When reading is reduced to meaning only the acquisition of information, it is no surprise to find that minds are impoverished. Do you agree or disagree with “Jane Eyre”? With “Hamlet”? With “Their Eyes Were Watching God”? The question is meaningless, beside the point. As more and more people fail to “read,” it becomes easier for the powerful to hoodwink them because extended narratives disappear, to be replaced by the quick conclusions available in a Google search. We no longer see that we are repeating old narratives, no longer see how we got to where we are. To engage with democratic processes — to participate in making difficult decisions or answering challenging questions (shall we go to war? whose fault is poverty?) — requires the ability to examine multiple perspectives, to hold conflicting ideas simultaneously in the mind. Such qualities of thought are practiced and honed by reading, not by scanning text for information. As readers have become replaced by users, so our ability to understand what happens in our name will continue to be diminished.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
TDB | 'Hellofa Good Point'
From a letter to the editor in yesterday's New York Times:
TDB | Why I Am (Still) A Conservative
I apologize for the length - I have a lot of self- defending to do...
I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.
But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.
There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).
But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).
But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.
Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….
I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.
And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.
I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.
I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.
I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.
I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.
I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.
For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.
I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.
I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.
Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.
I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.
I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.
Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.
And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.
I am a conservative. I say it proudly and confidently – though not without a great deal of thought (of personal Q & A). That is, for a long time I've been concerned about ‘conservatism,’ both personally and intellectually. I’d questioned at times whether I could still consider myself a conservative if I supported someone as progressive as Barack Obama; consequently, I questioned the adequacy of even being a conservative at all if ultimately I’d admitted the need to support progressivism. Most of all, I questioned conservatism as it had been represented and understood, for as long as I could remember, by the Republican Party.
But, as it turns out, the Republicans are – and have long been (with very few interruptions since the party of Lincoln) – the antithesis of conservatism. Conservatism doesn't have anything to do with Christian fundamentalism; with free-market fanaticism (or any kind of fanaticism); Conservatism isn't, for that matter, endeared to any any particular economic school (and would probably prefer Keynes - a consummate conservative, btw - to monetarists and supply-siders). Conservatism isn't opposed to a strong government that provides otherwise unprovided services; that intervenes occasionally for the 'welfare' of its citizens. Conservatism is not in favor of waging war on drugs or even war on crime if that means stupidly inflicting harsh but ineffective punishments; Conservatism has no inclination toward gruesome corporal punishments or torture; it doesn't conveniently forget to be humane - or forget that a criminal (or, more importantly, that we as punishers) are still human beings. Conservatives don't spend imprudently - or do anything imprudently, for that matter... The list could go on forever. The point is, the Republican Party is not the conservative party.
There hasn’t really been a conservative party in America since the Federalists, and only a faction (ironically) within that party actually embodied Conservatism. No doubt, there have been Conservatives throughout American history, but they have belonged to all the many American parties – and they have been few and far between (at least on the public stage). As it happens, by the time most would-be conservatives have become national figures they are more ‘politician’ than anything else (not overly pragmatic, which, as we will see, is a conservative trait; but overly opportunistic).
But conservatism is, I think, the natural disposition of Americans – as much the creed of the country bumpkin as of the establishment elite. But most Americans have been caught up in a confused dualism (Republican and Democrat) that demands (usually as a family inheritance) that one pledge allegiance to a party as much or more than to the flag; and most Americans have considered it only too natural to employ a set of given (though eternally misused) ideological labels - ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘progressive’) – in their search for political self-understanding (however pathetically short-lived or short-sighted it may be).
But it turns out I can be a conservative while still being liberal – because what I want is to conserve liberal values and institutions; and I can be a conservative while still championing progressivism – because I want liberal values and institutions to progress – to evolve – as anything must if it is to survive and remain healthy. But I want that progress to be careful, pragmatic and fair – and, most of all, I want it to be based on skepticism of ‘progress’ itself, on an honest confession that we don’t necessarily have the answers; that our effort at progress will be based not on moving in a certain direction (e.g., a religious society, a free market society, a truly secular society) but moving intelligently. To paraphrase Barack Obama on the war, ‘A conservative isn’t opposed to movement; he’s opposed to stupid movement’.
Which brings me to the nexus of this whole issue….
I can – moreover, I should – support Barack Obama and still be a conservative; I can, moreover, want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican Party – not now and maybe not ever – and still be a conservative. And proudly, no less! But only if I know –and can let others know – what that means.
And so, I’ve indulged in a bit of manifesto writing – for which I apologize. But I think it’s important that I explain how and why I am a conservative.
I am a conservative in that I vehemently desire to conserve the existing values and institutions of American society, not in the interest of the prosperous part of that society but in the interest of American society at large, and especially in the interest of the less prosperous among us – for the immemorial values and institutions of America are the best friend the downtrodden citizen can have.
I am a conservative insomuch as I have an unshakable skepticism of human nature, of human reason, of human actions, &c; because I believe in community nearly as much as I believe in liberty – but ultimately I believe that liberty without community is dangerous, as is the converse.
I’m a conservative because I believe in domestic law and order; because I believe in a strong military – but not a military that ever descends in any form upon America itself.
I’m a conservative because I see the need in supporting existing spiritual authority – regardless of whether the creeds supporting such authority is ‘true’ or not. But I also see – and just as clearly – the need to support existing secular authorities – and to support their essential separation from spiritual authority.
I am a conservative in that I am a great lover of my country. Whether one calls me a patriot or a nationalist, I could care less. But I do care whether one understands that I do not believe in American exceptionalism – and I certainly I do not think we should view our country or our values in messianic terms. I see the value of international institutions, of globalization, of multiculturalism – but only to a certain extent. For, as a conservative, I believe moreover in the importance (and the essential centrality) of the Nation State. Human beings are hard enough to improve individually and in small groups – they are never perfectible; and thus the world, in my view, is simply too big a place (and too full of humans) to be improved as a whole – though we may certainly improve it ON the whole. Human beings are capable of great things – but they can never be great things. The individual will always be just that; he is a fleeting thing, and great things are not fleeting – they are lasting if not eternal. But nobility, because it is a fundamental possibility for human beings, will survive as long as our species.
For the sake of that existence, and for many other reasons, I believe, as a conservative, in the value of family – and that means gay families, too. What matters is the community that grows out of love and proximity – its supreme naturalness, which is an amazing (and stubbornly metaphysical) thing. Human beings are thrown into the world, as Heidegger taught us; the world is experienced through Dasein. But we can escape Dasein (our unshakable and ultimately dreadful individuality), in a very real way, through the love we have for father and mother, for brother and sister, for husband, son and daughter – a love that is almost as natural and as fundamental as Dasein. We can – and do – learn to think of life, its possibilities and its dangers, in terms of ‘we’ and not just ‘I’. And that is the beginning – the necessary point of departure – for any concern we may learn to feel for the world at large. Thus the family must be preserved – its power conserved.
I am a conservative in that I am suspicion of Rationalism. I do not believe in grand theories or grand schemes. This applies, of course, to Marxism, etc – but also, and to the same degree, to Christianism (meaning Christian dogma – Christianity is a mode of living and understanding personally) or Islam. It is a fundamentally conservative trait to be wary of dogma, and, moreover, of anyone promulgating dogma or anything dependant on dogma. I certainly don’t believe anyone has the right to impose their version of the truth upon anyone else. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in ‘truth’ or even ‘the truth’; I am not a nihilist. But as a conservative I do not believe we can know ‘the truth’ or ‘the good’; but I do believe human beings have an innate ability to perceive when they are doing good and when they are telling the truth. And for this reason, and (once more) I believe in personal responsibility – and thus also in allowing a human being to be generally ‘free to choose’. We can, however, guide one another, but as concerned friends or caring family members; not as coercive moralists or ‘improving’ technocrats.
I am a conservative because in that I believe there is simply too much complexity and to much human variance to ever ‘really know’ about anything. And to the degree that, and with Hayek, I believe the exchange of goods (whether material or immaterial) to be simply too complex to ever allow of the ‘knowledge’ requisite for socialist planning. Thus, I believe fundamentally in market capitalism. But there are more important things than money, which has never been a fundamental conservative concern (or interest). ‘Fairness’, for example. And, as I believe in an innate human capacity to recognize their actions as ‘good’ or their utterances as ‘true,’ I also believe in an innate human capacity to recognize whether something is ‘fair’ or not. Belief in the market can attain a level of allegiance that makes it essentially indistinguishable from any other kind of fundamentalism, any other kind of systematizing – it can, in short, become a dogma. And in so far as I am a conservative, I am opposed to the dogma of market capitalism as much as I am to any other dogma.
Though I don’t believe we can plan the economy, I do believe we can plan generally in life. We can be prudent and maintain a healthy concern for the future. We can pay attention.
I am a conservative in that I find egalitarianism suspect – though I believe wholeheartedly in equality – especially before the law. But, while respecting contracts, I am also conservative in that I basically impossible to honestly understand society as a contract entered into by individuals – it is better to understand it as a partnership between generations – between the dead, the living, and the not yet living. Thus I desire – as a conservative - that our planet as well as our country and our society is handed down to our children in a healthy state and in recognizable form. Thus I am a conservationist and, to a degree, an environmentalist; and value the earth and nature more than money and the profit motive. I am therefore not opposed to regulation – so long as it is actually doing good. Regulation for regulation’s sake is stupid.
