My reaction to last week’s election is one of the least important things in the world. But some readers have asked for it, so I thought I’d scribble a lil’ column. I’m hesitant, though, for two reasons.

First, I wrote about the election for months and even years. I particularly wrote about the consequences — bad — of an Obama victory. What am I supposed to do now? Say, “Just kidding”? “It won’t be as bad as all that”? “Never mind”? I’m afraid I can’t be as blasé, or chipper, as some other conservatives. I have an anxious feeling, and long have.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Which leads me to Reason No. 2 for being hesitant — for hesitating to talk: One comes off as Sore-Loserman. And now’s the time for graciousness, optimism, and all that jazz.

Well, enough prefatory typing — I will offer 20 quick points. I am bad to indulge in a bitterfest. But here I go:

1) Have the oceans shrunk to puddles? Have people stopped being sick? Or does that come after Inauguration Day?

2) Seriously, I’m afraid that the Middle East will rock — that Obama will withdraw from Iraq before the country is secured, creating havoc. He promised as much, didn’t he? (I mean the withdrawal, not the havoc.) In April ’75, the United States cut off South Vietnam, resulting in a Communist victory and what we would call today a “humanitarian disaster.” If we abandon the Iraqis to the wolves, will anyone care? (Outside of Iraq, that is.) And what about the Middle East at large?

I quote our ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, who told a group of us last month,

Iraq is really, really important. How things go here will transform the region and America’s role in the region, one way or the other. If Iraq is successful in establishing itself as a democracy, where the rule of law is paramount, that will be something remarkable . . . People are tired of Iraq. They say, “Let’s get it over and done with. We don’t want to watch the Iraq movie anymore.” But the Iraq movie will go on for many more reels, with or without us. And it will have a big effect on us, whether we like it or not.

Right.

And then there’s the matter of whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons . . .

3) President-elect Obama and his supporters want America to be liked: by Le Monde, the Quai d’Orsay, Der Spiegel — you get the idea. But America can’t necessarily be liked by those elements and stand up for its interests. When the going gets tough, which will Obama choose — Le Monde or American interests? Won’t they ever collide? Don’t they usually?

4) I worry that the Obama years, like the Carter years, will be a field day of adventurism for the worst regimes. Some presidents are willing to stand up to bullies; some presidents are not. And we should all know what weakness invites: aggression.

5) How does Obama regard the War on Terror? Does he think we’re in something worthy of that name — another cold war, a “twilight struggle,” in the words of JFK? Or does he think that dealing with jihadists is just a matter of a little law enforcement, and intelligence-gathering, and police work? Recall the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. We took ’em to court. (One of the perpetrators skedaddled off to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but suggest that there was a connection between Iraq and terror, and you’re dismissed as a boob.)

6) At home, do Americans want to be something like a European social democracy — or is the old American republic still viable? What about abroad? Sarah Palin put the question in terms of “American exceptionalism”: Do we want it or not? And I like to borrow the words of the first Bush, spoken in 1988, when American “decline” was in fashion, and happily anticipated: Are we to be a “unique nation with a special role in the world”? Or are we to be “another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe”?

7) As a rule, I say that people in a democracy get what they deserve. Sometimes minorities don’t deserve what ensues, but such is life. I’m not so sure about the 2008 election. Why? Because the Barack Obama of the general election was so very, very different from the Barack Obama of the Democratic primaries and before. All candidates shift — that’s politics. But Obama, it seems to me, abused the privilege. And he was very good at it.

He campaigned — certainly debated — as a moderate. Not just a moderate Democrat, but practically a moderate Republican. Even citing Richard Lugar! (“Nixon’s favorite mayor,” long ago.) In one of the debates, Obama said he was for missile defense! And he said that America was the greatest nation in the history of man.

Why did Obama’s friends at Columbia and Harvard and so on stand for it? Why did Bill Ayers stand for it? Well, they were holding their noses, of course, knowing that these words were just campaign grist — something for the yokels to ingest.

In brief, I’m not sure that Americans knew what they were voting for.

8) Those interested in stopping or curbing abortion have to be disappointed. The courts will be Obama-oriented for how many years?

9) Amazing — just amazing — that the Republican party took the rap for the financial meltdown. Consider Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Consider Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. They came out of this smelling like a rose. And GOP-ers — who never wanted the social-financial shakedown that Fannie and Freddie represented — come out the bums. As I said, amazing.

10) John McCain ran a poor campaign. I’m not sure he was capable of better. I do think Obama was beatable — he has been lucky in his opposition. He has been lucky both in Illinois and on the national level. The conventional argument is that McCain was the best possible Republican nominee, even the only possible Republican nominee with a chance of winning. I don’t believe that, for a second. There was a case to be made against Obama, and for McCain: and McCain was poor at both.