast where his approval was highest. Today, Obama is even more popular in the Northeast than Clinton was, but today, according to RCP, there are no less than 8 seats that are currently leaning or likely to go to Republicans in November. There are 10 Northeastern House seats that are too tossups, and it is a reasonable expectation that some of them will break for Republicans as well.

The South has 13 seats already in the lean or likely Republican category and 10 seats in tossup territory. The South transferred 19 seats to Republicans from Democrats in 1994 so this comparison is slightly more accurate. However, the congress in the early 1990s included significantly more Southern Democrats, so there may have simply been more territory available to lose.

ABC’s exit polls also found that in 1994, seven in ten voters were dissatisfied with Washington and six in ten dissatisfied with economy. Those numbers are likely to be significantly worse in 2010’s exit polling. An ABC News poll from June, 2010 showed that voter’s level of frustration with government is higher than it has been since 1992. The latest Gallup Congressional Approval poll shows that three in four voters are dissatisfied with Congress. Congressional approval is probably a more accurate indicator of voter preference this year than Presidential job approval.

“To those who would use this election to turn us back, let me say this – I will do all in my power to keep anyone from jeopardizing this economic recovery by taking us back to the policies that failed us before.”

Contrite, jovial but visibly chastened. Determined to achieve a transformative agenda. This was President Clinton’s the reaction to the route the Democratic Party experienced in the 1994 midterm elections. It is not difficult to imagine a similar reaction from President Obama on November 3rd, 2010, if polling data today is correct in indicating a “wave” election for Republicans in this year’s midterm elections.

“There is a lot we can work together on that is consistent with my convictions, consistent with what I believe, consistent with what I have always worked for.”

Now, President Clinton’s reaction becomes slightly divergent from what President Obama’s is most likely to be. Certainly, it is hard to imagine that an incoming Republican congress, should the GOP achieve a majority in the House, will have many items on the agenda that will be consistent with the “convictions” of the111th Congress.

Today in Missouri, voters will go to the polls in a largely symbolic effort to provide some legal basis to nullify the controversial provisions in March’s healthcare reform law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

Missouri is not the only state to back rhetorical opposition to healthcare reform with a court challenge. On Monday, a federal judge in Virginia allowed a challenge to healthcare reform to go forward.

In a controversial legal doppelganger, on Monday Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped by police for any reason. This opinion echoes the disputed Arizona law, the most controversial provisions of which were recently struck down by a federal judge. Arizona has already issued an appeal.

Do these court battles and referenda include an ideological component? Certainly. However, they cannot simply be dismissed as a Republican tantrum against the legislative will of a Democrat-dominated Washington. There are real precedents being set that are clearly divisive. There are two ways to achieve conciliation and consensus on these issues: subject them to a legislative initiative like a referendum or settle them in the courts. The latter, which does not yield consensus, is the method being employed at the moment.

At times, the judiciary is forced to make decisions on fundamental revisions of the social compact. Often the legislative process has broken down or a single law is so contradictory to other state or federal laws that only the highest court can break the stalemate. This is a suboptimal scenario; it is always preferable that such controversial decisions be accepted or rejected by representatives or by plebiscite in order to have a lasting consensus and avoid ongoing conflict.

The controversial clauses of both Arizona’s immigration law and healthcare reform are expected to eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. This is the process that was envisioned by the founders and, at times, it is a necessary check on the will of state and federal legislators that may have overreached in their desire to make popular, sweeping revisions of existing law. However, judicial remedies to legislative problems set up long, divisive fights. A Supreme Court decision rarely ends the debate.

Which brings us back to Missouri. The Republican base is energized by the prospect of being able to deliver an up-or-down vote on healthcare reform. This will give them the opportunity to deliver a referendum on the Obama Administration’s signature legislative initiative ahead of November. Democrats that support healthcare reform wonder if this referendum is necessary; the Civil War having officially settled the question of nullification and federal legal supremacy. Neither will be satisfied by any court’s decision on the matter.

American history is dotted with controversial decisions that have attempted to resolve contentious issues that pitted states against each other. Many cases that SCOTUS has decided required further resolution in the public mind, including Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which required redress in the form of the Civil War; Plessey v. Ferguson (1896), which resulted in decades of debate finally settled by the Civil Rights Act; and Roe v. Wade (1973), which is still unresolved in the public mind.

