Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Obama takes a stand? http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jan/30/obama_calls_for_withdrawal_of_all_troops_from_iraq_by_march_2008
Well, I wanted Obama to take a principled stand on the big issues of the day. He already committed himself to universal health care. Now he's drawing an unambigous line on Iraq:
Impressive. This puts him well ahead of the presidential pack, even Edwards has to play catch-up. Feingold is also introducing legislation for withdrawal in six months, but that's really too short a timescale and he's not running for President anyway. So this plan by Obama is the first serious policy proposal on Iraq that we have seen.
For what it's worth, and I know I am in a distinct minority, I find the Edwards plan to be more acceptable; I think we will need a significant troop presence in Iraq for decades to come, because we have a moral duty to protect what fledgling sprigs of liberty we've inexpertly planted. In this I disagree with Kos's view that Edwards' proposal is a half-measure.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum is not impressed. Here's the details of Obama plan, with the part that Kevin objects to in bold:
Kevin asks rightfully what authority Congress has to mandate a phased redeployment of troops, if there is no threat of cutting off funding for the troops. I note that Obama only puts the "not afffect funding" line in the part of the bill that affects the surge - which renders that part toothless indeed, even without a guaranteed Presidential veto. But I note that the same clause is omitted from the second part about redeployment. So Kevin may be right, orhe may be wrong - what significance does the omission have? We can't say. That vagueness is probably deliberate.
The question for Obama then is would he support de-funding the Iraq war to force the President to perform the phased redeployment he calls for? At present you can't really tell one way or another. Someone needs to get Obama on the record about that.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today introduced binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President’s dangerous and ill-conceived escalation of the Iraq war, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home.
“Our troops have performed brilliantly in Iraq, but no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else’s civil war,” Obama said. “That’s why I have introduced a plan to not only stop the escalation of this war, but begin a phased redeployment that can pressure the Iraqis to finally reach a political settlement and reduce the violence.”
The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.
Impressive. This puts him well ahead of the presidential pack, even Edwards has to play catch-up. Feingold is also introducing legislation for withdrawal in six months, but that's really too short a timescale and he's not running for President anyway. So this plan by Obama is the first serious policy proposal on Iraq that we have seen.
For what it's worth, and I know I am in a distinct minority, I find the Edwards plan to be more acceptable; I think we will need a significant troop presence in Iraq for decades to come, because we have a moral duty to protect what fledgling sprigs of liberty we've inexpertly planted. In this I disagree with Kos's view that Edwards' proposal is a half-measure.
UPDATE: Kevin Drum is not impressed. Here's the details of Obama plan, with the part that Kevin objects to in bold:
Stops the Escalation: Caps the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number in Iraq on January 10, 2007. This does not affect the funding for our troops in Iraq. This cap has the force of law and could not be lifted without explicit Congressional authorization.
De-escalates the War with Phased Redeployment: Commences a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group. This redeployment will be both substantial and gradual, and will be planned and implemented by military commanders. Makes clear that Congress believes troops should be redeployed to the United States; to Afghanistan; and to other points in the region. A residual U.S. presence may remain in Iraq for force protection, training of Iraqi security forces, and pursuit of international terrorists.
Kevin asks rightfully what authority Congress has to mandate a phased redeployment of troops, if there is no threat of cutting off funding for the troops. I note that Obama only puts the "not afffect funding" line in the part of the bill that affects the surge - which renders that part toothless indeed, even without a guaranteed Presidential veto. But I note that the same clause is omitted from the second part about redeployment. So Kevin may be right, orhe may be wrong - what significance does the omission have? We can't say. That vagueness is probably deliberate.
The question for Obama then is would he support de-funding the Iraq war to force the President to perform the phased redeployment he calls for? At present you can't really tell one way or another. Someone needs to get Obama on the record about that.
Labels: 2008, Edwards, Iraq, Obama
Monday, January 29, 2007
What Should I Ask Bill Richardson About Foreign Policy?
[Cross-posted at ProgressiveHistorians.]
Well, folks, I have some pretty big news.
Well, folks, I have some pretty big news.