I am a conservative in that I am a pragmatist. Pragmatism is the only acceptable solution for someone who does not swear blind allegiance to anything. While I do value allegiance – to family and country and even party (though rarely) – and principles very much, I do not consider them absolute values. Thus I am a conservative insofar as I am willing to compromise, though that doesn’t rule out occasional stubbornness. I hate to see things be given up on too quickly.
Finally, I am a conservative because I believe that there is much to learn – though we can never learn everything, never know it all; thus I believe in education – especially in history and literature, which are so often passed over as inconsequential. That is a mistake – it is indeed praiseworthy to be successful in life, to be a successful professional, to be technically proficient – even dominant; but it is infinitely more praiseworthy to be successful AT life. When we face death – and we all must – our possessions and our know-how are valueless; but we are comforted by having understood life through history and literature – and, moreover, through living humanely.
And ultimately, it is a desire to live humanely (with all its varied meanings and implications) that is the fundamental desire of a conservative, like me.
TDB | Quote of The Day
From the Economist:
Ohio is also a bellwether. It has voted for the winning candidate in all 11 presidential elections since 1960. In doing so, it has deviated from the national vote shares by only a couple of points. In 2004 it matched the national average exactly. The reason is that it is such a microcosm of America. Ohio is a surprisingly diverse state—with everything from big cities to rolling fields, rustbelt industries to Appalachian poverty. In the Cup-o-Jo Cafe in Columbus, the state capital, 20-somethings sit around eating vegetarian food and talking about how much Mr Obama inspires them to hope for a better world. Out in the rural areas the signs on the road tell a different story—“Hell is real,” reads one, and then, a few miles later, “Repent!”.
ike/Quote of the Day
"these days i find myself working harder than ever at being at my best, overcoming my fears and pushing myself creatively in my every endeavor. my only wish after the work is completed is that it may prove further evidence that no matter how isolated we all may all feel at times, as sad or misrepresented, we are not alone. there's hope for and within each of us. I've been dealing with the truth that i have at times been a bad example and/or glorified self destructive behavior. this was never intentional, but rather a consequence of leading a public life in plain sight and never expecting any sort of preferential treatment, isolation or protection. Regardless of varied judgments as to my cultural relevance, i am thankfully alive and exercising my joy in creating. i only hope anyone who hears, reads or sees any of my contributions will permit the work to speak where i cannot. i've realized and accepted that if people decide to dislike me, they're going to find reasons to justify disliking me. there's nothing i can do about that. that said, it still does pain me to be accused of fictional crimes against innocents or to be implicated in romantic gossip involving the possibly reality-challenged--however unreliable the source or outlandish the accusations. in the end, however, i know that i have never done or even meant anyone any harm. anyway, the lives of public figures are so much more boring than anyone can imagine. honestly. and also i like metal. A LOT. (even more than last time)."
--Ryan Adams
--Ryan Adams
TDB | 'Food For Naught'
If the goal in Iraq was to create a government like ours in America, it looks like we can say (again) 'mission accomplished.' From today's Los Angeles Times:
Maybe we should think twice about remaking the world in our own image...
One would be fairly justified, I think, in saying that this has been the essential but unexpressed (maybe even unrealized) goal of American foreign policy - at least until the Bush people clarified things in their most foul (and mis-characterizing) way. The basic idea has always been something like, 'If the world were simply more like us, foreign policy would essentially take care of itself.' This has been the case since before our founding, when the land that became America was to meant become, in one of Reagan's favorite phrases, as a shinning city upon a hill.
I paraphrase Churchill on Democracy: America's is the worst system of government except for all the others. And I am something of a Patriot and a Nationalist - but really, we can do better! We are, after all, Americans! (and Americans are, in case you've managed to miss the point, better than everyone else)
Is the problem Democracy itself? I'm naturally skeptical of things (especially concepts) that have elicited universal praise. I mean, Pakistani or Palestianian democracy has, so far at least, not merited praise. One can't escape the ultimate (and unsavory) implication: Maybe (and contrary to our long-held goal) Democracy is something only Americans should have!
But, in light of my last post, even that, it seems, is less than shinning and quite unworthy of being atop any respectable hill!
Again, I have no answers. Only prejudices, skepticism and time to write a few things down.
Iraq's parliament ended its summer term Wednesday without passing legislation setting up provincial elections this year, forcing the government to call an emergency session for the weekend. However, a positive outcome remains far from certain...They have created, it seems, a perfect replica of the American government - one which ends its legislative sessions without having accomplished the work at hand, which consequently calls emergency sessions (and thus governs mostly through ever-deplorable omnibus and stop-gap legislation), and which raises questions of whether the ultimate outcome of governmental activity is indeed at all 'positive.'
Maybe we should think twice about remaking the world in our own image...
One would be fairly justified, I think, in saying that this has been the essential but unexpressed (maybe even unrealized) goal of American foreign policy - at least until the Bush people clarified things in their most foul (and mis-characterizing) way. The basic idea has always been something like, 'If the world were simply more like us, foreign policy would essentially take care of itself.' This has been the case since before our founding, when the land that became America was to meant become, in one of Reagan's favorite phrases, as a shinning city upon a hill.
I paraphrase Churchill on Democracy: America's is the worst system of government except for all the others. And I am something of a Patriot and a Nationalist - but really, we can do better! We are, after all, Americans! (and Americans are, in case you've managed to miss the point, better than everyone else)
Is the problem Democracy itself? I'm naturally skeptical of things (especially concepts) that have elicited universal praise. I mean, Pakistani or Palestianian democracy has, so far at least, not merited praise. One can't escape the ultimate (and unsavory) implication: Maybe (and contrary to our long-held goal) Democracy is something only Americans should have!
But, in light of my last post, even that, it seems, is less than shinning and quite unworthy of being atop any respectable hill!
Again, I have no answers. Only prejudices, skepticism and time to write a few things down.
TDB | 'Food For Naught'
Josh Patashnik, writing on 'The Plank' blog over at the New Republic, makes a terrific point that I've not really thought of before:
I don't have any solutions, really - so I'm open to at least listening to anything. I do think the heart of the problem lies with the media and with education - we could blame people, but people aren't fixable, really; institutions are. Though I hate to force the media to run specific stories - seems a bit authoritarian to me, even if its for 'good'. So I guess the only answer is to do something magical during a citizen's education to create a sincere and significant interest in politics - and in congressional and local politics, specifically; not just the alternative 'celebrity showdown' that the presidency has in essence become.
I've got nothing but complaints, it seems. Sorry - don't hate me.
[Frankly], outside of Washington, I'm just not sure how much of a market there is for any coverage of Congress besides scandals and the occasional huge, easy-to-understand policy fight, like health care in 1993 or Social Security in 2005. This contributes hugely to Congress's approval ratings being chronically in the toilet: It's the epitome of an organization that gets noticed only when things don't go smoothly. And the institutional architects of Congress specifically designed it to ensure that things usually wouldn't go smoothly. Granted, I'm not sure they envisioned quite the level of dysfunction and gridlock that's characterized the last few years, but they surely would have preferred it to the alternative of an impulsive Congress unconstrained by many veto points.His argument that there probably isn't much of a market out there for congressional coverage implies something even bigger: most citizens aren't interested in how their country is run - they're just interested about complaining when it's not running well - or, rather, when they THINK it's not running well. And, sadly, most citizens are simply not very good at thinking - at least not about this 'boring stuff.' But just such thinking is the essence of our system of government. People need a) to be informed, whether they like it or not; b) to understand what specific information implies or means when they are informed of it; and c) care enough to vote for people whose thinking is in line with their (now enlightened) thinking. As things stand, that just doesn't happen.
I don't have any solutions, really - so I'm open to at least listening to anything. I do think the heart of the problem lies with the media and with education - we could blame people, but people aren't fixable, really; institutions are. Though I hate to force the media to run specific stories - seems a bit authoritarian to me, even if its for 'good'. So I guess the only answer is to do something magical during a citizen's education to create a sincere and significant interest in politics - and in congressional and local politics, specifically; not just the alternative 'celebrity showdown' that the presidency has in essence become.
I've got nothing but complaints, it seems. Sorry - don't hate me.
Monday, July 28, 2008
ike/Quote of the Day
“I can’t say I know how the current president looks on the rest of the world. I am determined and sometimes stubborn, and he is, too, but I don’t look on the rest of the world as he does, despite our shared Christian faith. For instance, I worry about our endangered values. I worry about nuclear-weapons proliferation. I worry about our torture of prisoners and how that affects our commitment to human rights. I believe in waging war only when our security is in danger. I believe in taking care of and preserving the environment. On these issues, he and I are almost diametrically opposed. Certainly, I do not profess to understand his motivations. As Christians, yes, we worship the same savior, Jesus Christ, and I think we worship Christ in the same way. I look on some aspect of Jesus Christ perhaps differently from him: I worship the Prince of Peace.”