These social battles are waged in the zeitgeist of the national consciousness over generations. While they can be pressing and divisive, they are not usually short lived and their resolution is never through the courts. They are eventually resolved where true national reconciliation occurs, in the state and national legislatures. These two battles will eventually be waged there as well.

While it is unclear what the results of these court battles will be, the outcome will not be national consensus. That will come later. What form that reconciliation will take is unclear.

-Campaignsandelections.com

The pressure has always been on our allies that command regional influence to balance against the United States. Only a handful of nations (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Burma, Syria and to some degree Russia) actively contend with the hegemony of the United States and act as balancing powers.  The rest of the world bandwagons with the global super power; the benefits of throwing their geopolitical lot in with ours has been self evident since the Second World War.  History suggests that this is not often the case, and the tendency is to form balancing coalitions against a major power or regional hegemon.  The benefits of bandwagoning are dissipating and balancing is returning.

The U.S. tempered the instinct toward balancing through its unprecedented beneficence and inclusiveness in the post-war world.  However, this balancing act requires perpetual maintenance and, after only a few years abdication, the system falls apart.  Nation’s have observed that there are no teeth to American foreign policy.  Furthermore, they see the next three years as a time to take a gamble, while the sheriff is not interested in policing.

This is observable in Brazil’s already brazen President Lula, already beginning to buck the system in the Bush years, openly caucusing with the standard-bearers of Latin America’s “Pink Tide.” It has become unnervingly obvious in Turkey’s disturbing break with America.  Ankara had been repositioning itself for the better part of a decade, but subtly and without the aim of creating a regional block with itself as the center.  Today, however, Turkey had engaged in a crash course towards a rift with the West and is openly pursuing the goal of regional hegemony under the banner of Islamism.  It is difficult to think of a worse development for those that seek to preserve the global peace.

These states do not intend to reshape the planet’s structure of alliances, but they are happy to lay the ground work for revision while there are no consequences for such actions.  If the Administration is not careful, the crisis in the Mediterranean could provoke a significant revision or the complete abandonment of the NATO treaty.  At that point, Russia will aggressively pursue its successor treaty that seeks to remove the U.S. from Europe.  A similar course could be followed in East Asia.  As the new Blocs rise, so will the regions on the fringe of stability descend back into chaos.  Nations and peoples that were protected by our very existence will be forced to fend for themselves.

These relatively early but prescient earthquakes in the international system should prove to America’s political class (both the isolationists on the Right and the self-determinists on the Left) that the U.S. must actively preserve the system because history has shown that when we abandon that responsibility the world will turn on us.  We have avoided this fate through our own exceptional foreign policy.  Once we become less exceptional, so will our relationship with the rest of the world. 

In 2008, the Obama campaign was fond of admonishing the Bush Administration for alienating our allies.  The Obama Presidency has truly shown the world how it is done.

Republicans, tend to be ideologically fearful of government expansion, so their mistrust of the Obama Administration is no shock.  Democrats and young voters in the Bush years were told, endlessly, to hate and fear their government.  Dissent was the most patriotic thing they could do in the face of the Bush Administration’s willful disregard for the American political tradition.  It appears that sentiment cannot be turned off on a dime.  Moderate and centrist Democrats, even those that skew wildly toward the radical Left, see the Washington Democrat’s defense of government power today to be disingenuous.

Americans across divergent political spectrums now share a central thesis: government expansion into your life is dangerous.  American’s differ on the government’s central mission and we get lost in the particulars, but the executive summary of the American political contract begins starts with “government is scary.”  The winning strategy to cement this 80% into a generation of legislative consensus is to translate this fear of government into a smart contraction of the Federal government’s influence over American lives.

Liberals have not had wildest dreams fulfilled by this administration. Left wingers see this government as just as ‘corporatist,’ Liberal code for not radically redistributionist, as the previous administration. They do not understand why we woefully ignore the perfect working model, 90 miles south of Florida. No Joke. Just take in a meeting at the West Village’s Brecht Forum. They will never be satisfied. Highlight and exploit this tendency and bring the Democrat’s margins even farther into the forefront.  Their argument that this Administration does not go far enough will drive them further into the political wilderness.

Republican’s must embrace all forms of government contraction.  There will always be a choice between two evils, and Bush-era Republicans were certainly the lesser of those, but Americans are now and will remain receptive to candor and intellectual consistency.  Democrats, meanwhile, have dug themselves a pretty deep hole.  They can, however, achieve some traction if they are able to successfully depict Republicans as just as willing to expand government influence as Democrats, but it takes the form of unwarranted wiretaps and the like.  This debate will be constructive, but it can be easily won.