Yesterday morning, I posted this diary, which discussed the need for a visionary foreign policy in the context of Woodrow Wilson's 1919 Pueblo, Colorado speech in support of the League of Nations. In it, I argued that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is the only Democratic Presidential candidate who has made foreign policy his top priority, but that he still had a ways to go as far as developing a comprehensive foreign policy vision.
Last night, I received an e-mail from a Richardson staffer who had read my piece. He wanted to let me know that Richardson had in fact articulated a more complete international vision than I had realized. He also asked me whether I wanted to interview Governor Richardson on foreign policy issues.
To make a long story short (or a short story shorter), I'll be submitting a list of foreign policy-related questions for Richardson via e-mail within the week. I'll receive his answers sometime after that, I'm guessing within a few weeks. When I do, I'll post the entire text of the interview right here.
I've got a couple of questions I want to ask the Governor, but beyond that, I'm throwing the floor open to YOU. What questions do YOU think I should ask Governor Richardson?
Post your questions in comments, and I'll read them all and use those I like the best in the interview. Remember to keep your questions limited to foreign policy issues. Also, over the flip I'm including the text of a speech I was sent by Richardson's staff laying out what he's said so far about foreign policy. I'd appreciate it if you'd read the text and not ask questions that are already covered in there -- I'd like the interview to cover material Richardson hasn't already articulated, not simply rehash what he's already said.
To put this in perspective, Governor Richardson is a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, U.S. Secretary of Energy, and a four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He just returned from a trip to Darfur, where he successfully brokered a cease-fire, and has been instrumental in conducting talks with North Korea. In addition to being one of the leading Democratic candidates for President, Richardson is widely considered to be the leading candidate for U.S. Secretary of State in a Democratic administration -- so the importance of his views on foreign policy can't be overestimated.
Let me know what YOU think I should ask Richardson. On the flip, his "New Realism" foreign policy address from last summer.
Democrats know from experience that maximizing our national strength means knowing when to work with others, and when to act alone. It means knowing when and how to employ our great military.
Above all, it means understanding that military power and diplomacy are not alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sources of strength. What the Bush Administration has failed to understand is that while diplomacy without power is weak, power without diplomacy is blind.
Democrats offer real solutions that provide a new direction for America. We need a new realism in our foreign policy, which includes the following elements:
One, achieve national security through energy independence. We need a man on the moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil -- go from 65-percent to 20-percent by 2015; increase fuel efficiency; invest in green buildings and fuel cells; and become the leader of the future economic engine of the world - renewable energy, such as ethanol, solar and wind.
Two, re-build alliances and reinvigorate our allies. A far-sighted policy would have built a coalition to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Most immediately, we need an international coalition for peacekeeping in the Middle East.
Three, focus on the real dangers. Prioritize resources to fight Al Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists and the most urgent dangers, such as nuclear terrorism. That means a new strategy for success in Iraq that allows us to redeploy our troops.
Four, don't outsource our diplomacy. We need direct, face to face talks with North Korea. We should also talk directly with Iran.
Five, we need to pay attention to Latin America, our own back yard. The key is passing a comprehensive immigration plan now that includes enhanced border security, a path to legalization for the 11 million immigrants already here, and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The House should stop holding these silly hearings. Mr. President, your good words on immigration should be followed by deeds to pass a comprehensive plan.
Six, face up to global environmental threats. The first thing this Administration did was reject the Kyoto Treaty. America should be the world's leader, and that means owning up to grave environmental dangers, such as global warming.
Finally, respect human rights and American values. Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons and evasion of the Geneva Accords should have no place in our foreign policy. link
a catechism for reactionaries http://www.redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/a_reactionary_s_shorter_catechism
Paul Cella pens a manifesto for "reactionary" conservatives - positive connotation intended. One of his points is that free speech should not be absolute. I debate that contention with him in the comment thread.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Foreign Policy Redux http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/07/governor_bill_r.php
[Cross-posted at Progressive Historians.]
After reading my story last night calling for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson staffer e-mailed me a link to the following speech, delivered by Richardson last summer:
Certainly, this is a more comprehensive plan than I've seen before from Richardson, and easily more complete than what I've seen from the other candidates. More importantly, the speech demonstrates how Richardson thinks about issues. Where Al Gore's views spring from the unifying principle of conservation, and John Edwards' positions come from an economic perspective, Richardson's opinions stem from an essentially internationalist viewpoint. He's connected immmigration, energy, and environmental policy into his foreign policy like so many chainmaille links. A presidential worldview rooted in foreign policy would be both refreshing and extremely welcome.