--Jimmy Carter
--Jimmy Carter
Sunday, July 27, 2008
TDB | Quote of the Day
From the front page feature article in today's Washington Post:
Thanks to the rapid and sustained rise in prices, oil-producing countries are also accumulating vast reservoirs of money in one of the most massive transfers of wealth in history. Every day, oil consumers pay $6 billion to $7.5 billion more for crude oil than they paid six years ago. At the current rate, they will pump more than $1.5 trillion a year into the coffers of OPEC, Russia and other oil exporting countries.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
ike/Quote of the Day
"The election remains Mr. Obama’s to lose, and he could lose it, whether through unexpected events, his own vanity or a vice-presidential misfire. But what we’ve learned this month is that America, our allies and most likely the next Congress are moving toward Mr. Obama’s post-Iraq vision of the future, whether he reaches the White House or not. That’s some small comfort as we contemplate the strange alternative offered by the Republicans: a candidate so oblivious to our nation’s big challenges ahead that he is doubling down in his campaign against both Mr. Maliki and Mr. Obama to be elected commander in chief of the surge."
--Frank Rich
--Frank Rich
Thursday, July 24, 2008
ike/Response to What Obama Lost in the Middle East
By and large, I agree with the sentiments expressed in my friend's post. His post, written before Obama's crowded address to 200,000 in Berlin, neatly identifies the myriad challenges our nation faces in the international arena. It's easy to forget how far we've fallen in international standing until we see thousands of Germans waving American flags as they are addressed by a man who has become an international phenomenon.
But in order to have a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world--in Iraq, in Israel, in Iran--we first have to elect a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world.
With the exception of a few dozen ex pats, it is likely not one of the 200,000 who attended today's Berlin speech will cast a vote. The importance of this international trip for Obama is to convince voters back home that has foreign policy credentials. He wanted Americans to see him greeted with optimism and love, and the speech he gave served to remind Americans of the strong relationships we once enjoyed and the ones we may yet build.
In American politics, there is no issue, foreign or domestic, more popular and bi partisan than support of Israel. Our nation's politicians are united on this issue more than any other. The Guardian editorial was correct: to deliver a two-state solution will require the acknowledgement of atrocities perpetrated by both groups and major land concessions by Israel.
But Barack Obama needs to win an election. And he faces a major challenge from not only Jewish Americans but voters of all stripes that he is soft on Israel or a secret Muslim or both.
Obama's dark skin, dialogue-based foreign policy, family heritage and re-focused Iraq strategy should be enough to show the Muslim world that his election would mean a significant change in America's policy and intentions. He need not maneuver in ways, eventually necessary as they may be, that jeopardize his standing among the only people who matter to his, and our nation's, immediate political future.
But in order to have a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world--in Iraq, in Israel, in Iran--we first have to elect a president with the potential to catalyze real change in the world.
With the exception of a few dozen ex pats, it is likely not one of the 200,000 who attended today's Berlin speech will cast a vote. The importance of this international trip for Obama is to convince voters back home that has foreign policy credentials. He wanted Americans to see him greeted with optimism and love, and the speech he gave served to remind Americans of the strong relationships we once enjoyed and the ones we may yet build.
In American politics, there is no issue, foreign or domestic, more popular and bi partisan than support of Israel. Our nation's politicians are united on this issue more than any other. The Guardian editorial was correct: to deliver a two-state solution will require the acknowledgement of atrocities perpetrated by both groups and major land concessions by Israel.
But Barack Obama needs to win an election. And he faces a major challenge from not only Jewish Americans but voters of all stripes that he is soft on Israel or a secret Muslim or both.
Obama's dark skin, dialogue-based foreign policy, family heritage and re-focused Iraq strategy should be enough to show the Muslim world that his election would mean a significant change in America's policy and intentions. He need not maneuver in ways, eventually necessary as they may be, that jeopardize his standing among the only people who matter to his, and our nation's, immediate political future.
TDB | Quote of The Day
Indiana Representative Mike Pence to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, debating a bill that would allow reporters to protect their confidential sources:
If 10 angels swearing on Bibles wouldn't change your view of this bill, would 40 American journalists subpoenaed, questioned or held in contempt do it?
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
TDB | Quote of the Day
Israeli President Shimon Peres, referring to Barack Obama:
[My greatest hope is for a] great president of the United States. That is the greatest promise for us and the rest of the world.
TDB | What Obama Lost By Going To The Middle East
Barack Obama's overseas trip has so far been a complete success. He has looked more presidential than I could have imagined; he has been better received than I could have hoped; he has simply done an outstanding job and proved himself capable of navigating the world's most treacherous political shoals - its most unforgiving political environment. He should get plenty of experience points for having done so. But there's one thing Obama has lost as he's traveled through the Middle East - something that was key in convincing me to give up on the Republicans and support his bid for president - to support, moreover, the ideal of an Obama presidency.
The one unique thing that Barack Obama offered America in its war on terrorism is the possibility of Muslims throughout the world looking at this man - looking at his skin color, his background, and his name - and giving America, if just for a moment, the benefit of the doubt. Obama as president would allows us to be temporarily forgiven - not that we necessarily need to be forgiven - by those that hate us; it would allow the world to suspend its negative judgments about the American hegemon or the American empire and its implied diminution of status for non-Americans; it would allow people who never thought they and their kind could fit into an American world to see themselves as Americans if just for a moment. And imagining oneself as an American has always been the best advertising tool for our country - if people can see themselves as an American they are almost sure to acquire - no matter how faint at first - a love for our country.
But traveling in the Middle East, Barack Obama could not help but go to Israel. And going to Israel, he could not help saying things like this:
The Guardian editorial page summed up the Islamic take on Obama's visit fairly well, i think:
The one unique thing that Barack Obama offered America in its war on terrorism is the possibility of Muslims throughout the world looking at this man - looking at his skin color, his background, and his name - and giving America, if just for a moment, the benefit of the doubt. Obama as president would allows us to be temporarily forgiven - not that we necessarily need to be forgiven - by those that hate us; it would allow the world to suspend its negative judgments about the American hegemon or the American empire and its implied diminution of status for non-Americans; it would allow people who never thought they and their kind could fit into an American world to see themselves as Americans if just for a moment. And imagining oneself as an American has always been the best advertising tool for our country - if people can see themselves as an American they are almost sure to acquire - no matter how faint at first - a love for our country.
But traveling in the Middle East, Barack Obama could not help but go to Israel. And going to Israel, he could not help saying things like this:
I am deeply committed to helping Israel achieve a lasting peace with Palestinians who are prepared to accept the state of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism, and abide by agreements.And while i don't disagree with the sentiment or the substance behind this statement, surely Muslims will. They have heard it before, but not like this - not from Barack Obama as he visited their world. The Palestinians will say it is the Israelis that should give up violence and terrorism and should learn to deal fairly and to abide. And regardless of who is right - regardless of who is to blame - that possible moment, when Muslims would give America the benefit of the doubt after having watched Barack Hussein Obama ascend to the American pinnacle - that moment has been muddied. From now on, the benefit of the doubt can be quickly countered by, "Don't you remember what he said in Israel - we are just a bunch of terrorists to him. He's just another American!"
The Guardian editorial page summed up the Islamic take on Obama's visit fairly well, i think:
He made no acknowledgment [ ] of the 362 Palestinians killed in Gaza in the first five months of this year, compared to the six civilians and eight soldiers Israel lost in the same period. What Ms Livni and Mr Obama said may be what Israel wanted to hear. But no US president can work for peace on this script alone. To deliver a two-state solution, Mr Obama will have to persuade Israel to halt all settlement construction, before handing back a viable West Bank - not one fragmented by settlements, exclusive roads for cars with Israeli number plates, nature reserves, military restricted areas and over 600 checkpoints, barriers and other closures. Only one of the 36 hours that Mr Obama spent in Israel was devoted to talking to Palestinian representatives.
ike/ Leggo His Eggo
In the pantheon of public figures who have become caricatures of themselves, Maureen Dowd ranks up there with Dick Vitale and maybe this fine lady. I challenge you to read this column and summarize her argument. If you can make it to the end, she talks about concern that Barack Obama is becoming "too prissy about food." Apparently, he's in danger of losing the election if people don't start making fun of him more. Please, I implore you, don't kill the messenger.
But today Dowd wrote about a growing criticism about Obama: his narcissism. The chattering about Obama and his humongous ego started at about the same time that Hillary Clinton's humongous lead in national polls begin to shrink. "How could this relative newcomer be so sure of himself," they asked.
I contend that much of the "Obama's Ego" buzz came from the way his supporters supported him. Obama's minions, many of whom voted or donated for the first time, were a genuine political force, either scaring or amazing the public with their passion. Regardless, the ego issue has become part of the national lexicon of Barack Obama.
One would be hard-pressed to find a group of people more egotistical than those who seek public office. I would expand on this thought if David Brooks hadn't covered this very topic in what is probably his best column ever, which he penned in the aftermath of a particularly infamous political sex scandal.
But to run for president requires a different type of audacity altogether; to actually think that you alone are best qualified to hold the most powerful job in the world necessitates a hubris associated with some sort of disorder. But where is the evidence that Barack Obama is afflicted more severely than any of his 2008 counterparts?
Apparently, the proof is in his smile. His calm demeanor. His ability to control his temper. The way he can whip a crowd into a frenzy by just talking about his vision.
Signs of narcissism? Perhaps. But I'd like to offer a different vision of narcissism embodied. After five years in captivity, is it narcissistic to abandon your wife--who has endured a debilitating car accident--and young family who have waited patiently for you? Is it narcissistic to search the country for favorable places from which to launch your political career? Is it narcissistic to call your wife one of the most heinous words in the english language in front of journalists because she dared to make fun of your thinning hairline?