Democrats will try to foster the appearance of a contradiction in Republican’s embrace of a budget that keeps America’s military stronger than the next eight contenders combined. This too is a winning issue for the GOP.  Americans like being the hegemonic super power.  Force this issue and make it a centerpiece.  If the election is a decision between defense spending and spending on social programs that are both inadequate and habit forming, American’s will chose defense.

The small government consensus can govern the policy of a generation.  Both parties enjoy a large base that is now ideologically inclined to mistrust an active government.  It is a sentiment imprinted on American’s DNA.  One party is well positioned to own this sentiment now and, while sentiment cannot entirely substitute for policy, it can win elections.

Gorbachev and Shevardnadze’s much touted ‘new thinking’ did not evolve spontaneously. While Glasnost and Perestroika are celebrated domestic policies, in the West at least, little is known of the Gorbachev foreign policy doctrine: retrenchment. The fundamental tenant of retrenchment was to provide the political impetus to redefine the areas that the Soviet’s had previously been willing to commit military resources towards and thus reduce the military budget. The military was ‘cannibalizing’ the consumer economy and so it had to be scaled back. The easiest way to do this was to make friends of your enemies and, at the same time, tell your friends to make other arrangements for their own security. To this end Gorbachev shunned the CMEA (Comicon), told the embarrassing “the little Stalins” of Eastern Europe to embrace reforms or face abandonment and made many public overtures to the West. The writing on the wall was clear: the arms race is over, we lost.

This redefinition of foreign policy priorities provided the political basis to justify the retrenching of Soviet troops. The reduced threat from the US and NATO meant that Gorbachev could reduce Soviet troops abroad, withdraw from Afghanistan and engage in bilateral arms control treaties without inflaming his Red Army constituency. That Gorbachev’s generals did not go along quietly with this plan should not have come as a surprise, but it was Gorbachev’s lot that he had to make the attempt. The Soviet Union had an entitlement state to provide for; the largest in rhetorical commitments in all of history, and the military was consuming that budget and providing diminishing returns. While the General Secretary of the CPSU could not outright demand unilateral disarmament, it had not choice but to attempt it. This is the policy the U.S. is following today.

The United States is retrenching. The U.S. is actively alienating its allies and opening up to its traditional and self-declared adversaries. It is laying the ground work for the ultimate justification to scale back military commitments to the world at large. The United State’s military presence abroad provides the world a convenient way to avoid the historical compulsion to establish regional hegemony. Europe secretly loves our military providing their security against Russia and, some may even whisper, a large and powerful Germany, constrained now only by the untested principles of post-modernist Euro-ism. China is perfectly happy to have American troops holding South Korean and Japan in check. The Saudi’s don’t mind having a relaxed military budget so long as there is a reliable commitment from the U.S. for their defense. The Administration, no doubt, has domestic priorities that supersede foreign policy objectives. However, even this Administration realizes that it has to pay its way as it goes. Retrenchment will provide the justification to spend more at home than it does abroad.

There are constituencies in this country that will not be happy with retrenchment, and while this country does not have a tradition of military coups like Russia does, and a Seven Days in May scenario is hard to envision, some will react negatively to such a scaling back of our traditional military superiority. President Obama watched as the military was rebuilt under George W. Bush and Clinton’s justified efforts to reduce a monolithic military-industrial complex were undone overnight. He will not repeat what he views as Clinton’s mistake. He has embarked on a path that will give this country no choice: create an unfunded entitlement state that will force the government to make the hard choice to take a large part of the defense budget away forever.

Retrenchment did not end well for the Soviet Union. While the U.S. is in no immediate danger of collapse, the parallels between the America of today and the Soviet Union of yesterday are clear. Make your friends find other friends and make your enemies a bit friendlier, then ask your government if a military greater than the next seven world powers combined is really necessary. The answer will be no. The world, however, does not stop moving and, while all things must cease, when the Pax Americana ends it will be mourned.

The President is attempting to shame Republicans into conceding their principles or simply give them enough rope to hang themselves with an inconsistent sound bite. That’s a political maneuver and a clever one, but its brazenness is disturbing. The audacity of its disdain for the established process of making legislation in this country is shocking.

