Redstate

By AcademicElephant Posted in 2008 | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (50) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

In his end-of-year reflections, Jed Babbin captured the mixed sentiments of many conservatives these days—a rueful wound-licking after the November "thumpin’” exacerbated by a bemused distaste for the current crop of 2008 Republican presidential candidates. The combination has produced an almost palpable malaise (take note, Mr. Carter—this is what a malaise looks like) among our ranks, as 2008 provides no exciting prospect of revenge for 2006. There’s nothing particularly compelling around which to rally, no bright future to anticipate. Instead, we have the prospect of settling for one among a pool of "declareds" all of whom, for various reasons, are fundamentally flawed. It’s not that there’s nothing to admire among them—some are heroic, some charismatic, some strongly principled. Some even have great hair. But none of them bring all those characteristics together in an effective way and we're left squabbling over who is the least flawed.

As an antidote to this malaise, Jed suggested the ticket of Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton in ’08:

I dreamt, for one fleeting moment, about a Rumsfeld-Bolton ticket in 2008. Can you imagine how much Prozac the New York Times editors would consume if that dream came true? R-B in '08?

Jed's fleeting dream brought a wan smile to my face. But as the last few weeks have gone by, as I’ve watched candidates on both sides of the aisle begin to show their hands—and so to reveal what pathetically weak hands they are-—this dream has shown some staying power. Especially after Mark's Al Haig post, in which he made a good point. It might behoove those of us who aren’t too thrilled with either the new political reality of post-2006 Washington or with the prospects we’re being offered for 2008 to cast our net a little wider than the current field--and to look beyond the flash to the substance.

R-B in ’08. Why not?

Well, according to conventional wisdom, the obvious answer would be that both the R and the B were hounded from office after the recent mid-term election—followed by the date of birth of the head of the ticket and the moustache, and all it entails, of the second.

To heck with conventional wisdom. I think those are precisely the reasons we should nominate them.

Let's dare to dream for a moment, shall we?

Read on . . .

I freely admit that Jed's proposed slate plays straight into my personal inclinations--that's why it caught my attention. But that's not the whole story. My approach to politics is fairly simple as I have three primary issues: national security, managing the economy and judicial appointments. My ideal candidates would be vigorous and aggressive on the first, pro-business and hands-off but not utterly heartless on the second, and staunchly conservative on the third. On a simple scale of one to three, I give the R-B ticket a three on each issue, with a "NA" for Mr. Rumsfeld on judicial appointments because he doesn't have a record on this (more below). Of course, in this hypothetical, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton enjoy an unfair advantage over the current declareds in that they are already a two-man ticket and so Mr. Bolton's strengths can bolster Mr. Rumsfeld's. What if, you ask, Mr. Giuliani were to combine forces with a Jon Kyl? That would be a very strong move on the Mayor's part, but one that would serve to shore up existing weakness. I'd prefer to start from a position of strength.

The fundamental issue here is one of competence. Both Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton are enormously accomplished individuals whose public and private lives qualify them far better for the White House than any other candidate running. Scan their both their official and Wiki biographies (for Rumsfeld here and here, for Bolton here and here)—you might think you're already familiar with them, but there's eye-opening stuff there. While I agree with Mark that General Haig has had a noteworthy career--I would call his resume pretty gleaming sterling--he pales a little bit in comparison to Mr. Rumsfeld. Working class mid-western roots. Eagle scout. Princeton on a ROTC and academic scholarship. Olympic-class athlete. Naval aviator (instructor) turned national guard (active until 1989). Four-term congressman. Head of Nixon's Office of Economic Development. Ambassador to NATO. Ford's Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense. A special advisor on foreign and military policy to Presidents Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton, which was a sideline during a period when he was making a substantial personal fortune in the private sector turning around troubled drug and technology companies with viable products (we would not have Diet Coke--and so I would not have a PhD--were it not for Donald Rumsfeld, American hero).