And lastly, is it narcissistic after receiving a diploma from an Ivy League University, to become what U.S. News and World Report called a "tireless and pragmatic advocate for the community" in inner city Chicago?
It would be foolhardy to assume that single anecdotes from a life prove or disprove one man's sense of self over another's. But it is the responsibility of conscientious voters and citizens to dig beneath appearances and topical arguments if they aspire to discover what motivates a candidate to seek public office.
But today Dowd wrote about a growing criticism about Obama: his narcissism. The chattering about Obama and his humongous ego started at about the same time that Hillary Clinton's humongous lead in national polls begin to shrink. "How could this relative newcomer be so sure of himself," they asked.
I contend that much of the "Obama's Ego" buzz came from the way his supporters supported him. Obama's minions, many of whom voted or donated for the first time, were a genuine political force, either scaring or amazing the public with their passion. Regardless, the ego issue has become part of the national lexicon of Barack Obama.
One would be hard-pressed to find a group of people more egotistical than those who seek public office. I would expand on this thought if David Brooks hadn't covered this very topic in what is probably his best column ever, which he penned in the aftermath of a particularly infamous political sex scandal.
But to run for president requires a different type of audacity altogether; to actually think that you alone are best qualified to hold the most powerful job in the world necessitates a hubris associated with some sort of disorder. But where is the evidence that Barack Obama is afflicted more severely than any of his 2008 counterparts?
Apparently, the proof is in his smile. His calm demeanor. His ability to control his temper. The way he can whip a crowd into a frenzy by just talking about his vision.
Signs of narcissism? Perhaps. But I'd like to offer a different vision of narcissism embodied. After five years in captivity, is it narcissistic to abandon your wife--who has endured a debilitating car accident--and young family who have waited patiently for you? Is it narcissistic to search the country for favorable places from which to launch your political career? Is it narcissistic to call your wife one of the most heinous words in the english language in front of journalists because she dared to make fun of your thinning hairline?
And lastly, is it narcissistic after receiving a diploma from an Ivy League University, to become what U.S. News and World Report called a "tireless and pragmatic advocate for the community" in inner city Chicago?
It would be foolhardy to assume that single anecdotes from a life prove or disprove one man's sense of self over another's. But it is the responsibility of conscientious voters and citizens to dig beneath appearances and topical arguments if they aspire to discover what motivates a candidate to seek public office.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
TDB | Reply to 'The End of An Error'
I have to disagree with my friend on a few points. While I do think Mr Maliki's statement of at least implied support for Senator Obama's withdrawal plan/timeline was significant, I think it's neither as consequential nor as clear cut as my friend imagines.
First of all, it's not entirely clear what Mr Maliki's real desire is regarding American troops. Public support for American withdrawal - or rather public opposition to American presence - is a political necessity for him. But there are plenty of Iraqi's - and many in Maliki's own government - who are scared to death of an American withdrawal.
One of the things we can do in a situation such as this - where we know better than to assume the truthfulness of one side in a debate - is ook at the vehemence of each side's proclamations. Most Iraqi's, including Mr Maliki, who make the case for American withdrawal say that it is what the Iraqi's want and what they deserve now that Iraq is a sovereign nation; no one on this side of the argument has - to my knowledge - made any statements to the effect that chaos would erupt and Iraq would fall apart if the Americans didn't withdraw.
On the other side of the debate, nearly everyone who makes the case for a continued American presence in Iraq talks of chaos if America withdraws. I'm not saying that they are necessarily more correct simply because of their vehemence, and I don't necessarily disagree with Obama's timeline for withdawal, I'm just pointing the discussion in the direction of a group of people who have something significant to contribute to the debate and who are very, very serious believers in their opinion.
More importantly, though, is my objection to my friends argument that it is inconsequential whether or not McCain was right on the need for the surge. I very much disagree with this point, and I think that the fact that McCain has been proven correct in his support (and that Obama has been proven wrong) is very important.
It was a very difficult decision not to cut and run in Iraq, especially for someone who knows first hand that sending troops into battle inevitably means bringing home some of those troops in caskets. We faced a choice in Iraq then, when the surge was being debated: either we admit that Iraq was a mistake, that the mess we made is irreversible and that we have to abandon the country; or we admit that we simply can't leave the country and the region in its present state, - regardless of who is most responsible for that state - and that no matter how much it seems that cutting and running is viable alternative, it is in fact no such thing. This situation may present itself again in the future - likely during an Obama presidency.
Even if Obama has been proven correct in his original opposition to the war, I hope that, while he admits that there were unforeseen circumstances which have led to greater stability in Iraq, he also realizes that even the worst of situations are improvable; and that he learns something of a lesson from what the surge has accomplished. I very much want Obama to be our next president; but I would feel better knowing that he understands that it was an uncompromising attitude to unacceptable outcomes and shear nerve as much as it was unforeseen circumstances that gave the US new life in Iraq and (s0 far) kept us from having to deal with an infinitely worse situation in the Middle East.
First of all, it's not entirely clear what Mr Maliki's real desire is regarding American troops. Public support for American withdrawal - or rather public opposition to American presence - is a political necessity for him. But there are plenty of Iraqi's - and many in Maliki's own government - who are scared to death of an American withdrawal.
One of the things we can do in a situation such as this - where we know better than to assume the truthfulness of one side in a debate - is ook at the vehemence of each side's proclamations. Most Iraqi's, including Mr Maliki, who make the case for American withdrawal say that it is what the Iraqi's want and what they deserve now that Iraq is a sovereign nation; no one on this side of the argument has - to my knowledge - made any statements to the effect that chaos would erupt and Iraq would fall apart if the Americans didn't withdraw.
On the other side of the debate, nearly everyone who makes the case for a continued American presence in Iraq talks of chaos if America withdraws. I'm not saying that they are necessarily more correct simply because of their vehemence, and I don't necessarily disagree with Obama's timeline for withdawal, I'm just pointing the discussion in the direction of a group of people who have something significant to contribute to the debate and who are very, very serious believers in their opinion.
More importantly, though, is my objection to my friends argument that it is inconsequential whether or not McCain was right on the need for the surge. I very much disagree with this point, and I think that the fact that McCain has been proven correct in his support (and that Obama has been proven wrong) is very important.
It was a very difficult decision not to cut and run in Iraq, especially for someone who knows first hand that sending troops into battle inevitably means bringing home some of those troops in caskets. We faced a choice in Iraq then, when the surge was being debated: either we admit that Iraq was a mistake, that the mess we made is irreversible and that we have to abandon the country; or we admit that we simply can't leave the country and the region in its present state, - regardless of who is most responsible for that state - and that no matter how much it seems that cutting and running is viable alternative, it is in fact no such thing. This situation may present itself again in the future - likely during an Obama presidency.
Even if Obama has been proven correct in his original opposition to the war, I hope that, while he admits that there were unforeseen circumstances which have led to greater stability in Iraq, he also realizes that even the worst of situations are improvable; and that he learns something of a lesson from what the surge has accomplished. I very much want Obama to be our next president; but I would feel better knowing that he understands that it was an uncompromising attitude to unacceptable outcomes and shear nerve as much as it was unforeseen circumstances that gave the US new life in Iraq and (s0 far) kept us from having to deal with an infinitely worse situation in the Middle East.
ike/ Quote of the Day
"After the Depression, a savings mentality set in. After the dot-com bubble, a bit of sobriety hit Silicon Valley. Now it’s the borrowers’ and lenders’ turn. As the saying goes: People don’t change when they see the light. They change when they feel the heat."
--David Brooks
--David Brooks
Sunday, July 20, 2008
ike/ The End of an Error
It's probably best to give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt but it appears after a few days, it has completely missed the biggest political story of the year.
Late last week, President Bush and Nouri al Maliki agreed on what was called a "general time horizon" for pulling out American troops in Iraq. When the president first introduced the troop surge, it was done in hopes of clearing space for political reconciliation. This political progress would catalyze our military's departure. In other words, we added troops in the short term to bring troops home faster. Yet even as violence in Iraq subsided, Bush remained non-commital on when we could begin our military draw down.
From a standpoint of domestic politics and the 2008 election, things started to get fuzzy when John McCain, a proponent of the surge, disagreed with its stated intent. McCain's vision of Iraq for the foreseeable future clearly included permanent bases and large amounts of American forces.
Flash forward to last week; as these "general time horizons" were discussed, it appeared that a convergence of opinion was beginning among al Maliki, President Bush and Barack Obama, who has long maintained that he would bring troops home (effectively ending the war) as quickly and responsibly as possible.
But then al Maliki took the next step; in an interview with a German newspaper, he said the following: "Obama's remarks that--if he takes office--in 16 months he would withdraw the forces--we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq. Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."
John McCain is not running for president in 2008 because of a strong Republican brand. He is not running on the coattails of a popular Republican president. He is not running on a health care plan to insure millions of Americans. He is not running because of his expertise on economic issues. He is not running with a compelling plan to curb carbon emissions or raise fuel efficiency standards. He is running on the premise that in troubled times, he is more responsible and more experienced to lead our military and keep us safe.
On the seminal issue of his campaign, John McCain has been undermined by the popularly-elected leader of the country we fought to free. Whether he was correct on the need for the surge is inconsequential; the Iraqi government and Barack Obama are embracing similar visions for the future of our military in a foreign land. Who's left to dance with John McCain?
