Three Years Later ...

Today is Labor Day. It is a holiday that has always been significant for me but for different reasons at different stages of my life.

When I was a child, it meant that the summer was over (even if the summer weather was not), and it was time to go back to the classroom. When I was 7 or 8, I grieved for the loss of my freedom.

As I got older, Labor Day became a three–day weekend, an opportunity to relax and take a day off — and, perchance, watch some football.

It took on a whole new meaning for me when I was terminated from my full–time job four years ago — especially after the economic collapse of September 2008, which followed a couple of weeks later.

The next year, in 2009, unemployment was on a steady upward trajectory. A few days before Labor Day, federal figures showed joblessness at 9.7%. Unemployment topped out a few months later at 10.6%.

All that day, I watched my TV, and I listened to my radio, and I waited for the president to say something — anything — to encourage people who had been looking for work throughout the first year of his presidency.

Some, like me, had been looking for work since before he took the oath of office. And I know I needed encouragement.

But it never came.

So I wrote this.

Barack Obama was more interested in stumping for his health care act and then secluding himself to work on the televised address he planned to give to the schoolchildren of America the next day.

I will never forget the feeling of utter abandonment that I felt on that day. I did not vote for Obama in 2008, but I hoped for his success — because I knew that, if he succeeded, I would succeed, too.

There was a lot of fear and anxiety in the land in September 2009.

But Obama cared more about adolescents than out–of–work Americans.

He lost me — permanently — on that occasion. I wouldn't be surprised if he lost a lot more folks that day. Guess we'll find out in nine weeks.

And now, here we are, three years later. And the president wants to make a big show of how concerned he is with the plight of the unemployed.

But what he really wants is our votes so he can keep his job for four more years. That would give him more flexibility — and those inconvenient unemployed and underemployed Americans can be forgotten once again.

Today I watched — with something of a sense of bewilderment — as the president told people at a campaign rally in Ohio that things were better for the unemployed under his leadership.

As if 8.3% unemployment — and it might be higher when the report comes out on Friday, less than 12 hours after Obama delivers his acceptance speech (for which the NFL moved its season opener so as not to cause a conflict) — is something to brag about.

Well, I guess it is — if you have nothing better.

And, apparently, Obama does not.

I guess things have come full circle — because, once again, I find myself grieving my lost freedom.

Ooooops! Kinda Miscalculated, Huh?

Bloomberg.com is reporting that the government's revised annual job losses for April 2008 to March 2009 will show that 824,000 more jobs were lost during that time than were originally counted.

Bloomberg.com sensationalizes it by saying, "When the government releases Friday's employment report, nearly a million jobs could be erased," then it quickly acknowledges, "[T]he expected drop will show up in the ... revised job losses ... showing the labor market was in much worse shape than we knew at the time."

I agree, the numbers show that things were worse than believed. But this country already knew it was losing half a million jobs or more every month. That's a crisis. The fact that it is worse than we thought it was at the time should not make it acceptable now, in the eyes of any American, for those in government to have ignored it the way they did.

On average, the revision, while alarming, raised each month's total by less than 70,000. Not too long ago, that was considered a bad month. Recently, it has been treated as a sign that things were getting better.

It's all in the way you look at it, I guess.

But, please, don't forget that those 824,000 jobs were held, at one time, by flesh–and–blood people. I'd like to think most, if not all, will find work, but another Bloomberg.com observation punctures that balloon.

Economic theorists have long believed that job losses caused by a company closing could be offset by jobs created by new or existing businesses. But the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics told Bloomberg.com that most of the revision "appears to be due in part to an increase in the number of business closings."

Sounds to me like those jobs aren't coming back.

And if Obama and the Democrats don't want this to be the dreaded jobless recovery, they'd better find a way to encourage a lot of job creation.

In Memoriam

In some ways, I suppose, 2009 began the way every year does. People died. Some were famous. Others were not. As the year progressed, though, 2009 seemed to develop a reputation — fairly or not — for being a year when celebrities died, many before their time.