Who believes what we are watching has anything to do with health care anymore? Only the most cynical of stalwart partisans still hear the facts in this debate, still read the CBO cost estimates of the new proposals, one after the other.  This legislation has absorbed more than a year of this country’s time and national energy. We have debated it to the point of stalemate and even a majority Democrat congress cannot pass it. Were this any other administration the issue would have been declared dead and buried months ago, as was the case with immigration reform attempts in 2007.  Why are we still talking about this?

Campaigns end. That’s why they are campaigns, they have objectives and those objectives are achieved or not. Health care is beyond that now, it is a crusade. This is not governance, it is agitation. It must be stopped before it has a lasting effect.

The Republican Party’s tradition of primogenitor has suffered a pretty significant blow; it is not easy to find a candidate with a legitimate claim.  Politico’s Jonathan Martin is among several political reporters that have cited Mitt Romney’s unsuccessful run at the presidency in 2008 as evidence of his potential to take the nomination.  The same has been said of Sarah Palin, the Party’s only formally endorsed presidential candidate in the 2012 race.  Rudy has similar claim to primogenitor, perhaps stronger than the current front runners.  Rudy spent nearly three years in the hot seat as the front runner for the GOP nomination in 2008.  He has logged more time in the national political cross hairs as any of the present candidates.  The (usual) result of this process has been the unearthing of all his potentially campaign-derailing skeletons.  Rudy has been vetted by the press, thoroughly.

Since 2008, Giuliani has kept his profile relatively low while at the same time never completely disappearing from public life.  Last November, the news that Rudy was “strongly considering a Senate run” was leaked, only to be personally denied month later.  A similar story surrounds Giuliani’s publically expressed interest in the Governorship of New York last April.   Each announcement and subsequent retraction has crafted the image of an elder statesman turned citizen, emerging from his self-imposed isolation only to fend off attempts to draft him back into the political fray.  Even if it is simply an attempt to keep Giuliani’s name from completely fading from memory, it has been successful.

Over the weekend, the CPAC Conference straw poll showed that a majority of the attendants wished “the GOP had a better field of candidates.”  Take the results for what they are worth, that same straw poll nominated Ron Paul by a wide margin.  However, if Rudy wanted to run again he would be well positioned to take advantage of that sentiment.  He has made no noise about running and the press has overlooked him.  He could enter the race in 2011 as a new face for a change; rescuing a fractious party from an uninspiring list of candidates to unseat a potentially vulnerable President. 

There is the caveat that 2012 is a political eternity away.   Giuliani is presently engaged; he has signed on to help combat crime in Rio de Jenero ahead of the 2016 Olympic Games.  While he would probably cancel the contract for a successful Presidential bid, any number of events could change the cost-benefit calculation of a run between now and then.  Republican’s prospective 2010 success could dissipate some of the enthusiasm on the GOP side by 2012, making the prospects of taking on an incumbent not worth the risk.  President Obama could score a political victory at home or abroad in the interim that would halt and even reverse the descending trend in his approval numbers.  Another star could rise within the party or one of the candidates already in nomination process could emerge as the best possible candidate.  However, if none of those things happen, Rudy would be advised to run.

Why has this policy failed?  The answer is that Russia never regarded the missile shield as a direct threat and is inclined to milk the badly needed political victory the Obama Administration delivered to them with September 2009 announcement.  Moscow saw the missile shield, not as a security threat, but as an attack on its influence in Eastern Europe.  Russia’s objection was political, not genuine.

When the 2007 plan for a “third site” in Europe (the first and second located in California and Alaska respectively) was abandoned, it had become orthodoxy for international relations and security specialists to cast disparaging doubts on the systems necessity and capability as well as its potentially destabilizing impact on international system.  The abandonment of the third site was lauded as a pragmatic move by the new internationalists in the Whitehouse.  The Administration expected reciprocation from the Kremlin, but it was not forthcoming.  The Russian’s have not budged in their opposition to sanctions on Iran, they continue to wield gas transit and proposed pipelines like a broadsword in Europe and the Russian army maintains positions in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in violation of a French brokered cease fire with Georgia in 2008.

Several myths about the missile shield have been debunked by the Pentagon’s own February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report. The first, that the 2007 plan was destabilizing, it could neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent.  However, the 2010 plan establishes for itself a goal of having a similar multi-stage missile in place in the region by 2020.  It would have to in order to meet the technologically evolving threat from missile proliferators. The 2007 plan, in contrast, would have had long-range interceptor missiles operational by 2017. This is not as dramatic a shift as one would have thought given the tenor of the debate about this issue last fall.