Late last week, President Bush and Nouri al Maliki agreed on what was called a "general time horizon" for pulling out American troops in Iraq. When the president first introduced the troop surge, it was done in hopes of clearing space for political reconciliation. This political progress would catalyze our military's departure. In other words, we added troops in the short term to bring troops home faster. Yet even as violence in Iraq subsided, Bush remained non-commital on when we could begin our military draw down.
From a standpoint of domestic politics and the 2008 election, things started to get fuzzy when John McCain, a proponent of the surge, disagreed with its stated intent. McCain's vision of Iraq for the foreseeable future clearly included permanent bases and large amounts of American forces.
Flash forward to last week; as these "general time horizons" were discussed, it appeared that a convergence of opinion was beginning among al Maliki, President Bush and Barack Obama, who has long maintained that he would bring troops home (effectively ending the war) as quickly and responsibly as possible.
But then al Maliki took the next step; in an interview with a German newspaper, he said the following: "Obama's remarks that--if he takes office--in 16 months he would withdraw the forces--we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq. Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."
John McCain is not running for president in 2008 because of a strong Republican brand. He is not running on the coattails of a popular Republican president. He is not running on a health care plan to insure millions of Americans. He is not running because of his expertise on economic issues. He is not running with a compelling plan to curb carbon emissions or raise fuel efficiency standards. He is running on the premise that in troubled times, he is more responsible and more experienced to lead our military and keep us safe.
On the seminal issue of his campaign, John McCain has been undermined by the popularly-elected leader of the country we fought to free. Whether he was correct on the need for the surge is inconsequential; the Iraqi government and Barack Obama are embracing similar visions for the future of our military in a foreign land. Who's left to dance with John McCain?
Saturday, July 19, 2008
TDB | Quote(s) Of The Day
Israeli UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman, had a few great lines in his interview in this week's New York Times Magazine. I can't pick just one.
You recently called Jimmy Carter a “bigot” after he met with Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas. Is it true you were reprimanded by the U.S. State Department? There was no complaint or reprimand. The only reaction I received was very positive.
--------------------------------------
The Palestinians' real tragedy is that they have not been able to produce a Nelson Mandela.
--------------------------------------
[The] mere presence [of the Libyans] on the Security Council is scandalous. No co-op board in this city would even consider letting Libya buy an apartment, yet the U.N. gives it a seat on the world body responsible for peace and security.
--------------------------------------
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell and actually make you look forward to the journey.
--------------------------------------
You’re wearing a tie decorated with elephants. Is that a sign of your loyalty to the Republican candidate? No, no, my loyalty is to pink elephants.
ike/ Response to Dennis Ross and Obama's Promise
I agree very much with my friend. Dennis Ross is a foreign policy heavyweight who has dedicated much of his professional life to directly negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine. His work with the Soviet Union, and its value with a provocative Russia, is well-stated in my friend's previous post.
Ross wrote his most recent book, Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World, last year, and he defines productive foreign policy as dependant on direct negotiations. As one might predict, he is dismayed by the Bush II administration's unilaterist approach to the world.
As our recent success with North Korea and failures with Iran have proved, direct dialogue works. W's almost-Freudian rejection of his father's rather progressive foreign policy approach and subsequent embrace of neoconservativism, a school of thought born and proliferated in academia but consistently rebuked in practice, represents the most damaging legacy of his presidency.
It is encouraging to see Obama continue to advocate a philosophy of talking and an administration of experience and rationality. John McCain would be wise to embrace a similar approach; it would do much to calm well-earned fears about his bellicosity.
Ross wrote his most recent book, Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World, last year, and he defines productive foreign policy as dependant on direct negotiations. As one might predict, he is dismayed by the Bush II administration's unilaterist approach to the world.
As our recent success with North Korea and failures with Iran have proved, direct dialogue works. W's almost-Freudian rejection of his father's rather progressive foreign policy approach and subsequent embrace of neoconservativism, a school of thought born and proliferated in academia but consistently rebuked in practice, represents the most damaging legacy of his presidency.
It is encouraging to see Obama continue to advocate a philosophy of talking and an administration of experience and rationality. John McCain would be wise to embrace a similar approach; it would do much to calm well-earned fears about his bellicosity.
TDB | Dennis Ross and Obama's Promise
A while back, Barack Obama mentioned an admiration for the foreign policy of the first president Bush - no doubt a smart thing to say for a fellow worryingly lacking in foreign policy experience. No matter your party affiliation, surely you can muster at least grudging respect for team Bush’s near perfect record of dedication, professionalism and efficacy. Needless to say, implicitly associating oneself with such a quality operation might lend one a bit of credibility. But was Obama being honest in his admiration? I hoped so - but there was no way to tell. Until now.
A few days ago, Senator Obama tapped Dennis Ross to accompany him on his Middle East trip. Not only does Ross have ties to the Bush/Baker foreign policy team; he is outspoken in his admiration for its diplomatic successes - its handling of German reunification, its crucial success in winning Gorbachev's 'support' for the Gulf War, its careful dance with a Soviet Union that, though it was reconciled to giving up its empire quietly, was still worryingly susceptible to action by hard-line communists. It doesn't take much to see that a knowledge and admiration of these events will be of critical help to the next president - as he tries to reunify an essentially fragmented Iraq, as he tries (once again) to win crucial support from Russia (and China); as he tries to reconcile Iran to giving up its nuclear ambitions, mindful once more of a country's hard-line threat.
Moreover, Dennis Ross embodies everything good in American foreign policy during the last 20 years. Not just 'good' in the sense of successful; but 'good' in the sense of 'well intentioned'. Obama's choice of Ross to play a key roll in advising, shaping and executing the Obama foreign policy vision proves two very important things: 1) that a much needed seriousness, dedication, and effectiveness will return to our Middle East policy when Obama is president; and 2) that Obama meant what he said - not just that he admired Bush I, but more importantly that he really intends to reach out and create consensus, to move beyond partisanship, to listen, to compromise, to be pragmatic and productive of real solutions.
Not that Ross is a creature of the Right - he is most certainly no such thing. A life-long Democratic rather! But he's probably the single foreign policy figure that can elicit anything approaching universal praise. He is possibly the one guy who could instantly convince anyone, American, Israeli and even Arab (now that Arafat, with his desperate attempts to place blame, is no more) that President Obama is committed and well-intentioned. As 'conservative' columnists David Brooks explained of the man:
A few days ago, Senator Obama tapped Dennis Ross to accompany him on his Middle East trip. Not only does Ross have ties to the Bush/Baker foreign policy team; he is outspoken in his admiration for its diplomatic successes - its handling of German reunification, its crucial success in winning Gorbachev's 'support' for the Gulf War, its careful dance with a Soviet Union that, though it was reconciled to giving up its empire quietly, was still worryingly susceptible to action by hard-line communists. It doesn't take much to see that a knowledge and admiration of these events will be of critical help to the next president - as he tries to reunify an essentially fragmented Iraq, as he tries (once again) to win crucial support from Russia (and China); as he tries to reconcile Iran to giving up its nuclear ambitions, mindful once more of a country's hard-line threat.
Moreover, Dennis Ross embodies everything good in American foreign policy during the last 20 years. Not just 'good' in the sense of successful; but 'good' in the sense of 'well intentioned'. Obama's choice of Ross to play a key roll in advising, shaping and executing the Obama foreign policy vision proves two very important things: 1) that a much needed seriousness, dedication, and effectiveness will return to our Middle East policy when Obama is president; and 2) that Obama meant what he said - not just that he admired Bush I, but more importantly that he really intends to reach out and create consensus, to move beyond partisanship, to listen, to compromise, to be pragmatic and productive of real solutions.
Not that Ross is a creature of the Right - he is most certainly no such thing. A life-long Democratic rather! But he's probably the single foreign policy figure that can elicit anything approaching universal praise. He is possibly the one guy who could instantly convince anyone, American, Israeli and even Arab (now that Arafat, with his desperate attempts to place blame, is no more) that President Obama is committed and well-intentioned. As 'conservative' columnists David Brooks explained of the man:
I often tell candidates to hire Ross. You can wake him up at 4 a.m. and he will be able to spout off eight things the president should do right now to improve American interests in the region. The world is full of big thinkers. Few have that sort of practical intelligence.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
ike/ Quote of The Day
“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change.”
--Al Gore
--Al Gore
TDB | Reply to Finders Keepers, Losers Veepers
I have to disagree with my friend on a few points. First, the VP can actually end up playing a major policy role in a Presidential administration. It's indeed true that, since VP number 1, John Adams, first complained of the weakness and unimportance of his job, almost everyone has confidently repeated the charge; and it's also true that constitutionally the VP is a weakling; but Dick Cheney may have changed the Vice Presidency for ever.
I doubt that VPs in the future will have as much power and influence as Cheney; but we'll never unlearn what Cheney has taught us: that a VP can in fact run the show. John Adams was a rather imperious fellow, and I can imagine that if he had Cheney's precedent, he would never have said what he did about the Vice Presidency - instead, he would have said (to himself this time) something more like: "So, that's how it's done!" And that's exactly what many VPs will say in the future - their personal feelings towards Cheney aside. Let's remember that the vast majority who end up in the VPs office were actually looking for the more ovular office nearby. These are men - and, as Hillary may show us, women - who very much want to be President (and believe they deserve to be).