Perhaps that reputation was spawned by the number of big names that departed the scene this year. In a group that large, there are bound to be those who die before the actuarial tables say they should. But, in truth, there was little hint of what was to come when the year started.

On New Year's Day, for example, Claiborne Pell, for whom the Pell Grants are named, died at the age of 90.

The next day, the world's oldest verified person died in Portugal at the age of 115. She would be followed by the second–oldest person, who died at the age of 113 on Jan. 19, and the person who replaced her as the oldest living person, who died at the age of 115 in September. In May, a woman in Kazakhstan who claimed to have been born in 1879 (which was unverified) died, supposedly at the age of 130.

Actor Pat Hingle died at the age of 84 the day after that. And, as George W. Bush prepared to vacate the White House, his cat India died at the age of 18, which would be tragically young for a human but is elderly in feline terms. (Bill Clinton's cat, Socks, was euthanized at the age of 19 on Feb. 20.)

January also saw the deaths of former Attorney General Griffin Bell, 90, on Jan. 5; actor Ricardo Montalban, 88, on Jan. 14; artist Andrew Wyeth, 91, on Jan. 16; and women's basketball coach Kay Yow, 66, on Jan. 24.

As January gave way to February, actor James Whitmore, 87, died on Feb. 6. Alan Landers, known as the "Winston man" for his appearances in advertisements for Winston cigarettes, died at the age of 68 on Feb. 27. Broadcaster Paul Harvey died at the age of 90 on Feb. 28.

In March, actor Ron Silver died at 62 on March 15. Jade Goody, a British reality TV star, died of cancer at age 27 on March 22.

I guess the next month is when Americans began to get an inkling that 2009 might not be a good year for avoiding premature death. Pitcher Nick Adenhart was killed in a car accident at the age of 22 on April 9, only hours after his first start for the Los Angeles Angels.

Adenhart's death could be dismissed as an anomaly, although famed pornographic actress Marilyn Chambers died at 56 on April 12 and former big–league phenom Mark "The Bird" Fidrych died at 54 the next day. Heisman Trophy winner Doc Blanchard died at 84 on April 19. Actress Bea Arthur died at 86 on April 25.

May had barely dawned when former Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp died at 73. Two days later, actor Dom DeLuise died at 75. Basketball player Wayman Tisdale died at 44 on May 15.

Perhaps it was in June when the wheels came off, and people started thinking of 2009 as the year when famous people died before their time. It didn't begin that way, but, on June 25, Farrah Fawcett died at the age of 62 and Michael Jackson died at the age of 50. A few days later, TV pitchman Billy Mays died, also at the age of 50.

Actor David Carradine was 72 when he was found dead by accidental hanging on June 3, but in the public's memory he was still in his late 30s and early 40s, his age range when he appeared in the 1970s TV series "Kung Fu." Another TV personality, Ed McMahon, died at 86 on June 23.

Actor Karl Malden died at 97 on July 1. The next day, Richard Nixon's communications director, Herb Klein, died at 91. Football player Steve McNair, 36, was found murdered on July 4. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara died at 93 on July 6. On July 17, as America anticipated the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, TV newsman Walter Cronkite, who covered the moon landing for CBS, died at 92.

Former Philippine President Corazon Aquino died at 76 on Aug. 1. Movie director John Hughes died at 59 on Aug. 6. Eunice Kennedy Shriver died at age 88 on Aug. 11, followed two weeks later by her brother, Teddy, who was 77. Legendary guitarist Les Paul died at 94 on Aug. 13. Pundit Robert Novak died at 78 on Aug. 18. The next day, Don Hewitt, the creator of 60 Minutes, died at age 86. Writer Dominick Dunne died at 83 on Aug. 26.

