Rahmbo for President

In the old Soviet Union, there was a leadership position called Party Ideologist. I always loved that. In fact, I duly established an imaginary equivalent for the Democrats: Party Idealogist. The title was held by various Dems over the years—Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Clinton, Jerry Brown…Well, actually there haven’t been that many Democrats courageous enough to admonish the party as it slid, gradually, into the thrall of its leftish interest groups; precious few who would question the teachers unions (the most powerful interest group), AIPAC (which influences both parties), various environmental, racial and sexual affinity groups.

There are plenty of Democrats of fine character and good ideas huffing about, but none really rises to the level of Party Idealogist—a person willing to speak truth to donkeys.

Except maybe Rahm Emanuel.

I don’t think he’ll ever be president. I think we’ll see a woman in the Oval Office before we see a Jew (I’d vote for Sherrill, Spanberger or Slotkin right now). In fact, I suspect, sadly, that the party’s position on Israel will be the flash point in the presidential primaries of 2028. But Rahm’s been going around, giving smart speeches on tetchy issues. He’s been setting markers, especially for the namby-pamby moderate wing of the party. And that is an extremely valuable function: the socialist dilettantes are getting all the attention these days, supporting policies that, in most cases, have already been proven unworkable…and unsellable to the American people.

The purpose of this newsletter, Sanity Clause, has been to establish that real radicalism is to be found in the middle of the political spectrum. We love charter schools around here, and the military, and funding the police, and national service (mandatory for some), and expanded legal immigration and tough love—but love nonetheless—for Israel. We oppose making distinctions according to race, sex or sexuality. We are willing to think about any smart offer on health care.

Now, I’m not sure Rahm is all the way with me on all those issues—but I am sure, based on arguments we’ve had dating back to the Clinton days, that he’d be willing to yell at me over our disagreements. And he has already provided a valuable service, opening a can of worms ideas that will challenge those who do run for president as Democrats in 2028. I want him on stage, calling them out.

His recent speech in Tel Aviv, calling out the Israelis, was one very important marker. I love that he went to Israel to deliver it, face to face. I love that he used the P-word, acknowledging that Israel has become a “territorial pariah” under Bibi Netanyahu. According to The New York Times:

Unconditional U.S. support of Israel should end, Mr. Emanuel bluntly warned in a speech at Tel Aviv University on Wednesday, demanding that Israel make major changes if it is to retain U.S. backing at its historic strength.

Above all, he said, Israel will need to allow again for the possibility of Palestinian sovereignty and give up on dreams of annexing all of the West Bank.

He said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government have isolated Israel and led it “into a dead end” and argued that Mr. Netanyahu sees every security problem as a nail and military action as the only hammer.

It was, in short, a very precise summation of what the Democrats should be saying about Israel. He has done the same about education, the issue which dare not speak its name among Dems. He wrote a blistering op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

We’ve spent the past five years debating pronouns without noticing that too many students can’t tell you what a pronoun is. The U.S. has been more focused on whether a school is named for Abraham Lincoln than whether students can tell you why he is an American giant. We’ve become so obsessed with bathroom access that we’ve ignored classroom excellence. America has lost the plot. Democrats need to refocus on the fundamentals in the elementary years—when it comes to high school, we need to be pursuing fundamental reform.

He championed charter schools, fought the teachers union and, as the Mayor of Chicago:

We required every graduate to produce a letter of acceptance from a four-year college, a community college, the military or a vocational program—an obligation that 97.5% of them were able to satisfy. We made it possible for half the city’s students to earn college credits while still in high school. Finally, we ensured that anyone with a B average could attend Chicago’s community colleges for free.

Now, I’m not actually expecting Rahm will win the nomination, though I’d certainly vote for him. I suspect that if the Democrats wake up and move on from “authenticity” to courage as a core intellectual value in its candidates, a nice Christian male may be found. (I think a tough Thatcher-like woman could win, though most Dems don’t.) But Rahm can facilitate that process. A real, elbow-flinging, rough and tumble, content-laden battle needs to be waged against the arrogant left-wing reactionaries. A Party Idealogist is needed to set the proper standards and referee the fight. Rahm is allergic to boring. He’s got a lot to say. You go, boy.

I first met Lindsey when he ran for Senate in 2002. He was running against a grand—and decidedly hilarious—story-telling Democrat named Alex Sanders, who later became a great friend of mine. I interviewed Lindsey for the piece about Sanders I wrote for the New Yorker. It was a pro forma thing but…I really liked the guy. Two years later, even Alex was privately celebrating Graham’s independence. “If I knew Lindsey was going to turn out this way,” he laughed. “I would have voted for him.”

That was a fleeting judgment, squandered in Graham’s embarrassing obeisance to Donald Trump. Lindsey’s old running mate, John McCain, would have been ashamed. As Jonathan Martin writes in Politico, Graham needed to be in the middle of the game.

It was always good to visit with Lindsey—and, at least in one way, he walked the walk. He was an Air Force JAG and he insisted, long after it was necessary, to do his reserve service in dangerous places. He did this every year. I once bumped into him working as a JAG in Kandahar, when that was not a frequently favored vacation spot for members of Congress.

We disagreed on a lot of things, even before Trump. He was an unrelenting hawk. We disagreed—I’d say argued, but Lindsey and I never argued—about Iraq and Iran. I loved it when he scorched Trump about January 6 on the floor of the Senate. “Trump and I have had a hell of a journey,” he said, adding that he “hated to see it end this way but enough is enough." Trump said today, in his inimitable, squalid fashion, that Graham later called him to apologize for it. I don’t know, but I’d guess Lindsey would probably do something like that. He was a gentleman. I’ll certainly miss him.

Share