My point is that we should consider the Vice Presidency in a different light than has been traditional. We have to think of it as much more than a tool to help in the election, especially since there are questions about McCain's age and - as much as I hate to even think about it - Obama's safety. That's my problem with Tim Kaine: I don't think people would feel comfortable if he were suddenly president. Romney is better in this regard - but he can't bring Massachusetts with him, and McCain is desperate for some swing state help. Moreover, the religious right has a problem with his Mormonism - and they're already unenthusiastic about McCain himself.
My choice for McCain is Rob Portman - he could help a lot in Ohio; he brings a lot of economic intelligence and know how; he is well liked; and he's young but still has lots of Washington experience.
For Obama, Sam Nunn - he is almost universally well-liked in Washington (and Georgia); he knows Congress very well (literally, in many cases); he knows more about nuclear proliferation than all but a handful of people in the world; he has the foreign policy credentials (and tons of FP experience); and he could very possibly turn Georgia blue - the large African American population, the third party candidacy of Georgian Bob Barr, and a lot of enduring love for Sam Nunn would put a very big, otherwise very red state seriously into contention. Moreover, Obama likes and respects Nunn - as do a lot of moderate Americans, especially those who used to be called 'Reagan Democrats' and are now called 'Unconvinced White Men'.
I doubt that VPs in the future will have as much power and influence as Cheney; but we'll never unlearn what Cheney has taught us: that a VP can in fact run the show. John Adams was a rather imperious fellow, and I can imagine that if he had Cheney's precedent, he would never have said what he did about the Vice Presidency - instead, he would have said (to himself this time) something more like: "So, that's how it's done!" And that's exactly what many VPs will say in the future - their personal feelings towards Cheney aside. Let's remember that the vast majority who end up in the VPs office were actually looking for the more ovular office nearby. These are men - and, as Hillary may show us, women - who very much want to be President (and believe they deserve to be).
My point is that we should consider the Vice Presidency in a different light than has been traditional. We have to think of it as much more than a tool to help in the election, especially since there are questions about McCain's age and - as much as I hate to even think about it - Obama's safety. That's my problem with Tim Kaine: I don't think people would feel comfortable if he were suddenly president. Romney is better in this regard - but he can't bring Massachusetts with him, and McCain is desperate for some swing state help. Moreover, the religious right has a problem with his Mormonism - and they're already unenthusiastic about McCain himself.
My choice for McCain is Rob Portman - he could help a lot in Ohio; he brings a lot of economic intelligence and know how; he is well liked; and he's young but still has lots of Washington experience.
For Obama, Sam Nunn - he is almost universally well-liked in Washington (and Georgia); he knows Congress very well (literally, in many cases); he knows more about nuclear proliferation than all but a handful of people in the world; he has the foreign policy credentials (and tons of FP experience); and he could very possibly turn Georgia blue - the large African American population, the third party candidacy of Georgian Bob Barr, and a lot of enduring love for Sam Nunn would put a very big, otherwise very red state seriously into contention. Moreover, Obama likes and respects Nunn - as do a lot of moderate Americans, especially those who used to be called 'Reagan Democrats' and are now called 'Unconvinced White Men'.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
TDB | Quote of The Day
From last night's Daily Show with John Stewart:
Barack Obama should in no way be upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists.
ike | Finders Keepers Losers Veepers
By far the coolest vice president in history is Spiro Agnew. He actually took bribes while in office. He was also most likely more corrupt than his boss, though not as smart, and certainly lacked a certain element of tolerance.
Usually, vice presidents don't have much to do. And no, I will not use this venue to indulge in any "Dick Cheney shot a man in the face jokes" because I don't think it's fair to mock a man who has approval ratings lower than Yasser Arafat's T-cell count. Too soon? My bad.
The media spends a lot of time worrying about a position that is by definition in the background. But the truth is, nobody much cares. In 2000, Joe Lieberman nearly fellated our current second in command and no one even thought to film it.
That being said, a vice presidential nominee can have a big role in electoral politics. But Democrats have royally screwed up their choices in the last two presidential elections by trying to neutralize core strengths of their opponent and not focusing on the electoral college.
In 2000, George W. Bush ran to bring "morality" back to the Oval Office. Of course, this was a deft and thinly-veiled reference to the smokin' good times that occurred there. Bush's argument had great appeal; many, probably most, Americans were sickened by Clinton's actions and believed that a less indulgent man deserved our nation's highest office. Instead of running on eight years of mostly peace and prosperity, Al Gore decided to try to hit his opponent where he was the strongest. So the Democratic Party was treated to Joe Lieberman, who needlessly tried to kill music before he succeeded in needlessly killing Americans. But back in 2000, when life was but a dream, Lieberman represented a strong religious backbone, morality and pro-family ethics. It was the perfect antidote to one of W's fundamental appeals. But it failed.
Flash forward to four years ago when John Kerry, never a favorite in a tea leaf reading contest, selected outgoing North Carolina Senator John Edwards, outgoing due more to his inability to win his home state again than his presidential aspirations. Edwards would provide a beautiful antitode to Bush's down-home folksiness. He could peel off rural white voters from W and allow Kerry to defeat the incumbent. We all know what happened.
Picking a vice president because he or she combats a certain ideological strength of your opponent is stupid. The person nominated by his party for the highest office in the land is surely better at reflecting that ideology; that's why he's the nominee. Plus, nobody votes for the vice president. UNLESS...
Veeps can carry states. More specifically, a vice presidential candidate can carry his or her home state--especially if that candidate is a popularly elected governor. So if you were a presidential nominee, why wouldn't you run on your strengths and then select as your running mate a person who could actually deliver a state you couldn't have won otherwise? Seems obvious, right?
With that out of the way, here are my Veep picks.
Barack Obama: Tim Kaine.
The Democratic Party is flush with popular governors elected in presidentially red states. Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas. The list goes on and on. Obama has a very real shot to win Virginia even without Kaine on the ticket. The state has had two consecutive popular Democratic governors, and come January, it will have two Democratic senators. But Tim Kaine probably puts Obama over the top. And picking up a southern state is a big deal. But Kaine also does something else: he complements a strength of Obama. Obama has a real chance to peel off a chunk of evangelical voters. Karl Rove has generally credited registering and turning out 3 million new religious voters with Bush's 2004 re-election. Kaine and Obama both speak freely, passionately and articulately about their faith. And John McCain doesn't. Obama knows about the importance of this issue in states like Colorado, Iowa and Nevada. Evangelicals and latinos represent Obama's best opportunity to make in-roads among populations that voted overwhelmingly for W.
John McCain: Mitt Romney.
Money is a big problem for John McCain. Some have speculated Obama could raise $100 million in single months of this campaign. Mitt Romney, through his business and religious connections, would help the McCain ticket in a place it is in great need: the wallet. There is a dearth of popular, Republican statewide officeholders in blue states. And while Romney would never carry Massachusetts on a McCain ticket, he could help in New Hampshire. Not to mention the fact that Romney's greatest strength, his success in the private sector, knowledge of the business world and CEO experience, all serve to quell the fears of an electorate for which the growing financial crisis is the greatest concern.
Usually, vice presidents don't have much to do. And no, I will not use this venue to indulge in any "Dick Cheney shot a man in the face jokes" because I don't think it's fair to mock a man who has approval ratings lower than Yasser Arafat's T-cell count. Too soon? My bad.
The media spends a lot of time worrying about a position that is by definition in the background. But the truth is, nobody much cares. In 2000, Joe Lieberman nearly fellated our current second in command and no one even thought to film it.
That being said, a vice presidential nominee can have a big role in electoral politics. But Democrats have royally screwed up their choices in the last two presidential elections by trying to neutralize core strengths of their opponent and not focusing on the electoral college.
In 2000, George W. Bush ran to bring "morality" back to the Oval Office. Of course, this was a deft and thinly-veiled reference to the smokin' good times that occurred there. Bush's argument had great appeal; many, probably most, Americans were sickened by Clinton's actions and believed that a less indulgent man deserved our nation's highest office. Instead of running on eight years of mostly peace and prosperity, Al Gore decided to try to hit his opponent where he was the strongest. So the Democratic Party was treated to Joe Lieberman, who needlessly tried to kill music before he succeeded in needlessly killing Americans. But back in 2000, when life was but a dream, Lieberman represented a strong religious backbone, morality and pro-family ethics. It was the perfect antidote to one of W's fundamental appeals. But it failed.
Flash forward to four years ago when John Kerry, never a favorite in a tea leaf reading contest, selected outgoing North Carolina Senator John Edwards, outgoing due more to his inability to win his home state again than his presidential aspirations. Edwards would provide a beautiful antitode to Bush's down-home folksiness. He could peel off rural white voters from W and allow Kerry to defeat the incumbent. We all know what happened.
Picking a vice president because he or she combats a certain ideological strength of your opponent is stupid. The person nominated by his party for the highest office in the land is surely better at reflecting that ideology; that's why he's the nominee. Plus, nobody votes for the vice president. UNLESS...
Veeps can carry states. More specifically, a vice presidential candidate can carry his or her home state--especially if that candidate is a popularly elected governor. So if you were a presidential nominee, why wouldn't you run on your strengths and then select as your running mate a person who could actually deliver a state you couldn't have won otherwise? Seems obvious, right?
With that out of the way, here are my Veep picks.
Barack Obama: Tim Kaine.