In September, one of the driving forces behind the creation of the long–running TV series M*A*S*H, writer Larry Gelbart, died at the age of 81. On Sept. 14, actor Patrick Swayze died at age 57. The same day, Jimmy Carter's press secretary, Jody Powell (65), and TV actor Henry Gibson (73) died. Two days later, Mary Travers of the folk group Peter, Paul and Mary died at 72. Speechwriter/journalist William Safire died at 79 on Sept. 27.

Country music singer Rusty Wier died at 65 on Oct. 9. Actress Collin Wilcox, who is probably best known for her role as the woman who falsely accuses a black man of raping her in the 1962 movie "To Kill a Mockingbird," died at 74 on Oct. 14. Comedian Soupy Sales died at the age of 83 on Oct. 22. Michelle Triola Marvin, the plaintiff in the landmark "palimony" suit, died at 76 on Oct. 30.

John Jay O'Connor, the husband of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, died at age 79 on Nov. 11. Ironically, a man with a similar name, New York Times TV critic John J. O'Connor, died two days later at the age of 76.

Evangelist Oral Roberts died at 91 on Dec. 15. Actress Jennifer Jones died at age 90 on Dec. 17. Actress Connie Hines, who is remembered by many Baby Boomers for her role on the Mister Ed TV series, died at 78 on Dec. 18. An actress whose primary appeal was to a much younger audience, Brittany Murphy, died at age 32 on Dec. 20.

As I write this, there are still nearly 36 hours left in the year so anyone could still die before the new year begins. But, in hindsight, it seems unfair to label 2009 as the year when famous people died before their time. It may not have been a particularly pleasant year, but it hasn't been unusually deadly for either celebrities or those who are, as the saying goes, "too young to die."

I guess no recap of the deaths of 2009 would be complete without mentioning two names you probably never heard of. In the 1970s, they were linked by a best–selling book and, then, a made–for–TV movie that was based on that book. The opus was "Friendly Fire," which was written by C.D.B. Bryan in 1976. It was the true story of a young American soldier's death in Vietnam in 1970 as the result of "friendly fire" — i.e., fire from your own side — and the anger that led his parents to challenge the government's account of the circumstances.

This year, the mother of that soldier, Peg Mullen, died on Oct. 2 at age 92. Bryan died a couple of weeks ago at the age of 73.

What's the Meaning of it All?

Gail Collins has an amusing column in the New York Times that essentially rejects the claims one hears from both sides about what Tuesday's elections really mean or don't mean.

Collins, who, like many of her colleagues at the Times, is an unapologetic Barack Obama supporter, belittles the assessments that portend bad news for her president next year. Collins apparently doesn't think there is any lesson to be learned from the elections. That's true, of course.

Except that it isn't.

The point that Obama's supporters have been trying to make for months — that he is still personally popular — has been repeatedly shown to be correct in public opinion polls. But those supporters have been ignoring something else that the polls have been saying — that Obama's policies are not popular with voters.

When they go to the polls in 2010, voters will not find Obama on their ballots. But they will find senators and congressmen who voted on issues Obama has promoted. They won't be voting on Obama. They will be voting on his agenda. And, in the past, the American people have frequently shown that they have an intriguing relationship with presidents they like but whose agendas they do not like.

In part, that was a point the voters reminded us of Tuesday.

The voters said a lot of things on Tuesday. Some of it had to do with Obama. But there were other factors, too. In general, anyone who truly believes the election — which was as limited as an election held in an odd–numbered year can be — was a genuine referendum on the Obama administration either has no clue what he/she was talking about or was indulging in some wishful thinking.

But that doesn't mean there weren't some valuable lessons to be learned from the elections on Tuesday.

For that matter, in spite of her liberal leanings, Collins stumbled into truth when she remarked in her column: "The defeat of Gov. Jon Corzine made it clear that the young and minority voters who turned out for Obama will not necessarily show up at the polls in order to re–elect an uncharismatic former Wall Street big shot who failed to deliver on his most important campaign promises while serving as the public face of a state party that specializes in getting indicted. They would not rally around Corzine even when the president asked them!"