On the other hand, what I don't see in all this "new realism" is an overarching guiding principle designed to advance the concepts of piece and global interconnection -- something like Wilson's League of Nations. I wish Richardson would think broader and bolder in his foreign policy, but maybe Wilsonian-style idealism isn't possible in the world Bush's cowboy diplomacy has left us. Wilson's bright vision was "to make the world safe for democracy," maybe it's enough that, under someone like Richardson, we'd be able to make democracy once again safe for the world.
After reading my story last night calling for a visionary foreign policy, a Richardson staffer e-mailed me a link to the following speech, delivered by Richardson last summer:Democrats know from experience that maximizing our national strength means knowing when to work with others, and when to act alone. It means knowing when and how to employ our great military.
Above all, it means understanding that military power and diplomacy are not alternatives to one another, but rather are complementary sources of strength. What the Bush Administration has failed to understand is that while diplomacy without power is weak, power without diplomacy is blind.
Democrats offer real solutions that provide a new direction for America. We need a new realism in our foreign policy, which includes the following elements:
One, achieve national security through energy independence. We need a man on the moon effort to reduce our dependency on foreign oil -- go from 65-percent to 20-percent by 2015; increase fuel efficiency; invest in green buildings and fuel cells; and become the leader of the future economic engine of the world - renewable energy, such as ethanol, solar and wind.
Two, re-build alliances and reinvigorate our allies. A far-sighted policy would have built a coalition to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Most immediately, we need an international coalition for peacekeeping in the Middle East.
Three, focus on the real dangers. Prioritize resources to fight Al Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists and the most urgent dangers, such as nuclear terrorism. That means a new strategy for success in Iraq that allows us to redeploy our troops.
Four, don't outsource our diplomacy. We need direct, face to face talks with North Korea. We should also talk directly with Iran.
Five, we need to pay attention to Latin America, our own back yard. The key is passing a comprehensive immigration plan now that includes enhanced border security, a path to legalization for the 11 million immigrants already here, and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The House should stop holding these silly hearings. Mr. President, your good words on immigration should be followed by deeds to pass a comprehensive plan.
Six, face up to global environmental threats. The first thing this Administration did was reject the Kyoto Treaty. America should be the world's leader, and that means owning up to grave environmental dangers, such as global warming.
Finally, respect human rights and American values. Prisoner abuse, torture, secret prisons and evasion of the Geneva Accords should have no place in our foreign policy.
Certainly, this is a more comprehensive plan than I've seen before from Richardson, and easily more complete than what I've seen from the other candidates. More importantly, the speech demonstrates how Richardson thinks about issues. Where Al Gore's views spring from the unifying principle of conservation, and John Edwards' positions come from an economic perspective, Richardson's opinions stem from an essentially internationalist viewpoint. He's connected immmigration, energy, and environmental policy into his foreign policy like so many chainmaille links. A presidential worldview rooted in foreign policy would be both refreshing and extremely welcome.
On the other hand, what I don't see in all this "new realism" is an overarching guiding principle designed to advance the concepts of piece and global interconnection -- something like Wilson's League of Nations. I wish Richardson would think broader and bolder in his foreign policy, but maybe Wilsonian-style idealism isn't possible in the world Bush's cowboy diplomacy has left us. Wilson's bright vision was "to make the world safe for democracy," maybe it's enough that, under someone like Richardson, we'd be able to make democracy once again safe for the world.
In Search of a Foreign Policy Vision
[Cross-posted at ProgressiveHistorians.]
On September 25, 1919, the day before he suffered the first of a series of strokes that that would leave him incapacitated for the rest of his life, Woodrow Wilson delivered the last and most brilliant speech of his political career. The location: Pueblo, Colorado. The subject: the League of Nations.
The most dangerous thing for a bad cause is to expose it to the opinion of the world. The most certain way that you can prove that a man is mistaken is by letting all his neighbours know what he thinks, by letting all his neighbours discuss what he thinks, and if he is in the wrong you will notice that he will stay at home, he will not walk on the street.
