All Aboard the Presidential Express

The Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire this week was a serious event.

Let’s understand what it means. It does not mean that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican candidate for president.

Many Republicans are still frightened that Romney is too enthralled by the conventional wisdom, on matters like climate change and individual health insurance mandates. More than a few suspect that he would want to put David Souter back on the Supreme Court.

The debate was an all-aboard signal. It meant that the train is leaving the station and that anyone who wants to get on board had best do it soon. Once the train leaves the station and picks up cruising steam, you cannot jump on.

By all indications this means that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is about to miss his opportunity. Not just for now, but forever.

Christie had his opportunity, and he has turned his back on it. If you don’t seize an opportunity when it presents itself, people will think less of you. They are going to think that you put your personal feelings ahead of public service. You should not expect the same opportunity to present itself again.

As the Greek philosopher Heraclitus once said: You can’t jump in the same river twice.

By all appearances, Texas Governor Rick Perry is about to board the train. Daniel Henninger gives credit to Perry’s wife, Anita. Link here.

Clearly, the story line stands in stark contrast to the one that Indiana governor Mitch Daniels spun when he declined to enter the race because his wife had exercised her veto.

Henninger explains it well, and sketches a lesson in leadership: “My guess is he's in. Why? He got clearance from what obviously has become the second-most powerful force in American politics—a candidate's wife. In the governor's telling, his wife, Anita, sat him down and said this was no ordinary presidential election for the country. Rick, you've gotta run.

“She's right about the race. There may be lots of reasons not to put oneself through the modern presidential gauntlet, but not this time. Four more years of below-average economic growth and above-trend unemployment and it'll take a generation for the U.S. to climb out. The betting here is that Anita Perry wins this argument. They usually do.”

As I’ve been saying, Chris Christie is wrong to consider his readiness the critical issue. You step up when you are needed and when the situation requires it, not when you think you are ready.  

If Christie does not have it in him to answer the call, then perhaps we are better off with someone else. More so when that someone else has an excellent long-term record of effective governance and job creation.

Get Over Yourself

It’s become part of the ritual. As it hands out college diplomas, a college will feel obliged to season the entree with a sprinkling of very bad advice.

Yesterday, I took Jonathan Franzen to task for offering some exceptionally bad advice.

Today, I am more than happy to open with some great advice. it comes from David Brooks, and it’s even better than “Wear Sunscreen.”

Brooks advises recent graduates to learn that: “It’s Not About You.” Link here.

Upon graduation college students should be told that it’s time to get over their self-involved, self-centered world view. Above all else they need to get over themselves.

It’s an ugly world out there. Graduates who try to deal with it by following the bromides that commencement speakers are offering will be at a decided disadvantaget.

Brooks makes a number of important and salient points. Let’s review them and give them their due.

He believes that the young generation has been supervised and tutored to within an inch of its mental capacity. Now, we are inviting these same young people to enter a world where there are no clear guidelines and where the standard life track no longer seems to exist.

Brooks may be right that the young generation has been subjected to exceptionally strict adult supervision, but I suspect that if this were true, they would all have been brought up by Tiger Moms.

If the vicious debate about Amy Chua’s book told us anything, it revealed that far too many children receive insufficient supervision and suffer from diminished parental expectations.

Brooks feels that children who were brought up in highly structured environments will have difficulty adapting to free-wheeling unstructured uncertain situations. Certainly, it makes sense. One set of social skills will not always work in an alien environment.

However, I suspect that a child who has been trained to be disciplined and hard-working will do better in today’s world because he or she does not need a very structured environment.

If you can bring your own discipline and organization with you, you will do better in a world that no longer forces discipline and organization on you.

If you did not learn discipline and organization and good values at home or in school, you will do better in a highly structured environment, like the military or a corporation.

Brooks is right to see that the world that the boomers are leaving to the young generation is nothing like the world in which the boomers grew up.

Past college graduates had their future mapped out for them. They could get a job, get married, raise a family, get promoted, and so on. Some of them went to graduate school, got jobs, got married, raised families, got promoted, and so on.

The life track was fairly clear and well laid out. Such is no longer the case.

Allow Brooks to describe it: “Yet upon graduation they will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured. Most of them will not quickly get married, buy a home and have kids, as previous generations did. Instead, they will confront amazingly diverse job markets, social landscapes and lifestyle niches. Most will spend a decade wandering from job to job and clique to clique, searching for a role.”

The worst part,  in my view, is that these new graduates are being bombarded with bad advice from what I would call the therapy culture. I have often written about the ravages of the therapy culture, so I am happy to see Brooks offering a similar perspective.

Brooks does not use the term therapy culture, but the values he sees running amok at college graduations, and presumably, in college courses, owe their existence and survival to it.