The Russian armed forces commander in chief, Nikolai Makarov, for his part, continued to say the missile shield is directed against Russia, but the Kremlin has certainly changed its tune.   In the 2010 plan, kinetic kill vehicles, by definition strictly defensive weapons which cannot be used for offensive means, are to be replaced by good, old-fashioned explosive warheads.  Yet we do not hear the standard grumbling by Russian President Dimtiry Medvedev about the 2010 plan’s potential threat.

Furthermore, for all the talk about reducing the credibility of Russia’s nuclear stockpile, they are thrilled by the opportunity to reduce it, along with the United States, in bilateral disarmament talks.  Nuclear disarmament is the only arena today where President Medvedev can sit across the table from President Obama on truly equal terms.  This behavior, however, does not lend any veracity to the suggestion that Moscow is threatened by the 2007 plan for a third site in Europe.

The Obama Administration expected reciprocity from the Kremlin for its concession in Eastern Europe.  While this was not an entirely unilateral concession there was no immediate quid pro quo and the lack of tangible benefits has hurt the Administration’s ambitions for Europe.

The Obama Administration’s “reset” policy, which aimed to create a reparative relationship between Russia and the U.S., is all but dead.  The Russians appear perfectly willing to exploit internationalism in a disturbingly Hobbesian way.  The Whitehouse has been rebuffed by a Kremlin establishment that learned long ago to pursue their naked national interests; Washington will not guard their interests for them.  The Obama Administration, having been burned by a misreading of the Russian position, seems to be regaining its humility and is recalibrating the reset button.

According to the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the United States is “certain.”  This stunning admission has been met with a whimper from the media, probably because an attack is expected given the government’s anemic response to the last coordinated terror attacks in this country by Islamic extremists; the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and the Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.  The executive has been far more concerned for the perpetrator’s constitutional rights and the country’s potential to exact retribution on innocent Muslims.  However, Blair’s admission before members of congress raises the question: is the DNI running political cover for an administration that has crippled the defense apparatus in record time and wants to make sure there are no accusations of poor pre-attack dot connecting following an event?  If that is the case, what would be the political impact of another successful mega-terror attack in the U.S.?

The following analysis is a glib assessment of the political impact of a significant terrorist attack and does not take into account the massive loss of human life and billions of dollars in infrastructure that would be lost in an attack anything remotely like 9/11.   When terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, some Clintonista’s publically lamented that they wish it could have happened on his watch so Bill Clinton could enjoy the outpouring of support from the country and be blessed with the unprecedented political capital to reshape the globe in the wake of such a disaster. Social scientists, and particularly political scientists, are a jaded bunch.  President Obama’s advisors are a special kind of political scientists; the kind with some skin in the game.  

Do they envision a similar increase in poll numbers and the freeing of the President’s hand, not just internationally but domestically as well? Rham Emanuel certainly would not let such a crisis go to waste.  This line of thinking is flawed and the poll numbers in the latest NBC/WSJ poll reflect the public’s low opinion of the President’s present efforts to protect the nation against terrorism.  The assumption that lock-step public support for the President inevitably follows such an attack is fallacious.  The public mood has changed significantly since 9/11 and so would their response to a similar attack today.

The immediate effect of an attack on the public mood would be horror and profound sorrow, as is to be expected.  The second reaction will be anger, and it will not only be directed at those in the broader Middle East that orchestrated the attack, but also at Washington.  This is not 2001 when attacks of that magnitude were unprecedented. In fact, their prevention has been the singular focus of the last decade, which makes the abdication of that duty all the more flagrant and inexcusable.  They will remember the lectures from the President on how the existence of Guantanamo Bay serves as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda, and only when efforts are made to close it will terrorism abate.  They will remember the litigious way in which terrorists were treated, prosecuted rather than interrogated, in 2009.  The public will see a criminally negligent Whitehouse as being complacent in this tragedy and it will inspire anger.

This anger will be compounded by the frustration by the lack of an immediate response to the attack; we are no longer a country that intervenes mindlessly abroad even following such an attack.

If the President and his advisors are forward thinking, they will reverse this policy head-spinningly fast: launching air attacks against the most logical place this attack emanated from in preparation for a stronger, ground-based response.  If they do not immediately project force abroad, the public’s anger will compound and direct itself at the only logical place, the defense department and the executive branch.  Democratic House members, already feeling the fire, will abandon the President with previously unseen alacrity. Democratic senators, too, will look to their own careers seeing a potentially vulnerable President moving closer to primary season.  It will be the nail in the coffin for the Obama administration. 