He will be afraid of the eyes of his neighbours. He will be afraid of their judgment of his character. He will know that his cause is lost unless he can sustain it by the arguments of right and of justice. The same law that applies to individuals applies to nations. ...
We must see that all the questions which have disturbed the world, all the questions which have eaten into the confidence of men toward their governments, all the questions which have disturbed the processes of industry, shall be brought out where men of all points of view, men of all attitudes of mind, men of all kinds of experience, may contribute their part of the settlement of the great questions which we must settle and cannot ignore. ...
Unless you get the united, concerted purpose and power of the great Governments of the world behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house of cards. There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized. ...
And what do they unite for? They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one anther for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbour; that they never will interfere with the political independence of a neighbour; that they will abide by the principle that great populations are entitled to determine their own destiny and that they will not interfere with that destiny; and that no matter what differences arise amongst them they will never resort to war without first having done one or other of two things - either submitted the matter of controversy to arbitration, in which case they agree to abide by the result without question, or submitted it to the consideration of the council of the League of Nations, laying before that council all the documents, all the facts, agreeing that the council can publish the documents and the facts to the whole world, agreeing that there shall be six months allowed for the mature consideration of those facts by the council, and agreeing that at the expiration of the six months, even if they are not then ready to accept the advice of the council with regard to the settlement of the dispute, they will still not go to war for another three months.
In other words, they consent, no matter what happens, to submit every matter of difference between them to the judgment of mankind, and just so certainly as they do that, my fellow citizens, war will be in the far background, war will be pushed out of that foreground of terror in which it has kept the world for generation after generation, and men will know that there will be a calm time of deliberate counsel.
Woodrow Wilson was many things, not all of them good. He was a racist who re-segregated the civil service; he was ambivalent about woman suffrage and allowed its proponents to be jailed and force-fed during the war. He opposed free speech during wartime and sanctioned the infamous Palmer Raids which jailed thousands of conscientious objectors and suspected Communists.
But during the brief span of the Wilsonian moment -- from the armistice on November 11, 1918, to Wilson's collapse less than a year later -- Woodrow Wilson held in his hands the liquid fire of the world's hope. Wilson was not the originator of the concept of the League of Nations, but he had the audacity to stride into the halls of Europe and demand its creation -- and for that brief moment, all the peoples of the world looked to him with awe and expectation. America, as personified by Wilson, was the savior come to unite the stricken nations in one cause, one purpose, that of eternal peace through law and diplomacy.
The worldwide acceptance of American exceptionalism during the Wilsonian moment is every neoconservative's dream, and indeed Wilson's militarism and internationalism may sound suspiciously neoconservative to liberal ears. Writing at TPMCafe, G. John Ikenberry explains the distinction:
The “liberal internationalist” impulse was articulated later during the Great War in the Fourteen Points address and in proposals for collective security and the League of Nations. This sentiment was stated perhaps most clearly in the summer of 1918 as the war was reaching its climax. Wilson gave his July 4th address at Mount Vernon and described his vision of postwar order: “What see seek is the reign of law, based on the consent of the governed and sustained by the organized opinion of mankind.”
...Wilson’s vision was deeply progressive. The world could be made anew. The old world of autocracy, militarism, and despotism could be overturned and a new world of democracy and rule of law was over the horizon. America had a leading role to play in this progressive world-historical drama, but the forces of history were already moving the world in this direction. America was God’s chosen midwife of progressive change.
Ikenberry and Anne-Marie Slaughter like to emphasize the "liberty under law" aspect of Wilson's thinking as distinct from the lawlesslessness of neoconservatives. I think, however, the stronger difference between them is demonstrated by Ikenberry's final sentence. Wilson was unquestionably an American exceptionalist; but while he may in fact have seen America as "God's chosen midwife of progressive change," it was progressive change itself that represented for him the final apotheosis of civilization. In fact, Wilson said as much in his Pueblo speech:
Let us accept what America has always fought for, and accept it with pride that America showed the way and made the proposal. I do not mean that America made the proposal in this particular instance; I mean that the principle was an American principle, proposed by America.
Thus, Wilson was uninterested in a show of American power; he sought only to promote the "principles" of liberal democracy that America embodied.