Brooks describes it well: “Worst of all, they are sent off into this world with the whole baby-boomer theology ringing in their ears. If you sample some of the commencement addresses being broadcast on C-Span these days, you see that many graduates are told to: Follow your passion, chart your own course, march to the beat of your own drummer, follow your dreams and find yourself. This is the litany of expressive individualism, which is still the dominant note in American culture.”

He continues: “College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

“Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.”

Well explained and well presented. In these paragraphs Brooks articulates everything that is wrong and misleading about the therapy culture approach to life.

Commencement speakers should not be telling everyone to pursue happiness. They should, as Aristotle had it, tell  them to pursue excellence.

Brooks writes: “The graduates are also told to pursue happiness and joy. But, of course, when you read a biography of someone you admire, it’s rarely the things that made them happy that compel your admiration. It’s the things they did to court unhappiness — the things they did that were arduous and miserable, which sometimes cost them friends and aroused hatred. It’s excellence, not happiness, that we admire most.”

The meaning of life does not lie in self-actualization; it lies, Brooks explains, in a job well done: “Today’s grads enter a cultural climate that preaches the self as the center of a life. But, of course, as they age, they’ll discover that the tasks of a life are at the center. Fulfillment is a byproduct of how people engage their tasks, and can’t be pursued directly.”

Allow me to offer a couple of examples, ripped from the headlines.

This morning Jennifer Rubin drew a great moral lesson from Memorial Day. Link here. She shows us that it’s not just commencement speakers who are peddling bad values.

Reflecting on the politicians who announce that they are not going to run for office because they place the good of their family above their duty to the country, Rubin writes: “Who’s more noble: the pol who decides not to run for the White House or the soldier, marine or sailor who goes overseas no matter how much he loves his family?”

Obviously, she is talking about Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour.

Rubin continues: “If a pol believes his country needs him, is the family dislocation — which involves no personal danger, comes with many perks, permits weekends and vacations with the family, and allows (if they so desire) relocating the family to Washington — justification for not serving? Patriotism, the extraordinary courage and everyday stress borne by our military and their families are something to admire. Many of us could not imagine undertaking it. So if a pol can’t tolerate a far more minor inconvenience, perhaps he should keep it to himself, lest the rest of us think worse of him.”

Her point is well taken. Even if his family has vetoed his presidential run, a politician would set a better example and retain some of his self-respect and kept it to himself.

The therapy culture tells us all to share. Our self-respect tells us to learn to keep more to ourselves.

While we are talking about politicians ducking the presidential race for reasons that have more to do with the therapy culture than with their duty to the country, I would add New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

As I wrote last week, the Christie dodge, namely that he does not feel ready to run for the presidency, is misses the point. Do you believe that the soldiers who go off to war should wait until they feel that they are ready?

Chris Christie needs to get over himself; he needs to figure out that it’s not all about him. It’s about the nation’s future, his duty to his country, and his place in history.

Draft Chris Christie

Regardless of whether Parmenides or Rabelais said it first, nature abhors a vacuum.

And, like nature, politics also abhors a vacuum.

In today‘s political scene a vacuum exists at the place where there we should see a leading Republican presidential candidate.

Even if not a leader, a credible contender, a compelling postulant, someone who can capture the energy that drove the Republican party to extraordinary success in the last elections.

When you look at the Republican field today, you can only conclude that there is none. Mitt Romney bears the albatross of Romneycare, and besides, he is a retread. Mike Huckabee is not going to run, and even if he did, would the nation rise up to elect him. The bloom has seriously gone off Sarah Palin’s rose, and Michele Bachmann does not seem quite ready for prime time.Newt Gingrich does not have a prayer, and, as for Tim Pawlenty and Rick Santorum… who are you trying to kid?

It’s looking like seven dwarfs waiting for Snow White.

Into the vacuum has stepped none other than Donald Trump. Since it seems unlikely that he will ever become the standard bearer of the Republican party, Trump now seems willing to mount an independent campaign. Like Ross Perot did in 1992.

People say that the Perot candidacy had no effect on the outcome of that election, but it seemed clear to me that Ross Perot gave the presidency to Bill Clinton. Surely, he muddied the waters, and just as surely, he joined Bill Clinton in ganging up on George Bush the Elder.

Like Ross Perot, Trump ranks up there with the nation’s most vainglorious billionaires. He is straightforward and direct, knows how to command the public stage, and says things that many of us have been thinking.

For the Republican party he is their worst nightmare. For Barack Obama he is a dream come true.

Perhaps Trump is involved in a flagrant publicity stunt, but that does not mean that he might not be drawn into the fray.

Never underestimate the megalomania of billionaires. Regardless of Trump’s bluster, in a three way race Barack Obama would be unbeatable.