The Democratic Party is flush with popular governors elected in presidentially red states. Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, Ohio, Arkansas. The list goes on and on. Obama has a very real shot to win Virginia even without Kaine on the ticket. The state has had two consecutive popular Democratic governors, and come January, it will have two Democratic senators. But Tim Kaine probably puts Obama over the top. And picking up a southern state is a big deal. But Kaine also does something else: he complements a strength of Obama. Obama has a real chance to peel off a chunk of evangelical voters. Karl Rove has generally credited registering and turning out 3 million new religious voters with Bush's 2004 re-election. Kaine and Obama both speak freely, passionately and articulately about their faith. And John McCain doesn't. Obama knows about the importance of this issue in states like Colorado, Iowa and Nevada. Evangelicals and latinos represent Obama's best opportunity to make in-roads among populations that voted overwhelmingly for W.
John McCain: Mitt Romney.
Money is a big problem for John McCain. Some have speculated Obama could raise $100 million in single months of this campaign. Mitt Romney, through his business and religious connections, would help the McCain ticket in a place it is in great need: the wallet. There is a dearth of popular, Republican statewide officeholders in blue states. And while Romney would never carry Massachusetts on a McCain ticket, he could help in New Hampshire. Not to mention the fact that Romney's greatest strength, his success in the private sector, knowledge of the business world and CEO experience, all serve to quell the fears of an electorate for which the growing financial crisis is the greatest concern.
Monday, July 14, 2008
TDB | Obama & Lincoln
Pointing out similarities between current politicians and historical figures can quickly become a silly and pointless exercise. But the search for historical precedents is instructive - it's especially useful for exposing fallacies in current thinking. That's half of what I'm aiming at here; I also want to use history to add perspective to probable future events.
Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.
There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.
Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.
A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.
So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.
Barack Obama often invokes Lincoln's memory; and there's been much discussion of parallels between the two men. Last week even saw Obama's face superimposed on Lincoln's head and shoulders in a very skillfully painted mural. And even though much of this is done rather excitedly and without concern for historical accuracy, there are good reasons to compare Obama to Lincoln, as the two men have a remarkable amount in common.
There's been a lot of understandable concern about Barack Obama's lack of experience. But Lincoln - who, whatever your personal opinion of him, saw our nation ably through one of its most trying moments - became president with only two years of Washington experience - and this much earlier in his career. He was, even then, only a member of the House. Obama will have four years of Washington experience by the time he takes office - and as a Senator. Both Obama and Lincoln made early marks largely by opposing a popular war - the Iraq War in Obama's case, the Mexican War in Lincoln's. Both men gained national prominence not through years legislative toil (a la Richard Lugar or Joe Biden) but rather through speaking events that led to 'overnight' fame - Lincoln through his debates with Stephen Douglas, and Obama through his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. Moreover, both men will have been about the same age when elected - Obama 48, Lincoln 51; both were lawyers by profession; amd both were considered political opportunists by contemporaries, especially those in their own party.
Finally, both Lincoln and Obama have proved something of a question-mark regarding their personal religion. They have repeatedly professed themselves Christians; but few who choose to make an issue of it have been convinced by their claims. The truth in Lincoln's case - and I suspect something similar for Obama - is that he had a deeply religious sense of life, of fate, &c; but this sense, combined with a natural skepticism, didn't fit comfortably within 'Christianity'.
A lack of 'Christianness,' as it were, is, however, actually for the best - historically speaking. The only two presidents of the last 50 years who made a point of incorporating their Christianity into their politics were the two greatest failures: Bush II and Carter. Moreover, most of the Founders - especially those who later became president - were not terribly Christian men. They were, rather, men of the Enlightenment - deists with a Christian flavor.
So much for concerns about Obama's inexperience. There's one more point to be made, though. Obama has been criticized for his move to support the FISA bill; he should be forgiven this move - and any future moves that expand executive power and threaten our civil liberties. The unfortunate truth is that our civil liberties will at times be curtailed, for the safety of Americans and the continuation of our government. But such curtailment can and must be temporary; sunset provisions are essential.
Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers - Lincoln is the perfect example of this. Securing Maryland for the Union was essential to the continuation of government and for the perpetuation of union; but in securing this border state, Lincoln violated the civil liberties of countless citizens. And it was not the only time he did so. But the important point is that his curtailments did not mean permanent changes in the basic rights of Americans. Lincoln had constitutional scruples and violated the letter of our most central document with great reluctance. Obama may very well have to do the same. As Hobbes pointed out, it's silly to worry exclusively about rights when the government maintaining those rights is threatened existentially. We should keep in mind in such cases that the truly important issue - and the mark of a truly great president - is a noticeable reluctance, not a complete unwillingness, to do the unsavory.
TDB | Reply to 'Cover Art'
I have to disagree with my friend. For a few reasons. I think a) that the New Yorker cover art was both damaging to Obama and fairly tasteless; and b) that McCain has a very good chance of winning the election. Before I give my reasons, let me say that I support Obama - but I come from a long line of Republicans and, having been a Republican most of my life (I still consider myself a conservative) I know how a lot of them think.In the latest Newsweek poll, the most recent iteration of the same poll that gave Obama a huge lead over McCain, his lead is back within the margin of error. More importantly, 12% think Obama is currently a Muslim, 12% think he was sworn in on a Koran, 26% believe he was raised a Muslim, and a whopping 39% think he attended an Islamic school as a child. This country may finally be ready to elect a black man president; but it is not ready to elect a Muslim (or a man with an Islamic background). Obama is not a Muslim; it might be unfair to call his background Islamic; but he is the only major party candidate in American history to have Islam in his background. Obama's father was a Muslim - whether lapsed or not - and that is simply too much for most Americans. This fact will not go away before November. It will eat away at the confidence of a great many Obama supporters. And the New Yorker cover will ultimately prove an aid in this deterioration of confidence. People will see it and - whether they think of it ironically, as it was intended - it will reinforce any subtle concerns they've had about Obama, his religion, his patriotism - whatever.
Sure, there are plenty of people who will understand the irony of the picture - but sadly the great majority of Americans don't understand irony. If the New Yorker supports Obama and wants to see him elected - and it's fairly clear they do - they have done a disservice to the cause. The Obama campaign, I think, understands this - and they are upset, as they should be.
I'm a huge fan of David Remnick and the New Yorker, but from an editorial point of view, running this cover was one of the dumbest things i can remember - surely Obama will keep the magazine at a greater distance when he is president than he would have 0therwise. Moreover, Remnick did a terrible job defending his decision on NPR, proving in the process just how cut off the editors of the New Yorker can be from America at large. I find it hard to believe that someone as intelligent as David Remnick could claim he simply didn't accept the argument that most people don't understand satire (without instructions); it's a sad fact that most Americans probably don't even know what satire is.
The lingering questions that many Americans have about Obama's religion exemplify the lingering questions that many have about an Obama presidency - especially in the Midwest swing states, which will determine the race. This will keep the race close, no matter how far Obama pulls ahead in the polls. Moreover, McCain is actually winning the contest for independent voters 41% to 34%, as the Newsweek poll shows. This is a significant lead by McCain - and it's among the very people who will decide this election. If McCain continues to lead by a significant margin among Independents and white males, the race will stay very close no matter what the main poll says.
ike | Cover Art
By now you've heard about the cover. Provocative? Satirical? Incendiary? All of the above, perhaps.
The Obama campaign even issued a statement on it, calling it "tasteless and offensive." A McCain spokesman agreed.
There's a lot going in the picture: Michelle O sporting a Panther-esque afro, a very large gun and combat gear; the American flag burning in the fireplace; Obama clad in muslim garb; and a portrait of Uncle Osama hanging on the wall. And of course, the whole scene takes place in the Oval Office.
It's the whisper campaign personified, validated even, if only for a second, in a caricature of what the first couple of the United States would look like if (GASP) the rumors were all true.
It's funny. And it's timely.
Late last week, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki said his government was "looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty." Sunday's New York Times had a report on how the Bush administration is contemplating a drawdown of troops in Iraq starting this fall. While one presidential candidate has talked about a responsible but complete exit accomplished as soon as possible, the other has a brave new vision of a future Iraq, complete with permanent bases and all the fun stuff that comes with them.
It appears we are heading towards a place where on an issue he needs to win, John McCain is ostracized and on an island in believing our nation need maintain a permanent and robust military presence in Iraq.
If American voters overwhelmingly believe every citizen should have health care (and they do), that we need to end the Iraq War (and they do) and that Republican leadership has failed to accomplish much save bringing on the post profound period of malaise and fear in recent memory (yep, they believe that too), how can a Republican win a presidential election?
Yup.
And that's why this magazine cover is so important: it displays not only the absurdity of the attacks leveled against Obama, (here's my favorite terrorist fist bump btw) but how "mainstream" they've had to become at a time when a generally transcendent political figure is running against a man who can't even use a computer--a time when a man who will accept his party's nomination for president in a football stadium is running against a man who struggles to read off of a teleprompter.
The Obama campaign even issued a statement on it, calling it "tasteless and offensive." A McCain spokesman agreed.
There's a lot going in the picture: Michelle O sporting a Panther-esque afro, a very large gun and combat gear; the American flag burning in the fireplace; Obama clad in muslim garb; and a portrait of Uncle Osama hanging on the wall. And of course, the whole scene takes place in the Oval Office.
It's the whisper campaign personified, validated even, if only for a second, in a caricature of what the first couple of the United States would look like if (GASP) the rumors were all true.