And then there's his most recent performance as Secretary of Defense. Rather than running away from this record, how about running on it? How about trumpeting the military success of the missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and highlighting the need for inter-agency reform to offset the problems we have encountered in reconstruction? How about focusing on the progress that has been made in transforming the structure and culture of the military, which, given its existing structure and culture, is remarkable? How about trotting out the retired generals who are strongly pro-Rumsfeld (Franks, Myers, Moore, McInerney, etc.) to explain why they support him? A high-profile early retirement by another general over the next 6-8 months might yield another invaluable media surrogate along these lines. And while we're talking about the media, Mr. Rumsfeld is hardly a novice in this department. Sure, the media hate him about as much as they hate President Bush, but he has demonstrated time and time again that he can handle them. How will, say, a Senator McCain contend with a suddenly hostile press by comparison?

For icing on the cake, there's Mr. Bolton. Just briefly, he was appointed Assistant Attorney General under President Reagan (for a full roster of his appointments in the Reagan justice department, see his C.V. linked above). He has extensive private sector legal experience, in the course of which he specialized in trade and investment law, as well as constitutional law. He has been a tireless crusader against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He has a clear and unvarnished vision of our international position. And, of course, who can forget:

"I'm with the Bush-Cheney team and I'm here to stop the count."

So let's see what we have here: At the top of the ticket, impeccable military and foreign policy expertise. Experience in both the executive and legislative branches. Success in the private sector. Combine that with the strengths of the VP, which are not only diplomatic but also judicial, and it seems to me a win-win.

Hmmm, you say, what about likability? Neither man is particularly warm and fuzzy—although I would pay good money to see either on Oprah. But you can learn a lot about a candidate by the company that they keep—what you might call their personal endorsements. So who likes Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton? And who doesn’t?

For starters, Ronald Reagan liked Don Rumsfeld. So did Milton Friedman. Margaret Thatcher still does. Dick Cheney likes him too, as do Joe Lieberman, Victor Davis Hanson, Henry Kissinger, Mitch McConnell and George Schultz (who appointed him special envoy to the middle east). A surprising number of retired and active generals and admirals like—and perhaps more importantly—respect him. What’s more, Mrs. Rumsfeld likes him after being married to him for more than half a century, as do his three children and, to all accounts, his dog.

On the other hand, who doesn’t like him? The editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post definitely do not (of course their discomfiture was the basis of Jed's first proposing the ticket). Jimmy Carter called Mr. Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had." Jacques Chirac is not a fan. Neither are Carl Levin, Arlen Specter, Andrew Sullivan, Hugo Chavez, Maureen Dowd, Bill Kristol and Teddy Kennedy.

That is a group of pretty weak sisters in my book. On what, exactly, should we take their collective advice? Certainly not on our choice of presidential candidates.

As for Mr. Bolton, you might think no one likes him—but that’s not so. Ronald Reagan liked him very much as did Jean Kirkpatrick. The Israelis like him. So do a surprising number of his former colleagues at the United Nations. And Jesse Helms. And Mitch McConnell. And Jon Kyl. And Joe Lieberman. And Henry Kissinger (this link works for George Schultz, too). And Jeff Goldstein.

Who doesn't like him? Linc Chaffee. Kofi Annan. There's Jimmy Carter again. Not to mention the Iranians. And the North Koreans call Mr. Bolton "human scum."

'Nuff said.

So what could we look forward to from a R-B administration? First and foremost, we could look forward to a no holds-barred pursuit of American interests, and a rigorous prosecution of the global war on terror. That's really the point of this entire exercise. I want the President and Vice President who are best qualified to protect us from the threat of Islamic jihad and to defend our global position. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton have been consistently demonstrating by word and deed not just for a few months or years but for decades that they would do just that. Two specific policy initiatives come to mind that Mr. Rumsfeld is uniquely qualified to pursue. One is that inter-agency reform I mentioned above. This would have to do with how the departments of our government interact, and handle projects such as the reconstruction of Iraq. Existing protocols make synergizing resources difficult if not impossible, and so Defense, State, Treasury and Justice can be working at cross-purposes with disastrous results. This must change, and it will entail not only revamping how the departments communicate, but also how they are funded by Congress. It's a daunting task, and only someone who knows where every bone is buried around the federal government could even attempt it--yet if we don't at least try, we're doomed to the status quo, which is obviously not good enough.