Wilson's embrace of the American ideals rather than American nationalism stands in stark contrast to neoconservative pretensions. An analysis of Francis Fukuyama's much-maligned yet seminal neoconservative essay The End of History demonstrates the difference between the two philosophies. In Fukuyama's view, "The triumph of the West, of the Western idea," has automatically occurred because American capitalism triumphed over Russian Communism; Fukuyama is now content to cease innovating, to abandon the international field to "economic calculation" and "the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history." But the same political and military triumph over the absolutist Central Powers did not satisfy Wilson in 1918. Wilson recognized that a military triumph by America served American power alone; a victory of ideas could only be achieved through a formal diplomatic confluence of "the united moral force of the world."
And because Wilson was willing to sacrifice American nationalism for international democratic idealism, America's international stature was, paradoxically, greatly elevated. August Heckscher, in his excellent biography of Wilson, notes that the crowds that met the American President upon his arrival in Europe were nothing short of astounding:
...The reception Wilson received, in numbers and in the fervor of its adulation, perhaps exceeded any previously accorded to any mortal. First in France, and then in Great Britain and Italy, he became the focus of all the pent-up emotions generated at the war's end. To the common people, longing for permanent peace, he alone appeared to have the key.
Scenes and images from that time linger as a vital part of twentieth-century legend: the frenzied ranks of humanity where he passed, the chorus of faith poured out as if by one exultant voice; flowers in his path, hands stretched out to touch the charismatic figure, the pictures of the lean Calvinist visage lighted by candles in the homes of laborer and peasant. The great personages of the time, the kings and heads of state, responding to this tumult -- indeed not daring to fail to respond to it -- yielded him extraordinary honors. Whatever reserves they harbored, or whatever conflicting emotions ran below the surface of the crowd, there streamed for a few brief weeks the light of a pure, an almost holy dedication; and Wilson was placed by destiny at its center. (p.495)
Lloyd Ambrosius argues that Wilson's plan contained a fatal flaw in enforcement because there is no such thing as "world moral opinion," and he may be right. But the critical point here is that Wilson approached foreign policy not as a series of situations to be dealt with but as an arena for the exercise of formative vision; he sought to get out ahead of the petty crises of the day by waging preemptive diplomacy in search of a just and lasting world peace.
Today, America finds itself in a foreign policy crisis. Such crises call for visionary and comprehensive solutions, not simple stopgap measures designed to postpone a reckoning with the central issues. America has faced three such crises during the past century. In response to the first, Woodrow Wilson conceived and promoted the League of Nations and the Fourteen Points; in response to the second, Harry Truman worked with George Marshall to implement the Marshall Plan and with George Kennan to institute the policy of containment.
Yet today, our Democratic Presidential candidates are strangely lacking in foreign policy vision. Certainly there are those who make pulling out of Iraq a highlight of Iraq a highlight of their rhetoric; yet this is only a necessary solution to a temporary problem. Where are the comprehensive foreign policy proposals that America so desperately needs?
Among our candidates, John Edwards and Barack Obama are certainly visionaries, but their platforms are primarily domestic -- Edwards focuses on poverty, while Obama cultivates a mix of social-welfare and government reform issues. Hillary Clinton, Tom Vilsack, and Chris Dodd seem unable to articulate a vision about anything. Joe Biden, a man with much foreign policy experience, prefers the sound of his own voice to substantive policy proposals. Wes Clark, another potential candidate experienced in foreign policy, spares not one sentence of his "100 year vision" for foreign policy. Al Gore supports international cooperation on the environment, but he has not given a major foreign policy address in years.
Of all the candidates, Bill Richardson stands out as easily the most qualified and visionary on American foreign policy. A four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee and former U.N. Ambassador, Richardson has in past demonstrated a commitment to liberal internationalism that goes beyond the statements of other candidates. For instance, here's what Richardson had to say about the United Nations in 1997:The United Nations is a very important tool for advancing American foreign policy interests and building international support for U.S. foreign policy goals.
Specifically, the United Nations is an arena for handling some of the major problems faced by the United States and the world -- problems such as nuclear proliferation, international terrorism, drugs, environmental degradation, regional conflicts based on tribal or ethnic differences, economic competition.
We feel that the United States can best advance its interests, and save taxpayer money, by approaching these transnational problems in a multinational fashion, building support for American goals multilaterally. And the United Nations is the best vehicle to achieve these goals.