It's funny. And it's timely.
Late last week, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki said his government was "looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty." Sunday's New York Times had a report on how the Bush administration is contemplating a drawdown of troops in Iraq starting this fall. While one presidential candidate has talked about a responsible but complete exit accomplished as soon as possible, the other has a brave new vision of a future Iraq, complete with permanent bases and all the fun stuff that comes with them.
It appears we are heading towards a place where on an issue he needs to win, John McCain is ostracized and on an island in believing our nation need maintain a permanent and robust military presence in Iraq.
If American voters overwhelmingly believe every citizen should have health care (and they do), that we need to end the Iraq War (and they do) and that Republican leadership has failed to accomplish much save bringing on the post profound period of malaise and fear in recent memory (yep, they believe that too), how can a Republican win a presidential election?
Yup.
And that's why this magazine cover is so important: it displays not only the absurdity of the attacks leveled against Obama, (here's my favorite terrorist fist bump btw) but how "mainstream" they've had to become at a time when a generally transcendent political figure is running against a man who can't even use a computer--a time when a man who will accept his party's nomination for president in a football stadium is running against a man who struggles to read off of a teleprompter.
Friday, July 11, 2008
TDB | 2005 In American History
I have to say I agree very much with my friend. Katrina was a pivotal moment in American history - the final way point of 'conservative' rule. Visions of the third-world - which Americans had learned to numb their hearts and minds against after years of starving Somali faces and ravaged Balkan villages - now showed American faces, a ravaged American city. Our hearts and minds were shocked out of a long sleep and our sense of justice was shocked into looking for answers - which proved easy to find.
The regime in power and the system it created had become deplorable in almost every sense imaginable - belligerent, callous, myopic, dishonest, greedy, self-absorbed, negligent, mean, unethical and not a little bit profligate. It had been all of these things for a long time; but the indicator lights pulsed weakly, visible only to the unimportant. Widespread discontent was masked - mistaken for disparate irritations.
But in 2005, with Katrina and its aftermath, things became clear - and Americans demanded a change. The 2006 elections repudiated the party in power - 2008 will prove a repudiation of an entire way of American life. We no longer want to be apathetic gilded-age citizens of a nation obsessed with itself, hated by the world - we want to be progressive citizens of a nation long looked to for inspiration and leadership. Because of 2005 - one of America's worst ever years - we have, in 2008, refilled our depleted stores of inspiration. After November we'll rebuild our icon of leadership.
And for all those who don't believe that History repeats itself, or that America moves cyclically - in mind and in politics - consider the following description of the watershed year that spelled doom for our first gilded-age, heralding in progressivism:
The regime in power and the system it created had become deplorable in almost every sense imaginable - belligerent, callous, myopic, dishonest, greedy, self-absorbed, negligent, mean, unethical and not a little bit profligate. It had been all of these things for a long time; but the indicator lights pulsed weakly, visible only to the unimportant. Widespread discontent was masked - mistaken for disparate irritations.
But in 2005, with Katrina and its aftermath, things became clear - and Americans demanded a change. The 2006 elections repudiated the party in power - 2008 will prove a repudiation of an entire way of American life. We no longer want to be apathetic gilded-age citizens of a nation obsessed with itself, hated by the world - we want to be progressive citizens of a nation long looked to for inspiration and leadership. Because of 2005 - one of America's worst ever years - we have, in 2008, refilled our depleted stores of inspiration. After November we'll rebuild our icon of leadership.
And for all those who don't believe that History repeats itself, or that America moves cyclically - in mind and in politics - consider the following description of the watershed year that spelled doom for our first gilded-age, heralding in progressivism:
The year 1894 was the darkest that Americans had known in thirty years and finally changed the way people looked at things. What had seemed irritating now became pressing. Increasingly people saw American society as unfair. While the government promoted and subsidized the efforts of the economically ambitious, the demands of labor and the farmers went unmet. A new plutocracy of predatory capitalists, no less powerful than the planter aristocracy of the Old South, was growing rich beyond anyone's imagination. Yet they maintained a callous indifference to the welfare and safety of workers. There was no such thing as public relief, and the unemployed worker was cast adrift. The cities were becoming a polluted sprawl of human misery ... Monopolies [ ] roamed the American terrain, stifling competition, shortchanging the consumer, corrupting the political process, and giving selfish men the power to direct and dispose of the wealth of an entire society. A sense of anger spread through the land, and in the mid term elections the people sent a message.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
ike | McCain Can't Win
If "Why John McCain Can't Win the Presidency of the United States in 2008" were a book, Chapter 1 would be called "Katrina." While I hesitate to take the Bush-like (Bush-ian sounds weird, doesn't it?) long-view of history, they'll write books about the fallout from the hurricane. It was, and I apologize for the pun in advance, the perfect storm. First off, the country got to see the fundamental and profound incompetence of the Bush administration. But the implications run much deeper; it killed the Republican brand for the foreseeable future. There before us, on national television and on repeat, we saw how the other half lived. I was working on a campaign at the time. "Oh my god," a co-worker of mine said. "It looks like a third-world country." And there it was--the flip side of the last twenty five years of economic policy and the unconscionable income disparity and cuts in domestic programs that came with trickle down economics: tax cuts for the wealthy; ballooning deficits; and a baby boomer culture that put a priority on amassing personal wealth and material possessions above all else. With whom was this resonating? I'm very glad you asked. Mostly the kids of that unfortunate and aforementioned generation, a group of new or soon to be voters who grew up more interconnected, more plugged in, than any generation in the history of the world. A generation that witnessed first-hand the priorities of their parents and asked, like Tony Montana in Scarface, "is this it?" This is a group that supports stem cell research, doesn't care if gays marry and understands that rounding up millions of people living in the United States and deporting them is impossible. So it disagrees with the GOP on the three seminal domestic issues of the past five years and then got to watch its administration perform what probably was the greatest act of domestic governmental incompetence in the history of our nation. Abraham Lincoln would have a hard time winning a national election if a big "R" appeared next to his name. And John McCain is no Abraham Lincoln.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Understanding with Iran Could Save Bush Foreign Policy (In History's Eyes, At Least)
Who knows how things will play out with Iran? It's probably not productive to make guesses; but one thing worth thinking about is how history will end up scoring President Bush on Iranian relations and his success in promoting American interests. If nothing significant happens with/in Iran between now and Bush's departure in January, Iraq will most likely overshadow its neighbor almost entirely in assessments of Bush - at least until something dreadful (or unexpectedly fortuitous) happens to/in Iran and everyone sets out to find root causes.
But there are good signs from Iran this week. There are two messages coming out of the government - one of which is significantly more positive than the other (though both are doubtless positive responses, compared to former results).
So what if Iran and the US reach some kind of deal before Bush leaves and relations between the two countries start to normalize - with symbolic gestures such as the proposed creation of direct flight between New York and Tehran put in the works? That would be something, indeed. It's beyond unlikely - of course. But let's indulge the prospect for a moment to see what the upshot for Bush's foreign policy legacy would be.
It would change things a great deal, I think.
Present logic holds that Bush made a mess of already messy Iranian relations by going into Iraq. It certainly seems that this is the case. But it is only because of the Iraq war and the new unltra-close proximity of US and Iranian interests that the Ayatollah decided in 2006 to remove a long standing ban on any diplomatic dealings with the US. If those dealings turn out to be the seads of a (I repeat: very unlikely) imminent mending of relations between the US and Iran, George W. Bush will have to be seen in a somewhat more positive light as he steps down; and he will doubtless be much more highly considered in history's assessment of his Foreign policy, the results of which will be, without a great stretch of the imagination if Iranian relations are improved, a Middle East with large US allay (Iraq) a diffused relatively major enemy (Iran) and a (sad but somewhat helpful) sidetrack focus on Shia-Sunni sectarian fights for Muslims who long for action and ultimately bloodshed. That is a much better Middle East than President Bush started with - at least it will seem this way to history.
But there are good signs from Iran this week. There are two messages coming out of the government - one of which is significantly more positive than the other (though both are doubtless positive responses, compared to former results).
So what if Iran and the US reach some kind of deal before Bush leaves and relations between the two countries start to normalize - with symbolic gestures such as the proposed creation of direct flight between New York and Tehran put in the works? That would be something, indeed. It's beyond unlikely - of course. But let's indulge the prospect for a moment to see what the upshot for Bush's foreign policy legacy would be.
It would change things a great deal, I think.
Present logic holds that Bush made a mess of already messy Iranian relations by going into Iraq. It certainly seems that this is the case. But it is only because of the Iraq war and the new unltra-close proximity of US and Iranian interests that the Ayatollah decided in 2006 to remove a long standing ban on any diplomatic dealings with the US. If those dealings turn out to be the seads of a (I repeat: very unlikely) imminent mending of relations between the US and Iran, George W. Bush will have to be seen in a somewhat more positive light as he steps down; and he will doubtless be much more highly considered in history's assessment of his Foreign policy, the results of which will be, without a great stretch of the imagination if Iranian relations are improved, a Middle East with large US allay (Iraq) a diffused relatively major enemy (Iran) and a (sad but somewhat helpful) sidetrack focus on Shia-Sunni sectarian fights for Muslims who long for action and ultimately bloodshed. That is a much better Middle East than President Bush started with - at least it will seem this way to history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)