Yes, Corzine is all those things that Collins says — and less. Obama may have been snookered by polls showing that Corzine had a chance to be re–elected and, thus, unsuccessfully gambled with his political capital when he came to New Jersey to campaign for the governor.

But the election results show that those young and minority voters who helped Obama win last year were not enticed to return to the polls this year with the president's name absent from the ballot. That was a limited problem this year. It will be much more widespread next year.

Obama's victory in last year's presidential election clearly was historic. But history cannot be viewed in bits and pieces. It must be seen in total.

With that in mind, one of Collins' colleagues, Ruy Teixeira, has some worthwhile advice for folks in both parties — relax. It's not necessarily as bad for Democrats as Republicans would like to believe. And it's not as good for Democrats as they would like to believe.

"Far more consequential," Teixeira writes, "is the historical pattern that the new president's party tends to lose seats in the first midterm election."

And Teixeira is on to something with the suggestion that the gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia "tell you nothing about who will gain seats in 2010 or how large that gain will be."

Very true. What happens in November of 2010 will be determined, to a great extent, by what happens between now and then. From that perspective, Tuesday was a warning for Obama and the Democrats. You can't continue to pass the buck on unemployment, the voters were saying. Millions are hurting, but little has been done to encourage job creation.

That perception can be reversed, at least in part, but Obama and the Democrats will have to be more proactive. The House and Senate took a good first step by extending unemployment benefits, but that is, at best, a short–term answer. The ongoing problem will be apparent for all to see tomorrow when the jobless report comes out at the same time Obama is signing that legislation extending benefits.

The economy, especially unemployment, will be a huge player in 2010, and other charismatic presidents — notably Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — learned the hard way that voters have short memories. Reagan found that blaming Jimmy Carter and Clinton learned that blaming George H.W. Bush had no real value with the voters in the midterms.

In the modern vernacular, Reagan and Clinton took ownership of the economy when they were elected and, therefore, had shouldered the responsibility for it for two years when the midterm elections rolled around. Many Obama voters may not think that is fair. Indeed, it may not be. But that's been the truth about American politics for a long time.

That is the historical lesson with which each president must come to terms. And, in Obama's case, it is compounded by the problem that is presented by the demographics that led to his election. Young and minority voters do not have histories of regular participation in elections, but they turned out in droves to help Obama win last year.

The challenge for Democrats is to get these voters back to the polls when Obama is not on the ballot. History says it can't be done.

That does not mean it's all good news for the Republicans. The GOP's gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia were more appealing than their Democratic counterparts, which made it easier for Republicans to draw their voters to the polls.

But if they are expecting to ride a wave of discontent to a 1994–like victory in next year's congressional elections, it's not going to be that simple.

Once again, Teixeira seems to be on to a truism. "If any repudiation is going on, perhaps it is of the conservative wing of the Republican Party," Teixeira writes, citing the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.

New York is clearly — to use a popular phrase — a "blue state," but its individual districts have more distinct personalities, and the 23rd is a good example. For the first time in more than 100 years, a Democrat will represent that district. He defeated a conservative third–party foe when the Republican candidate, a moderate, withdrew and endorsed him.

Republicans have long spoken of being a "big tent," but the party appears to be little changed from the party that nominated Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and both Bushes. It still uses social wedge issues in a divide and conquer strategy that worked pretty well through most of the last four decades.

But in a place like America, where the electorate becomes more diverse with each passing day, it doesn't work as well as it did in 1968.

Again, what happens next November will be, to a great extent, the product of what happens between now and then, but common sense says the Republicans will need to nominate candidates who are more inclusive if they expect to make real headway. That means shifting more to the center and seeking candidates who are more representative of the Republican Party that existed when George Romney was mentioned as a potential president rather than the party that currently seems prepared to nominate his son in 2012.