In addition, the United Nations is the venue for advancing American interests in promoting human rights, supporting democracy, dealing with refugees, and furthering the causes of women. For these reasons the United Nations is a very important venue in which to deal with our problems.
In his campaign announcement speech, Richardson was the only candidate to place foreign policy issues first and foremost among the reasons for his candidacy:
"I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that’s been done to our country over the last six years," said Richardson. "Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished."
"The next president of the United States must get our troops out of Iraq without delay. Before I became Governor of New Mexico, I served as Ambassador to the United Nations and as Secretary of Energy. I know the Middle East well and it’s clear that our presence in Iraq isn’t helping any longer," said Richardson.
Finally, Richardson's website contains a paragraph (poorly titled "National Security/Foreign Policy") that addresses all the important points with regard to international affairs:
Our next President must be able to restore our standing in the world and I believe I'm the best candidate to do that as well. As someone who has successfully negotiated with some of the world's toughest tyrants, I know face-to-face diplomacy can work. To become a respected international leader again, we need a national security policy that is tough and smart, a military second to none, a firm commitment to building diplomatic alliances, we need to defeat terrorism, and that's our number one national security challenge, we need to promote freedom, alleviate poverty, and stop global warming. The current administration has done none of those things and that means the next president must be able to get started in the first hundred days, again with a clear agenda and proven ability to get the job done.
Even with his expertise and rhetorical emphasis on foreign policy, Richardson has yet to articulate a strong and comprehensive vision for America's role in modern diplomacy. However, he continues to be active on the international scene, having just met with North Korean leaders and brokered a cease-fire in Darfur. These are hopeful signs that the most experienced foreign-policy Presidential candidate in twenty years will use his experience to advance visionary international policies.
As for the other candidates, it is still very, very early in the campaign season, and we will likely hear much more from them in future on issues that matter to the world at large. Whatever the case, every 2008 candidate would do well to remember the closing words of Wilson's Pueblo speech, which ring down through history as the final testament of a man worth emulating, a man whose public life was characterized by courage, prescience, and an unerring belief in the vitality of peace:
There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace. We have accepted that truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
on matters of record http://www.myleftwing.com/showComment.do?commentId=186756
My co-blogger Nonpartisan left a comment at MyLeftWing, which was just so concisely on-target that I wanted to capture it for posterity. The context is about whether voting records matter for presidential aspirants.
spot on.
they're running for President, not Senator -- a job where you set the national agenda, not cast votes on bills other people offer up. I want to know what the candidates want to accomplish in their four years as President, not what they've done in past. I also want to know what impact they intend to have on American political discourse, something Presidents do and Senators really don't. None of this is told by someone's voting record.
spot on.
Discussing the future of Iraq, without the baggage
I'd like to discuss Iraq for once, without mentioning Saddam, Bush, WMD, or neocons. I'd like to discuss Iraq, for once, without mentioning Democrats or Republicans, or invoking a concept like "victory" whose meaning is completely variable depending on which particular intersection of competing interests you choose to embrace. I'd like to discuss Iraq without nebulous worrying about a Shi'a Crescent. I'd like to discuss Iraq without hearing about Democracy, or about Israel, or America. Iraq is Iraq. Can we have that discussion, or are we too bound up in our interests outside Iraq to discuss Iraq, for its own sake?
Here's what we should be talking about, honestly, and without knee-jerk recourse to the various intellectual crutches I listed above.
Is national reconciliation possible between Shi'a and Sunni?
What manner of accomodation should be made for Kurdish sovereignity aspirations?
Who is being protected by the presence of foreign occupation troops - and who will therefore suffer from their withdrawal?
What influence and with whom does Al-Qaeda have in Iraq?
How realistic are concerns over alliance with Iran? What form would such an alliance take?
What are the most pressing domestic and infrastructure needs in Iraq?
What political reforms are the most urgent?
What valid roles can and should a foreign military presence play?
Are there any lessons from Vietnam we can apply to Iraq?
I have my answers to these questions below. Please join me and chime in with your own thoughts.
Is national reconciliation possible between Shi'a and Sunni?