The other is to redefine how we function in the international community. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton are forthright enough to admit that United Nations as it currently exists is a failed experiment and does far more harm than good. But in this age of globalization we will need some international body that can function both in terms of humanitarian aid and as a peacekeeping force--and that should be prepared to take military action when necessary. Is this NATO? A web of regional alliances based on NATO? A new organization altogether that has actual standards for membership? It seems to me that R-B, perhaps more than any duo on the planet, are qualified to address this thorny but crucial issue.

In addition, we might expect Mr. Bolton to play an integral role in initiating a thorough reform of our troubled state department, which might be under the leadership of Zalmay Khalilzad. The inability of State to function effectively through the difficult challenges of the last few years should be a glaring indicator that the department needs an overhaul--to wit, just yesterday the current Secretary of State admitted that she cannot staff almost half of the civilian positions for which she is responsible in Iraq, and that they will have to be filled with military personel. It is quickly becoming apparent that Mr. Rumsfeld was right when he pointed out in his Nov. 6th memo that the other departments have proven more or less useless in Iraq--and of course was reviled for his arrogance. But he was pointing to a terrible weakness we cannot afford. Reforming the culture and systems at State might well be the greatest achievement of the R-B administration, and they would be prepared to hit the ground running on this project.

And while we’re playing fantasy cabinet, it seems to me that in a R-B administration, Rudy Giuliani (in my opinion the most attractive of the current declareds) would hardly sit idle. We might anticipate him assuming the role for which he was born—The Scourge of Evil-Doers, or rather Attorney General of the United States. Both domestically and in terms of the pursuit of the global war on terror, Mr. Giuliani’s performance as AG would have potentially historic ramifications.

And what of domestic policy? It is true that foreign and military policy would be the foundations of this ticket, and the premise that the global war on terror is the dominating issue of our day would be its motivating factor. But that is not to say that there is no reason to suspect that domestic policy would be neglected. After all, Mr. Rumsfeld served four terms in congress, among other credentials that suggest he would not have trouble crafting a domestic agenda. In terms of the economy, Mr. Rumsfeld’s dramatic personal success in the private sector should count as strong currency. After all, Ross Perot based his entire 1992 presidential bid on his corporate background, which he claimed would allow him to bring a CEO’s fiscally conservative perspective to the White House. There is every reason to expect Mr. Rumsfeld to be a strongly pro-business president.

But, you ask, where would Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton stand on judicial appointments? It's an important question, and one they would need to address. Neither have been particularly vocal in this field, although as a distinguished lawyer and former Assistant Attorney General, we can assume Mr. Bolton would be able to present constructive advice. At the very least, there is no troubling record of squishyness to try to explain away.

Then there's the question of how this duo would actually play. How about that synergy that a presidential and vice-presidential ticket are supposed to have to form an effective ticket? Remember Bill, Hillary, Al and Tipper jumping up and down to “Don’t Stop Thinkin’ About Tomorrow?” Or, conversely, the cautionary tale that was George Bush and Dan Quayle? R-B in ’08 would avoid both the false camaraderie of the Clinton-Gore team and the disconnect that was Bush-Quayle. Because they would be colleagues that respect each other and could work together without needing to break into choruses of kumbaya. The only reason either of these gentlemen would be on the ticket would be because of their competence. Not their home state, their gender, their ethnicity or even their hair. Just because they can get the job done—together—and get it done better than anyone else.

That’s an oddly startling notion, isn’t it? And a refreshing one at that.