If the GOP is successful in that endeavor, that will actually be good news. It will mean a reduced emphasis on wedge issues. That may necessitate giving up on active opposition to abortion rights or same–sex marriage or mindlessly supporting a wasteful, unwinnable war against marijuana. It should mean more of a debate on the role of government — and there could hardly be a better time to examine the role of government than a time of the greatest economic upheaval since the Depression — and sources of much–needed tax revenue.

That is the challenge for Republicans. Recent history says that cannot be done, either.

Well, one of those truisms most likely will fall next year. If neither does, there won't be much movement on either side.

And history says that won't happen, either.

Split Decision

In the light of day, it appears that voters in Maine repealed the same–sex marriage law.

The law was receiving a narrow endorsement last night, but late returns ultimately went against it.

Not so the vote on the medical marijuana law. More than 58% of Maine's voters supported easier access to the substance.

Maine's vote on same–sex marriage seems to be the only thing that changed overnight.

The outcome in Virginia is unchanged from last night. Republican Bob McDonnell was declared the winner of the governor's race early in the evening, continuing a trend that has been constant for more than 30 years.

And, in what may be the biggest election surprise of 2009, New Jersey still has a Republican governor–elect this morning, in spite of the fact that the president and several other high–profile Democrats came to the state to campaign for the Democratic governor.

So now we move on to 2010.

Perhaps Democrats have learned — once again — that they are not imbued with the divine right of kings because they won a majority in Congress in 2006 and 2008 and won the presidency in 2008. I had hoped they had learned that lesson in the 1990s, but it appears they will need more than one lesson.

And my guess is they will get more than one lesson.

The Votes Are In

Turnout for today's elections was light, as it usually is in odd–numbered years. And I know that polls close at different times in each state. But the results seem to be coming in at a frustratingly slow pace.

• I've been watching the election returns, and I've heard a lot of theories about what has happened in Virginia. There will be theories about New Jersey and New York, too, I'm sure, but, at this point, Virginia is the only place where today's election results are known.
  
  Some people have spoken of the Democrats' inability to bring young and minority voters to the polls without Barack Obama on the ballot, and I think that may be a factor, but I think it is more likely to be a problem next year.
  
  Most people seem to agree that this election is not a referendum on Obama's presidency. Nevertheless, I have heard some saying the results represent an anti–incumbent mood. That's a tougher case to make, as far as I am concerned, at least in Virginia. State law bars the incumbent from seeking a second consecutive term, and he seems to be personally popular, but his popularity doesn't seem to be transferring easily to the Democratic standard bearer.
  
  The Republican's triumph doesn't seem to be connected to any sort of anti–incumbent mood in Virginia.
  
  My suspicion is that it has much more to do with what I believe to be the real historical trend. The party that has won the White House has lost the governor's office the next year ever since the Carter presidency, as I wrote in May.


• But an anti–incumbent mood may well have played a role in New Jersey; if the projection that was just made a few minutes ago by CNN holds up, the Republicans are going to win the governor's office there. And the Democratic incumbent is on the ballot — so it is plausible to conclude that this is a referendum on his performance in office.
  
  For that matter, the outcome in New Jersey could be seen as, if not a referendum on Obama, certainly an early temperature reading. And there may be some findings Obama would do well to heed.


• But the White House says Obama isn't watching the election returns. It will say that he is "watching the game." It won't positively confirm which game. Football? Can't be the NFL, unless he's watching a recording of the Falcons–Saints game from last night. ESPN2 is showing a college game, but do you suppose Obama is really more interested in the Bowling Green–Buffalo game than the outcome of the New Jersey election? He was campaigning in New Jersey last week. He had some interest in it then.
  
  Baseball? Can't be. Today is a travel day in the World Series.
  
  I suppose he could be watching the NBA, as some of his aides speculate, but that season is just getting started, and the NBA will still be playing in April. Over the next three years, Obama will have to work with the New Jersey governor, in one way or another, because of the economic difficulties with which the state is being forced to contend.
  