I think it is. Reconciliation has been achieved in other nations before - see South Africa and to a lesser extent the Balkan states, where at least the animosities are no longer rampaging out of control, but channeled into other avenues. But before we talk about how it can be done, we must all agree on whether it can be done. The parties themselves must agree it can be done. I think that Sistani, Maliki, Sadr, and Talabani can and must make joint and public effort in that regard.
What manner of accommodation should be made for Kurdish sovereignty aspirations?
In a nutshell: none. Iraqi sovereignty and stability is not served by a truly autonomous and independent Kurdistan. One reason is because it invites meddling from Turkey, and Iraq has enough problems without another great power taking n active interest. Kurds should enjoy the same type of federalist autonomy that any major province would, but they cannot and must not be allowed to formulate a separate national identity. Kurdish politicians must be incentivized to participate in teh central political process, possibly via making it obvious that the benefits of this - in terms of, shall we blunt, pork - only stem from Baghdad.
Who is being protected by the presence of foreign occupation troops - and who will therefore suffer from their withdrawal?
The Sunni population is primarily benefiting from the presence of foreign troops. As well as all those brave Iraqis who have made immense sacrifices to work towards a free and stable Iraq.
What influence and with whom does Al-Qaeda have in Iraq?
The Sunni population, primarily, excepting Baathists. Agreement on this is a critical matter. We must draw lines of allegiance and clearly and realistically identify who is likely to end up on one side or another of those lines. This means more categories than just "sunni" and "shi'a".
How realistic are concerns over alliance with Iran? What form would such an alliance take?
Given the rivalry between Wom and Najaf, and the immense leverage that Iraq holds in terms of Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf being on Iraqi soil, it's facile to say that Iran will control Iraqi Shi'a. Any relationship between the two nations is going to be complicated by all the usual diplomatic and trade factors. If anything, in a religious plane, it is Iraq and not Iran that has the greater authority.
What are the most pressing domestic and infrastructure needs in Iraq?
Basic electricity and running water are at the top of this list. Intensive training of Iraqi-owned, Iraqi-workforce companies that specialize in these infrastructure regimes is critical.
What political reforms are the most urgent?
I believe centralization of revenue and taxation authority is the most critical, to be the biggest obstacle to graft and corruption and fragmentation. The central government must have sole authority over all government payrolls and ilitary forces' supply.
Also, free speech must be preserved with an absolute cessation of even the slightest bit of censorship of Iraqi media. A commitment to free speech must be made at the highest levels of Iraqi government policy.
What valid roles can and should a foreign military presence play?
Protection of infrastructure; training of domestic security forces; armed guards for all government personnel and facilities; advisers for Iraqi military units; military police units stationed to assist in routine police operations (law and order concerns, not search and destroy). The footprint of these forces must not be concentrated in a few dozen super-bases and the green zone but must be dispersed.
Are there any lessons from Vietnam we can apply to Iraq?
The Combined Action Platoon program is one that needs to be emulated, and actually allowed to succeed this time (MacNamara stripped the CAP program before it had a chance to reap benefits).
Here's what we should be talking about, honestly, and without knee-jerk recourse to the various intellectual crutches I listed above.
Is national reconciliation possible between Shi'a and Sunni?
What manner of accomodation should be made for Kurdish sovereignity aspirations?
Who is being protected by the presence of foreign occupation troops - and who will therefore suffer from their withdrawal?
What influence and with whom does Al-Qaeda have in Iraq?
How realistic are concerns over alliance with Iran? What form would such an alliance take?
What are the most pressing domestic and infrastructure needs in Iraq?
What political reforms are the most urgent?
What valid roles can and should a foreign military presence play?
Are there any lessons from Vietnam we can apply to Iraq?
I have my answers to these questions below. Please join me and chime in with your own thoughts.
Is national reconciliation possible between Shi'a and Sunni?
I think it is. Reconciliation has been achieved in other nations before - see South Africa and to a lesser extent the Balkan states, where at least the animosities are no longer rampaging out of control, but channeled into other avenues. But before we talk about how it can be done, we must all agree on whether it can be done. The parties themselves must agree it can be done. I think that Sistani, Maliki, Sadr, and Talabani can and must make joint and public effort in that regard.
What manner of accommodation should be made for Kurdish sovereignty aspirations?