Let us return for a moment to the delicate and inter-related issues of Mr. Rumsfeld's date of birth and Mr. Bolton's moustache--what might be termed the "Rumfeld's too old and Bolton's too mean" criticism of this ticket. Quite frankly, I would say that's pretty weak stuff in comparison to the concerns I have about Senator McCain, Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney. I guess the worry with Mr. Rumsfeld is that having entered this world in 1934, he is more likely to depart it before 2012 than, say, Mitt Romney. If that's our logic, then we should also discount John McCain and Rudy Giuliani from contention since they're both cancer survivors and so much more likely to die of that disease before 2012 than Governor Romney. But this logic isn't helping me to jump on the Romney bandwagon. Mr. Rumsfeld is in excellent health and he enjoys a legendary stamina. Just ask his former aides, many of whom are still trying to shake the brutal coffee habit necessitated by working for him. In our media culture, he is fortunate not to look his age, and is hardly uncharismatic. Furthermore, it should count for something that we live in perilous times. Fresh-faced youth may be seductive, but we might do well to remember that these candidates are not auditioning for a toothpaste commercial. Mr. Rumsfeld's perspective and experience--both of which are more substantial than any of his prospective opponents--might serve us better than a pretty face in the coming years. He also might use his age to his advantage and declare himself a one-term president who is willing to go for broke rather than worry about getting re-elected. Especially with his VP already in place entering the primaries.

Speaking of the VP, there's the moustache. That's facial hair with attitude. It tells you something about the man. No, John Bolton is unlikely to be indulgent or "feel your pain" in the Clinton tradition. But in real terms he is far from unsympathetic--after all, he has been a more serious advocate for the poorest and most disadvantaged of this world than his clean-shaven critics, notably Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter. He might not tear up at his press conferences (actually, he does do that on occasion), but he will work tirelessly to right injustice. And if the occasional stapler gets tossed about in the course of this work, that's alright by me.

R-B in '08 may also have an advantage in the media frenzy that surrounds both men. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton can grab the cameras and rivet public attention—and they don’t have to dress in spandex or make a movie to get someone to show up with a microphone. They also benefit from the fact that when people actually listen to them, as opposed to listening to selected and selective press reports about them, they come away with a favorable impression. Yes, they would both have to “reintroduce” themselves to the American people in the guise of candidates, but that shouldn’t be too much of a problem. After all, two of the names mentioned in various other malaise articles as anecdotes to the current declared include former Vice President Dan Quayle and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich—and with all due respect to those two gentlemen, if their public reputations can be rehabilitated to the extent that they are being seriously considered, then Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton are certainly fair game.

We should also consider why Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton left their respective posts as Secretary of Defense and Ambassador to the UN at the end of last year. Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton departed because the democrats took control of congress. They were the true casualties of the 2006 election cycle—not Former Speaker Dennis Hastert, who remains in the House, or Senator John Warner, who remains on the Senate Armed Services committee. Republicans such as they are perfectly palatable to the new Congressional majority. “We can work with Republicans like this” seems to be the motto." But in this alternate universe, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton had to go. They were ones with whom the Democrats felt they could not work. In my opinion, the feckless and potentially destructive behavior already displayed by the new congress is a good reason to see its influence as a negative indicator. After all, do we want a president who has Nancy Pelosi’s personal stamp of approval? Or would we prefer one who is in all practical terms the anti-Pelosi?

Talk about your easy questions.

In the end, R-B in '08 might be but a dream, but reflecting on it is an instructive exercise as we desperately try to fit the square pegs that are our declared candidates into the round hole of what we really need. We owe it to ourselves to nominate our most qualified candidates who have the most profound understanding of the national security challenges we face. We need a president and a vice president who are cool under fire. Who function in the real world but who are not strangers to idealism. Who have a clear vision of where this country needs to be 10, 20, even 50 years out and form their policy accordingly—not with an eye to the next election cycle. Who think like CEOs but understand that they are the servants, not the corporate head honchos, of the American taxpayer. Who are singularly unimpressed by the pretensions of our enemies—and many of our so-called allies—but who are profoundly humble before the greatness of our nation. Who see our country as larger than themselves.

And who are Republicans so dyed in the wool that the Democrats respond with appalled horror at the very mention of their names.

I have to wonder from how many the notion of a R-B in '08 ticket elicits a response of "I wish." Well, it seems to me that if we want to win this thing, we have to stop wishing, shake off the cobwebs and focus on what really matters. Do we have to compromise? To make do with second best? Or could we--should we--dare to dream?