« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

Theo Resigns

And so another chapter of the storied Boston Red Sox comes to a close as Theo Epstein leaves Boston after three glorious years as general manager. Theo's tenure was marked as the first time in Boston history the team reached the postseason in three consecutive seasons, not to mention the little matter of the team's World Series victory.

Unfortunately, it appears that Epstein had some personal issues with club president Larry Luccino, issues that apparently were bad enough to convince him to turn down a three year, $4.5 million contract. That is bad news for the Red Sox, and quite possibly for Epstein as well.

Let's recap the Theo era. Yes, Theo brought us a title, and I certainly will buy him a beer whenever he wants one for that triumph. The Sox came within one Grady Little meltdown of reaching the World Series in Theo's first year in Boston. His moves during the 2004 season were brilliant, from moving Nomar to the pickup of the sublime Dave Roberts. However, his encore in 2005 was far less impressive, with the Sox' weaknesses completely exposed by the White Sox in the ALDS. A good record? Absolutely. But mistakes were made as well, and Theo's reputation as a wunderkind was seriously undermined by the Sox' troubles this year.

In any case, Theo is now gone, and the Red Sox must move on. More than half the starting lineup will turn over in the offseason, and the Sox are desperate for some solid starting pitching and another good arm in the bullpen. Whoever replaces Epstein will have an uphill climb on his hands. I wish Theo the best in his future endeavors, but the Sox will go on without him, and the sooner, the better.

Posted at 08:08 PM · Baseball · Comments (0) · TrackBack (0)

A Wise Choice

With the foolishness of the Miers pick behind him, President Bush appears to have figured out how the world is supposed to work once more. His selection of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is an excellent one. Not because I have any idea how he'll rule, but because he is clearly qualified for the job. With fifteen years of experience on the 3d Circuit, there is no question Alito is capable of sitting on the Supreme Court. Now the question that remains is, is Alito an originalist who will rule based on what the law says rather than what he wants it to say?

The Democrats aren't happy with the Alito nomination, which is a good start, but there are plenty of Republicans who are more interested in how a nominee with vote than why, so that is not evidence that Alito will be a good judge. However, his writing style is a significant point in his favor, for my money. While reading a Scalia opinion may be entertaining thanks to his wit, I'm not convinced a court decision is the place for wit. A court decision should lay out what the law is, and a Supreme Court in particular needs to be rational and incisive so that lower courts are able to understand precisely what the decision is and how it is to be applied. Alito's writing style seems well-calibrated for such opinions, and that alone would make him a significant improvement over many justices currently on the bench, O'Connor in particular.

There's little doubt the coming weeks will be filled with unpleasantness on both sides as various factions take to the airwaves in hopes of furthering their preferred outcome. But the Republicans have every right and reason to approve Alito and place him on the court as quickly as possible, Democratic objections aside. Barring any surprises, Judge Alito should become Justice Alito within the month.

Posted at 06:13 AM · Politics · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

October 17, 2005

Rush to Judgement

Via Alterman I learn that a plurality of Americans think that President Bush's presidency will be judged a failure by history. Alterman's reaction? "You couldn’t have figured this out, say, last November?" Naturally, Alterman is convinced that the Bush presidency's failure is so plainly self-evident that it may as well already be recorded as an historical fact. Readers will be unsurprised to learn, however, that I think it's quite clear Alterman is jumping the gun by at least a decade.

How do we judge presidents? Who were successes, and who were failures? After Washington, you can find people who will point to all other presidencies as bad without looking very hard. Hard-edged libertarians despise Abraham Lincoln's actions in response to secession. Few Republicans think very much of FDR's varied attempts to pull America out of the Great Depression. Despite the general outpouring of love for President Reagan after his death last spring, the average Democrat is unlikely to look back fondly on his presidency and declare it a great success. Granted, historians try to use different criteria in adjudging a presidency, but bias will inevitably creep into all such judgements because it is difficult to apply objective criteria to 43 men's actions in response to vastly varied circumstances. These judgements are all the more difficult when those making the judgements remember the time in question; see the fond reminisces of the Kennedy presidency for evidence of this. Under JFK America saw the Bay of Pigs disaster, the erection of the Berlin Wall, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hardly the hallmarks of a massively successful presidency. Yet even now, 42 years after his death, Kennedy is frequently remembered as a great or near-great president, a ranking completely out of order with his presidency. (See here for the Federalist Society/Wall Street Journal rankings, where Kennedy still comes in as Above Average.)Kennedy has faded as memories of his personal charisma fade, but it will likely be another half-century before any real consensus on his presidency can coalesce. It is therefore far from likely that anyone could realistically expect anyone right now to assess the Bush presidency with any hope of accuracy. Things which appear important now may turn out to be irrelevant in the grand scheme, while issues currently ignored may turn out to be far more important than we now realize. We need look no further than the Clinton presidency to realize that an issue that was on few radar screens in the 1990s, Islamofascism, will now be an important yardstick against which President Clinton will be measured (although it would be improper to mark him down too harshly for it, as it is virtually inconceivable that any president would have reacted with adquate measures against the growing threat we faced at that time).

When one considers what is likely to be seen as the defining issue of the Bush presidency, the war in Iraq, it should be clear to even the most partisan observer that there is no way to know right now how history will view the Bush presidency. If, in twenty years, Iraq and Afghanistan are reasonably peaceful and still maintain representative governments, the Bush presidency is going to look pretty good. If not, the Bush presidency will look pretty bad regardless of what happens with the price of oil or whether or not the economy is going gangbusters. Don't believe me? You don't have to: just look at history. There is probably one U.S. President who is notorious for economics during his presidency, and that's Herbert Hoover, who got to take the blame for the Depression (and he did some things to deserve it). Yet his successor, the aforementioned Franklin Delano Roosevelt, presided over eight years of dismal economic news far worse than what happened under Hoover, and FDR is generally ranked as a great president, thanks to his performance during the Second World War. It's hard for us to imagine today, with the slogan 'It's the economy, stupid' still resonating, to believe, but presidencies are rarely rated based on the strength of the economy. In the rear view mirror, such issues are seen as far less important, possibly (although probably not) because the ability of the president to materially effect the economy is nowhere near as great as is assumed by the media.

Mr. Alterman has every right to try and declare the Bush presidency a failure. It is good for Alterman politically, and it may help to propel his party back into power. But I suspect Alterman is smart enough to realize that the real judgment of the Bush administration will have to wait a few decades before we can look back on it with any accuracy.

Posted at 11:17 AM · History · Comments (2) · TrackBack (0)

October 10, 2005

Columbus Day

I suppose it's time for the annual crackdown on Columbus, as PC mavens across the nation decry a holiday dedicated to a man who brought a great deal of pain and suffering down on the 'native' populations of the Americas. While I have no objection whatsoever to people pointing out Columbus' excesses and failures, I don't think it is at all inappropriate to still commemorate what he did.

The world needs people like Columbus, like it or not. Without people willing to dare great things, to risk it all on one throw of the dice, the history of human civilization would hardly be worth remembering. One man can make a difference, no matter how many people worship at the altar of determinism and historical inevitability. Celebrating that fact is a worthy cause, and an important reminder to us all.

Posted at 09:38 AM · Holidays · Comments (1) · TrackBack (0)