Second opinion: excerpts from commentary in other publications

Conservative successes

Matthew Continetti in the Weekly Standard, Jan. 5

We’ve stopped counting the number of times we’ve been told over the past few years that conservatives can’t govern. Now it’s true that the Bush administration has seen its share of incompetence, negligence, and cupidity. And back when Republicans ran Capitol Hill, it sometimes seemed as though GOP congressmen were competing for the annual Jack Abramoff Award for Excellence in Corruption. But linking these foibles to conservatism is silly. Liberalism is not immune from human nature, either, as the scandal surrounding Democratic Illinois governor Rod ěF—ingî Blagojevich makes clear.

The fact is that conservatives govern successfully when they have the right mix of policy and personnel. In 2007 President Bush replaced the generals in charge of the Iraq war and shifted strategy there from force protection to population security. The ěsurge,î led by Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno, resulted in a breathtaking change in Iraq. The United States now stands a real chance of seeing its goals there realized.

On the home front, for a quarter century conservative policies have been instrumental in fighting inflation and spurring economic growth through lower taxes and free trade. In the 1990s, conservatives promoted successful welfare reform. In this decade, they supported legislation that increased standards and accountability for schools (and we’ve seen a modest increase in test scores since the law passed). They adopted a plan to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare that has come in under budget, has introduced competition into the system, and enjoys widespread support among seniors.

That’s not all. Just off the top of our heads, we can think of three more domestic policy areas where conservatives have made inroads.

Recently the Office of National Drug Control Policy, led by John Walters, released statistics—collected by the University of Michigan and Quest Diagnostics—that ought to brighten anyone’s day. Walters’s office calculates that there are 900,000 fewer young drug users than there were in 2001.

In 2002, President Bush named Philip Mangano executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. Mangano has spent the last six years pointing out that the way to reduce homelessness is to give people homes. The most recent data show that the number of chronically homeless declined by 30 percent between 2005 and 2007. It’s not an exaggeration to say that President Bush may have done more for the homeless than any of his predecessors.

Meanwhile, serious violent crime levels have declined precipitously since 1993, when municipalities across the country began to adopt conservative, tough-on-crime policies. The decline in crime has been most drastic in New York City, which by 2002 had the same crime rate as Provo, Utah. And it was a conservative, Rudy Giuliani, who transformed New York from a barely functioning drug bazaar into the safest large city in America.

The bottom line is that conservatives have a domestic policy record to be proud of.

Obama and upcoming judge picks

Emily Bazelon and Judith Resnik on Slate.com, Dec. 19

Next summer, Barack Obama may get to make a Supreme Court appointment. But before then, he’ll give us a preview by filling 13 vacant slots on the federal appeals courts.

The appellate picks relate to the higher-profile question of the Supreme Court; Obama can set up judges to elevate later. (George Bush tapped John Roberts for the D.C. Circuit two years before making him chief justice.) But whether or not they get promoted on high, whoever takes the new seats on the various circuits will have a profound effect on the law. The Supreme Court decides fewer than 90 cases a year; the appellate courts hear 60,000 every year.

Obama should look to sitting district court judges who have shown their dedication to opening up the courts as an avenue for redress. If they go up to the appeals courts, these judges will have more impact more quickly than the lawyers or academics lining up for appointments. District court judges know the ins and outs of their particular circuit’s legal rules, and they understand how to fashion standards that trial judges can use. They also know the personalities of the circuit judges they’d be serving with, which helps for effectively negotiating on the standard appellate panel of three.

Our point is that Obama should include some proven and experienced change-makers among his appellate appointments. As Charlie Savage underscored in the New York Times earlier this fall, Bush has appointed more than one-third of the total current federal judiciary. With the aid of his judges, the law of government immunity has grown, shielding from lawsuits more states and their executive officials (and after this term, likely their prosecutors). Meanwhile, the law of liability has shrunk, so that investors trying to show securities violations have a harder time getting into court and then proving their claims. Bush’s appointees have also helped narrow opportunities to enforce federal rights, for example against age discrimination or to protect truth-in-lending. And for people who are in detention—seeking asylum, protesting deportation for other reasons, or serving out prison sentences—the paths to federal court are harrowingly slight. Even some Reagan and Bush I judges have written opinions bemoaning the impoverishment of due process, especially for asylum seekers.

On the circuit courts, Bush’s influence has been especially strong. In 2001, there were 76 Democratic appointees on the circuit courts and 76 Republican appointees. In January, there will be 63 Democratic appointees and 101 Republican appointees. In percentage terms, the shift is from 50-50 to 62-38. It will take years to bring some of these courts back into balance. But Obama will have a chance right away to alter the composition of the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., and one of the country’s most conservative. Almost two-thirds of the court’s active 15 judges are Republican appointees; there are also four vacancies. When Obama fills these open spots and the others around the country, he should look to the district courts for inspiration.

Defining Victory for Israel

By Michael Gerson in the Washington Post, Jan. 2

There is no question — none — that Israel’s attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified. No nation can tolerate a portion of its people living in the conditions of the London Blitz — listening for sirens, sleeping in bomb shelters and separated from death only by the randomness of a Qassam missile’s flight. And no group aspiring to nationhood, such as Hamas, can be exempt from the rules of sovereignty, morality and civilization, which, at the very least, forbid routine murder attempts against your neighbors.

Israel’s response has been criticized as ědisproportionate,î which betrays a misunderstanding of proportion’s meaning. The goal of military action, when unavoidable, is not to take one life in exchange for each one unjustly taken; this is mere vengeance. The goal is to remove the conditions that lead to conflict and the taking of life. So far, Israel’s actions have been proportionate to this objective. And the convoys of fuel, medical supplies and food sent by Israel into Gaza show an appropriate concern for Palestinian suffering, even during a broad assault on Hamas forces.

Israel’s immediate goal is simple: to stop missile barrages by Hamas on southern Israel. But it is not a coincidence that this action was taken by the primary sponsors of the peace process in Israeli politics. The Israeli public will not accept any further risks for peace as long as Hamas missiles fly. Those missiles are a daily symbol that Israeli territorial concessions result in the strengthening of committed enemies and the death of Israeli citizens. The removal of this threat is not an obstacle to the peace process. It is the prerequisite for the resumption of the peace process.

It is also not a coincidence that the Israeli attack took place in the last days of a reliably favorable Bush administration — for which the president-elect, above all, should be grateful. If Israel concludes the main phase of its Gaza operations by Inauguration Day — as it seems to want to do — this will allow Obama to renew a peace push with a fresh start and a large obstacle (hopefully) removed.

In this crisis, Israel faces a test of its wisdom and competence: Would its leaders really have undertaken such a high-risk operation without a clear endgame?

America, in turn, faces a test of its moral judgment. This conflict is not a contest between shades of gray in mist and fog. It is a matter of distinguishing between murderers and victims — and of supporting an ally until a clear victory against terrorism is achieved.