The President could avoid this scenario, of course, if he reversed his failing counter-terror policies.  Having begun the process of disarming this country’s intelligence apparatus, from putting CIA officers in the docket to giving terrorists defense attorneys, he has set himself up as the most preeminent source of blame for a successful attack.  If Obama abandons these polices, pursues the trial of Khalid Shake Mohamed in a Guantanamo detention facility and publically, even simply rhetorically, increased the strength of the national intelligence apparatus, he may offset the negative political effects of a terror attack…  Maybe.  The President has pretty well made his soft-on-defense bed and it could be too late to shed the descriptive adjectives that accompany such a condition.  

The ideologically motivated decision to try terrorists in civilian courts has eroded the President’s public support on his handling of terrorism, perhaps irrevocably.  Since 9/11, there has been a notion among Democratic political observes that a similar event on a Democrat’s watch would yield certain public goods that are desirable.  The evidence to the contrary has permeated the DIA it seems; Director Blair found it necessary to warn Congress of the coming storm.  Let’s hope the President’s advisors have disabused themselves of the craven idea that such a disaster has political benefits.  This president doesn’t like to watch the polls and govern accordingly, he sees himself as above the pedantic observance of limited indicators like public opinion.  If there was ever an opportunity to reverse course it is a clear and present threat to national security.  Director Blair has sent a warning to nation: prepare for a disaster.  The President, having abandoned preemption, should prepare for his response.

In an interview with Oprah, the President gave himself a letter grade for his first year in office (a B+ if you missed it).  This was a mistake, not that he gave himself a relatively reserved and yet satisfactory grade, but that he answered the question at all. Such a substantive response only gives strength to your opposition and disappoints your supporters, essentially alienating everyone.  This gaff is anecdotal and does not impact events as much as a policy speech or legislative accomplishment would have, but it was nevertheless amateurish.  It reflected his inexperience and it sucked the air out of the room.

In the first half of 2009 you could not turn on the television, go to a movie or order a Big Mac without being mugged by the ubiquitous image of the President.  It became overwhelming by July when Obama again interrupted your regularly scheduled broadcast to inform the nation that the Cambridge police acted “stupidly.”  It got to the point that political strategist Karl Rove had to posit that the administration must view the President as an “unalloyed good,” and his presence and involvement in any and all issues is all positive and no negative.  His own advisors were publically reacting to what America’s pundits called in chorus “overexposure.”  The supply of Obama had increased to the point that the price and demand of the President’s attention went down dramatically. Perhaps to his credit, Obama listened and disappeared.  Today there is a deficit.  The White House press corps is demanding a press conference; the last being his stellar performance in July.  Now, however, the President turns into a hermit and disappears, turning the political narrative over to congress and the editorial class.  These are missteps, all of them…  Does the President not see that?

Obama then went to New Jersey and Massachusetts to stump for his chosen candidates despite falling poll numbers.  America asked, “What could his advisors know that we do not?”  “Why would he risk his waning political capital on such a gamble?”  “They must have internals that reflect an uptick in… blah, blah, blah.”  The reality: no new polls, no internals, no plan.  The President felt that he could inject himself into a situation and it would miraculously right itself.  In fact, he simply expended political influence with no reward.  By going the President could not avoid the inevitable depletion of his image; whether or not these elections were referenda on his efficacy before he went to stump for Corzine and Coakly, they were after he went.   Now the President’s stock is down and it will be a surprise if he finds a congressional ally stalwart enough to pass any legislation, ambitious or otherwise.  Who is sycophant enough to suggest that this was all part of the plan?  These are mistakes, and rank amateur at that.  What happened to the genius of our time?

Now health care is in danger in the new, post-Massachusetts America.  In the antediluvian world of 2009, there may have been something to the argument that the American people would learn to love the health bill after it was passed.  Even if this logic was flawed, there was enough misleading commentary on the news networks to convince a Washingtonian with self-administered blinders on that the political victory health care reform would be worth the temporary bad will the politics of the bill generated.  Now, however, the screams of “can you hear us now,” from Beacon Hill of all places, cannot be ignored.  How did the President, who commands the national dialogue from the bully pulpit, let the national conversation get away from him?  The answer, as obvious as it is painful to admit, is that for all the President’s education and natural aptitude, he is no genius.  He isn’t even a reasonable facsimile; he is decidedly average. Capra’s Mr. Smith can be an effective Senator but, it would seem, not President. 