  So I find it hard to accept that he is paying no attention to the election returns tonight or that an NBA game has his attention instead.


• I think 2010 probably will be the real backlash election. The hurdles facing the president and his party seem clear. Obama won't be on the ballot. And he risks alienating some supporters by actively trying to transfer some of his star power to incumbents who may be in trouble, like Chris Dodd and Harry Reid. But he is the leader of the party, and his personal appeal was responsible for attracting many voters who belong to demographic groups that are not normally electorally active. It will be a challenge to get them to return to the polls. Many are ignorant about the way things work and somehow got the idea that a single election could be eternally binding, whereas the folks from the opposition party already are motivated — as they usually are.
  
  Nothing gets a politician's attention like election returns — normally, unless one happens to be the president and thinks that, in some way, he is above such things. But I doubt there is any truth to that tale about his election night activities. And one can sense something of a sea change already occurring within the ranks. Democrats already are making noises about delaying action on health care reform until next year — if not sometime after the midterm elections.
  
  The window of opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to get some things done in the first half of his term seems to be slamming shut.
  
  Perhaps some of the Democrats who were on Capitol Hill in the first years of the Clinton presidency now remember the beating the party took when it emphasized health care reform over job creation and, perhaps belatedly, want to take steps that can avoid a repeat of that experience.
  
  Based on what I'm seeing tonight, I think the battle next year will be won and lost with independent voters. Since independents seem to favor a progressive social agenda, that might be a good place to start in the campaign for their allegiance. On the surface, it looks like more of a reach for Republicans than it is for Democrats.


• A couple of social issues were on the ballot in Maine, though, and supporters of both are leading with just under 30% of the vote counted. About 51% of the voters are endorsing the law that was approved by the legislators and signed by the governor allowing same–sex marriage. And more than three–fifths of voters support expanding the list of conditions that could be treated with medical marijuana.
  
  Once a reliably Republican state in presidential elections, Maine has shifted toward Democrats in recent decades, but it is represented in the Senate by what may be the last Republican moderates — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Neither will face the voters in 2010 so it does retain some of its political roots. But the Republican Party that is admired in Maine has more in common with Abe Lincoln than Newt Gingrich.
  
  For many years, though, Maine had a reputation for recognizing emerging social issues. "As Maine goes, so goes the nation," the saying went. The saying originally referred to Maine's tendency to be on the winning side in presidential contests, but it also has been a political barometer for social issues. The present political climate may be giving it the opportunity to reclaim that role.
  
  But there, as elsewhere, the returns tonight seem to be driven by independent voters.
  
  Neither party is in the position of claiming a majority among self–identified voters in most states. The ones who call themselves independents typically hold the key to electoral success. To ignore what their votes can tell you is to court disaster.
  
  That may hold some cues for Obama, who has not been an advocate of either cause but may want to revise his position to curry favor with independent voters, many of whom supported him last year but seem to be abandoning his party in New Jersey and Virginia this year — and might abandon it in other places next year.

Well, that's just a thought. But the numbers in Virginia and New Jersey, compared to what we saw a year ago when Obama carried both states, are startling.

The battle of the 2010 midterms began in earnest tonight.

Palin's Plummeting Poll Numbers

Whatever one thought of Sarah Palin's prospects as a presidential candidate before she announced her intention to resign as governor of Alaska — and then followed through with her plan a couple of weeks later — you had to admire her ability to draw a crowd whenever she spoke.

There haven't been many in her party who have demonstrated that kind of drawing power in recent years.

And I've heard more than one person say that she alone was responsible for generating the most enthusiasm that John McCain's presidential campaign had last year — until the economic meltdown.

But new poll results suggest that "Americans appear to be souring on [her]."

The poll says 39% of respondents have a favorable view of Palin while 48% have an unfavorable view. And CNN polling director Keating Holland has more bad news for the ex–governor.

"Most of that change has come among Republicans and conservatives. GOP voters still like Palin — two–thirds continue to have a favorable view of her — but she is not as wildly popular among GOPers as she was in the spring, when eight in 10 Republicans had a favorable view of her."

