I’ll give this to the Barack Obama administration: Before it even begins, it has sparked a wave of eyebrow-raising conversations.
Black Americans from coast to coast describe white people striking up chats, asking them for their take on the historic significance of this election. Answers range from delight to curious anticipation to the mixed feelings of the black McCain voters, who may or may not be soothing their dismay with the silver lining of a toppled racial barrier.

I’m getting some interesting inquiries as well, containing a certain delicious sarcasm. But the underlying question is so irresistible that it deserves attention.

“So, Mark,” it begins, “it’s clear that you opposed the Obama candidacy, but now that he’s won …”

Wait for it. Wait for it. It is sublime in its complexity.

“… don’t you want him to succeed?”

Well.

Let’s examine my options in replying. To say no makes me look bitter, petty and worse. What kind of unpatriotic slob would wish failure on an American president?

But what does it mean to say yes? Doesn’t success for an Obama administration mean the progress of an agenda that is against every instinct I have? If I say yes, does that mean I am suddenly enthused about bailing on our success in Iraq, brutalizing our job-creating class with punitive taxes and burdening our economy with environmental extremism?

The only way out of this unacceptable choice is to modify the terms. What does it mean for a presidency to succeed?

One definition is for the president to do exactly what he said he would do and to win more political battles than he loses.

Another definition, and probably a better one, is for the country to be better off after his term is over than the day he took office.

That includes all manner of things, including the economy, which is rarely driven by what the White House does. But if the public senses that things have gone well in the country while you are president, you probably will be rated a success, even if some things improved despite you.

The Reagan boom – a rare example of an economy directly jumpstarted by bold presidential action – was of such magnitude that it lasted into the ’90s, and even Bill Clinton’s tax increases couldn’t kill it.

I believe there is a possibility that our successes in the war on terror will be of such value that the incoming administration will not cash it in by listening to the loudest anti-war cries from its most radical wing.

Mr. Obama seems genuinely interested in ramping up our military efforts in Afghanistan, and if this occurs against a backdrop of further progress toward a secure, stable Iraq, he may grow and inform himself through actual events, rather than from the knee-jerk war derision required of him when he was running.

Might he also think better of the socialist leanings he revealed on the campaign trail? That’s hard to imagine, but perhaps the Republican Party will get its act together and win back some seats in 2010, creating a more even dialogue about taxes and spending and maybe a mitigating effect on the Obama economic instincts drawn straight from Marx and Engels.

So could an Obama presidency actually oversee additional success in the war on terror? Perhaps.

Could it also be a steward over a strengthening economy? Considering that it should surely improve in the short term from its current doldrums, if President Obama either retreats from confiscatory taxation of our biggest taxpayers or is stopped by a Congress that actually makes the case against it, that’s possible, too.

If those things happen, it is the best chance for the Obama presidency to be considered successful. Yes, it does involve him changing his mind on some things and being restrained on others.

But my wish for a successful presidency must always be defined not by what accrues to his personal benefit, but to the nation’s.

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here