And never count it out when the media will go on a frenzy to make Trump believe that he can really win the election. Considering how desperate the media will be to re-elect Obama, they will play on Trump's arrogance and make him the perfect foil to split the Republican vote.

So far, to the best of my knowledge, no one is really asking the salient question. Does Trump really have the cash to finance an independent candidacy? If the price tag on the campaign will be close to a billion dollars, does Donald Trump really have that much spare cash?

We know that Michael Bloomberg could have written a check for the sum, but I have not heard anyone say that Donald Trump can.

Clearly, Trump believes the he is so smart and so powerful that he can impose will on the American political system. After he whips the American political system into shape, Trump is supremely confident that he can take on the rest of the world.

It is not a crazy idea to think that Trump could do a better job than Barack Obama. But then again, you would have to try very, very hard not to do a better job than Barack Obama.

It may not make very much sense to say that the Savior, the Messiah, needs to be saved, but, twenty-seven months into his presidency, the nation seems to have come to the realization that Obama is seriously in over his head.

Donald Trump may see himself as the savior that America needs. Were he not constantly tripping over his ego, Trump would understand that the only person he can save is Barack Obama.

Politics abhors a vacuum, so much so that it has greeted Donald Trump with open arms. Yet, we should understand that there is a reason for this great political vacuum. That reason is: Chris Christie.

The Republican field has been in suspended animation because it is waiting to hear from the governor of New Jersey.

You’ve heard of Samuel Beckett’s classic: Waiting for Godot. You might even have read it or saw it produced. Now, the Republican party is living out its own existential drama: Waiting for Christie.

Chris Christie is one of the most important leaders of the  Republican party. True enough, he only operates on the state level, but as you watch the Midwestern Republican governors confront the public service unions, you must recognize that they are following Chris Christie's lead.

Even in the true blue state of New York, the new liberal governor, Andrew Cuomo is emulating his neighboring state governor. Andrew Cuomo is Chris Christie-lite.

When you show the way by setting an example that inspires others, as Chris Christie has, you are, like it or not, a national leader.

The current discussions about the declared or intended Republican candidates is really a sideshow. The Republican party is waiting for Christie. I suspect that a Christie candidacy would clear the Republican field, and might even cause Donald Trump to cease and desist.

In the meantime Chris Christie continues to insist that he will not run for the presidency because he does not feel that he is ready. And the panjandrums of the Republican party continue their vigil.

In that, they are making a mistake. If you don‘t mind a spoiler alert, at the conclusion of Beckett‘s play, Godot does not arrive. The central characters, Vladimar and Estragon wait and wait and wait… for nothing.

As the old Latin proverb says: de nihilo nihilum, which means: nothing comes from nothing.

My advice to the Republican party: ignore whatever Chris Christie says, and mount a serious campaign to draft him as a presidential candidate.

Gov. Christie seems to have concluded that with hubris afoot in the land and with the ship of state being guided by someone who is manifestly unqualified, that his own humility will make him more attractive.

The problem is, that it’s not just about Chris Christie. It’s about the nation and it’s future. Chris Christie should be drafted because the country needs him, regardless of whether he thinks so.

A slightly, or even somewhat, unready Chris Christie would be a vast improvement of what we have now.

Paul McCartney and Chris Christie Celebrate Chanukah

'Twas the last night of Chanukah, and who should appear, at a Chabad House Fundraiser in New Brunswick, New Jersey, but Sir Paul McCartney, himself, in the flesh.

It’s too strange to be fiction. So it must have been true.

As it happened, NJ Gov. Chris Christie was there too, to celebrate the last night of Chanukah.

The result made for great political theater. Here’s the way Gov. Christie described it: Link here.

As everyone has recognized by now, Chris Christie is a master communicator. Even Frank Rich compared him very favorably with the current occupant of the oval office.

Anyway, as Chris Christie was commenting about his encounter with Paul McCartney, he managed to add a pearl of wisdom, an insight of inestimable value… the kind of  adage you learn with age but wish you had known when you were younger.

Talking about Sir Paul’s presence at the Chabad House Fundraiser, Christie explained: “No matter who you are, if your girlfriend tells you you’re going to be some place, you’re going.”

You may recall that six or so weeks ago I posted my reaction to Chris Christie’s Today Show profile. Link here.

In essence, I said that we should take Gov. Christie insistence that he does not want to run for president with a measure of doubt, because, his wife says that he would be a great president.

If he says that he is not going to run and if she says that he would be great in the job, go with his wife.

Barack Obama vs. Chris Christie

Last night Bernard Goldberg explained that Barack Obama is a media creation. In many ways Obama was a blank slate, a candidate without an experience or a real record, on which the media could paint whatever picture it wanted.

Then all they had to do was to sell the image to America. In that they were successful.

Today, of course, many of those same creative spirits are in very high dudgeon over the fact that Obama has negotiated a deal with Republicans over taxes.