Palin hasn't announced her political intentions for the future — if she has any. And CNN deputy political director Paul Steinhauser acknowledges that it is uncertain whether her resignation or something she has done is behind the decline. But Holland had some ominous words Palin — and any other would–be presidential candidates with similar favorable ratings — should consider.

"A 39% favorable rating makes it that much tougher for Palin to become president should she decide to run in 2012. Her favorable rating is almost identical to the numbers that former Vice President Dan Quayle got just after leaving office in 1993."

Apparently, Democrats already have picked up on Palin's unpopularity. CNN.com reports that they have been using her and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in their fundraising efforts.

But before Democrats start thinking there are no obstacles to a second term for Barack Obama, here are a few reminders:

• This is only the seventh month of the first year of Obama's four–year term. At comparable points in their first years as president, George H.W. Bush had a 69% approval rating and Jimmy Carter had a 60% approval rating. Both were defeated when they ran for re–election.
  
  Gallup reports that Obama's current approval rating stands at 53%.


• And the midterm elections haven't been held yet. History suggests that they tend to go against the incumbent party. With unemployment at 9.4% and Gallup reporting disapproval of the health reform plan at 49%, the president and his party appear to have their work cut out for them.

Polls, of course, are not written in stone. They are merely snapshots of public opinion at a particular moment in time.

If we are using poll numbers from 2009 to project likely outcomes in 2012, we are being foolish.

Poll numbers can be useful for seeing where things stand today — or where things stood a few days ago. But they are of little consequence when predicting what will happen in an election that is still three years away.

What Palin does — and what Obama does — between now and 2012 will have a greater bearing on their political fortunes than what the polls tell us today.

Looking Back and Looking Ahead

In a couple of weeks, the George W. Bush administration will be over.

It's not unusual, especially at the end of a full two-term presidency (as rare as they have been in our history), for people to reflect on the outgoing president and the imprint he leaves on the nation.

Today, the Philadelphia Inquirer reflects, on its editorial page, on "The Bush Years" and the Bush "legacy" that the president and the first lady care so much about.

The Inquirer decries the "familiar litany" of Bush's failures as president, then proceeds to recite them for us. But it does point out what I consider to be the greatest failing (among many) — "Bush eroded respect for the democratic principles that founded this country."

And, what may have frustrated me more than anything else has been his insistence that his actions have been intended to preserve the dignity of the presidency.

The Inquirer speaks about that, too: "[T]hat has to be about more than just avoiding the sex scandal that marred Bill Clinton's presidency," writes the Inquirer. "[A]cting as if the holder of his office is above the law — without regard for constitutional checks and balances — now, that was a major misstep."

I would call it Nixonian.

After briefly reviewing Bush's record in office, the Inquirer concludes, "It's been a rough eight years, no question. In November, voters thankfully signaled that they're ready to move on."

That's fine — but what, exactly, are we moving on toward?

The Economist seeks to answer that question.

This month, for example, The Economist observes that America "welcomes Barack Obama, its 44th president, to the White House. Americans will hope that he can revive the economy and lift the gloomy mood at home while improving the country's reputation abroad."

Again, that's fine — but it doesn't really answer the question of what we can expect in 2009, does it? I mean, we're all, in our own ways, hoping for an economic turnaround, a better national mood and an improved national reputation abroad.

Mostly, The Economist recites events that are scheduled to take place this year. No surprises there — unless unforeseen developments force the postponement or cancellation of any of those events.

The most telling part of The Economist's report may be the illustration that accompanies it — a cartoon depicting various national leaders (including, apparently, Obama) in individual motorboats, each of which appears to have sprung a leak and is rapidly taking on water.

The visible leaders have their backs to us so they can only be identified by the national flags on their boats (and, in Obama's case, by the color of his skin).

No one seems to notice the shark swimming between the boats.