For the entirety of the Bush Presidency, Republicans were treated to the prejudice masquerading as analysis that George W. had the cognitive abilities of a paramecium.  The perennial narrative I grew up with was that Republicans are evil or dumb, and the most effective among them (Reagan, Bush, etc.) are both.  The narrative is finally on the ropes. We were sanctimoniously told that January 20^th, 2009 ushered in a new era of smart government with an academician at the helm of the country.  Those of us that cheered the country’s smart decision to elect a smart President should be smart enough to recognize when they are wrong.  It would also be soul cleansing to admit it, but I am not holding my breath.

A security policy that is vague and opaque invites more conflict than it prevents. The instinct of world powers prior to World War I was to ensure very little transparency out of their military. Broad displays of power and strategy ‘leaks’ were meant for show and intimidation but not to yield to the enemy a genuine knowledge of force strength or strategy. By releasing this sensitive information, they rationalized; they may yield a first strike advantage to their enemies if war were to break out. Even today, the instinct for secrecy in security policy is strong. However, first strike advantage is illusive and rarely exists, and more often than not, being vocal and open about security interests decreases the likelihood of a conflict with other nations over those interests. History has proven that communicating interests and force strength is the most expedient way to avoid misinterpretations that lead to war.

President Obama has an extraordinarily vague foreign policy, and dangerous things are beginning to happen as a result. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu flew, unpublicized, to Moscow on September 14^th ostensibly to meet with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The topics on the table were undoubtedly security oriented issues, foremost being an illegal arms shipment to Iran via the Arctic Sea. There is no question that the broader issues of Israeli security in the context of a nuclear armed Iran were discussed as well. This is a dangerous example of a U.S. protectorate state conducting its own foreign policy with great powers. Israel is constrained in its defense due to the collective Arab response it receives; Israel needs a sponsor. Russia is the world’s most revanchist power and is highly likely to interpret this action as the retraction of the American sphere of influence. This is a good example of what will happen elsewhere in the world. If the United States does not develop and pursue a foreign policy of its own making, it is very likely to be dragged into a foreign policy of Israel’s making.

President Obama has been extraordinarily ambiguous about virtually every security challenge that will characterize the next decade. The nuclearized Korean peninsula will most likely devolve into a reciprocal arms race, further increasing the likelihood of a ‘hard’ collapse in North Korea. East Africa continues to destabilize and the threat of international piracy grows every day. Georgia has been stripped of its northern territories via a cross-border invasion by a country with designs on many other areas of its former sphere of influence. There are many other present threats, and if history is a barometer, future threats that are not yet on the radar. Many could be avoided or reduced by clearly defining American security interests.

Instead the President, as he has with many domestic policy proscriptions, decided to allow the legislative branch and his general staff to enumerate the specifics of U.S. security policy. He has fostered ambiguity about Washington’s support for its interests against Iran, forcing Israel to go its own way. He has ignored Russia’s militaristic signaling and has never expressed support for Georgia and Ukraine’s NATO membership. He provides rhetorical support and comfort for South and Latin America’s three pariah states: Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. He has retreated from most every security commitment on the globe, except for Afghanistan. The merits of a secure and governable Afghanistan are not in doubt but the achievability of that goal is. Furthermore, Afghanistan is a fight to contain non-state actors, while the world’s state actors struggle against their United States-imposed restraints.

There is trouble on the horizon, but it is avoidable if the Obama administration truly reengages with the world in a classical realist way. Unfortunately, this is tradition of hard power diplomacy is repulsive to the President. He will pursue the path of multilateral engagement until it is too late and that course has proven itself incapable of reforming the international system. In 2008, in Francis Fukuyama enumerated some of the ways in which the world had become irreversibly peaceful and how difficult it would be for the world to sink into 20^th century-style, large scale armed conflicts. The power of commerce was too great a pacifying force and while nationalism was expanding, military conflicts would decrease. Today we see that edifice collapsing as the United States signals its resignation from the game of power projection.

President Obama believes in “soft power.” He hopes that diplomatic engagement, forgiveness and carrots before sticks can change the world. Let’s hope he is right. If he is not, the rising powers of the world will see capitulation. They will see a new power vacuum developing, and nature abhors a vacuum.