They cannot understand how their creation could have broken away from his handlers. Instead of following the dictates of Paul Krugman and Bill Maher, Obama seems to have come to terms with political reality and the will of the American people.

While some people are railing against Obama’s pragmatism, others are beginning to understand that the image they created is at odds with reality. The character they created is not the man who is currently sitting in the White House.

In truth, many of those who created the image of Obama never bothered to ask themselves about the man, himself. They reveled in the fact that he was a blank slate on which they could project whatever they wanted to sell.

Call it a wake-up moment or even an epiphany, but it is striking to read Elizabeth Drew’s account of how her illusion of Obama was shattered. Link here.

Writing about Osama’s “pathetic“ post-election news conference last month, Drew said: “In these comments, Obama gave away the devastating fact that he didn’t really understand the role of the president as leader.”

Not exactly a minor detail. Commenting on the poor messaging that the new great communicator was showing, Drew remarked, tartly: “Those who supported Obama in 2008 expected him to be able to move public opinion, to get people to follow him. The fact that the Obama White House has been so poor at 'messaging' baffles even his strongest supporters. In fact, he had no overall message. As Winston Churchill put it, there was no theme to his pudding.”

So much for expectations.

At the risk of being repetitious, I would ask again, how such brilliant political analysts-- and Elizabeth Drew is hardly alone in the camp-- could have missed the obvious: Obama’s is great at communicating bromides and platitudes, words that might inspire a church congregation.

Since a president, as opposed to a pastor, sees his words subjected to daily reality checks, his empty rhetoric is eventually going to seem like… empty rhetoric.

Something similar is happening in the mind of Frank Rich.

Rich is surely one of the creative genies who are responsible for Barack Obama. As a recycled drama critic, he must feel that he has moved  from criticizing other people’s dramas to creating one of his own… on the world stage.

The old Obama narrative, which carried the image, saw the Savior come to Earth to save the Republic from Republicans.

Apparently, the story no longer inspires adherence, so Rich is at the ready with a new narrative.

His latest: Obama has been captured and is being held hostage by Republicans. Like Patty Hearst, Obama is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, where a hostage comes to sympathize with his captors. Link here.

Only a Frank Rich would be so offended that his own creation would defy his will that he would fail to see that Obama is merely trying to comply with the will of the American people.

Imagine a president trying, for the first time, to accommodate the will of the American people over the views of the New York Times. The affront, the offense is so grave that you can only batten down the hatches while waiting for Paul Krugman’s next rhetorical hurricane.

And yet, as you read Rich’s column you can see a glimmer of light breaking through the darkness of his mind.

Frank seems also to have had his own epiphany, and has grasped one of Obama’s basic problems.

Again, this should not be news. It is not news to regular readers of this blog.

Here is Obama’s problem, in Rich‘s words: “But the real problem is that he’s so indistinct no one across the entire political spectrum knows who he is. A chief executive who repeatedly presents himself as a conciliator, forever searching for the ‘good side‘ of all adversaries and convening summits, in the end comes across as weightless, if not AWOL. A Rorschach test may make for a fine presidential candidate — when everyone projects their hopes on the guy. But it doesn’t work in the Oval Office: These days everyone is projecting their fears on Obama instead.”

If Obama had not been a blank slate, or Rorschach test, then people like Frank Rich could not have created him as they wished. He is a weightless leader because he has always been weightless. That was why Frank Rich liked him in the first place.

It is worth mentioning that it is profoundly disrespectful of Barack Obama, the man, to take him as a blank slate on which you can project whatever you want. And it is even more disrespectful to complain if he does not conform to the image.

When the light illuminates hidden recesses of the mind of Frank Rich, strange things happen. Rich has now found a political figure who is the real thing, who knows how to exercise leadership.

If you have been gulled into accepting an image for reality, you can be awakened from your torpor by seeing the real thing.

No, it is not Sarah Palin. It is, you might have guessed, New Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie.

How does Rich see Christie’s leadership: “But the core of Christie’s appeal at home is that he explains passionately held views in concrete, plain-spoken detail. Voters know what he stands for and sometimes respect him for his forthrightness even when they reject the stands themselves. This extends to his signature issue — his fiscal and rhetorical blows against public education. He’s New Jersey’s most popular statewide politician despite the fact that a 59 percent majority in the state thinks public schools deserve more taxpayer money, not less.”

Ignore the fact that Frank Rich will never ever vote for a Chris Christie.

Accept that Rich has learned something. Great leaders are who they are. They are not chameleons changing their appearance to avoid danger. They do not allow you to project your hopes on them. They believe what they believe, and you know what they believe. You may accept or reject their policies or their candidacies, but you know what you are being treated with respect. No one is trying to trick you with an optical illusion.