In a nutshell: none. Iraqi sovereignty and stability is not served by a truly autonomous and independent Kurdistan. One reason is because it invites meddling from Turkey, and Iraq has enough problems without another great power taking n active interest. Kurds should enjoy the same type of federalist autonomy that any major province would, but they cannot and must not be allowed to formulate a separate national identity. Kurdish politicians must be incentivized to participate in teh central political process, possibly via making it obvious that the benefits of this - in terms of, shall we blunt, pork - only stem from Baghdad.
Who is being protected by the presence of foreign occupation troops - and who will therefore suffer from their withdrawal?
The Sunni population is primarily benefiting from the presence of foreign troops. As well as all those brave Iraqis who have made immense sacrifices to work towards a free and stable Iraq.
What influence and with whom does Al-Qaeda have in Iraq?
The Sunni population, primarily, excepting Baathists. Agreement on this is a critical matter. We must draw lines of allegiance and clearly and realistically identify who is likely to end up on one side or another of those lines. This means more categories than just "sunni" and "shi'a".
How realistic are concerns over alliance with Iran? What form would such an alliance take?
Given the rivalry between Wom and Najaf, and the immense leverage that Iraq holds in terms of Karbala, Kufa, and Najaf being on Iraqi soil, it's facile to say that Iran will control Iraqi Shi'a. Any relationship between the two nations is going to be complicated by all the usual diplomatic and trade factors. If anything, in a religious plane, it is Iraq and not Iran that has the greater authority.
What are the most pressing domestic and infrastructure needs in Iraq?
Basic electricity and running water are at the top of this list. Intensive training of Iraqi-owned, Iraqi-workforce companies that specialize in these infrastructure regimes is critical.
What political reforms are the most urgent?
I believe centralization of revenue and taxation authority is the most critical, to be the biggest obstacle to graft and corruption and fragmentation. The central government must have sole authority over all government payrolls and ilitary forces' supply.
Also, free speech must be preserved with an absolute cessation of even the slightest bit of censorship of Iraqi media. A commitment to free speech must be made at the highest levels of Iraqi government policy.
What valid roles can and should a foreign military presence play?
Protection of infrastructure; training of domestic security forces; armed guards for all government personnel and facilities; advisers for Iraqi military units; military police units stationed to assist in routine police operations (law and order concerns, not search and destroy). The footprint of these forces must not be concentrated in a few dozen super-bases and the green zone but must be dispersed.
Are there any lessons from Vietnam we can apply to Iraq?
The Combined Action Platoon program is one that needs to be emulated, and actually allowed to succeed this time (MacNamara stripped the CAP program before it had a chance to reap benefits).
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Cult of Personality
[Cross-posted at My Left Wing and ProgressiveHistorians.]
I hate candidacies like Hillary Clinton's -- big, glitzy, establishment-run, and uninterested in issues like people power. But today I'm incredibly glad Clinton's in the race, because her behemoth of a campaign acts as a check on this:
Now, of course the notion that this event has any significance is ludicrous. I have a friend who put up a Facebook group offering to wax his entire body if 4,000 people signed up; the group had 400 members within a single week, many of whom had no idea who my friend was. The rapid spread of Internet memetics says little to nothing about Obama's strength among young people, as Matt wisely points out in the linked article.
But I'm more interested in this -- the Facebook group's official description:
That's it. No grand explanations of Obama's policy positions, no discussion of why Obama's running, no indication of what we can expect from an Obama presidency. Obama could advocate the introduction of man-eating alligators to the streats of New Orleans -- these kids don't know or care. They're just supporting him because he's famous, and cool, and talks pretty. What does he talk about? Doesn't matter. Bow down to Barack, your new leader -- it's all about the Obama.
This isn't entirely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. A true transformational leader is inseparable from the issue or ideology for which he or she stands. The goal of politics for such leaders is to make their supporters think about the issues that the leaders believe are important and underserved in current society, not to sell themselves as cult heroes or heroines. For this reason, transformational leaders regularly lead off their campaigns with the issues that matter most to them. Here's how Howard Dean, a transformational leader if I ever saw one, introduced himself to the national scene:
The text is riveting because it introduces you immediately to what Dean stands for. Vote for me, Dean says, and I'll get America out of Iraq while returning politics to the people and to issues that really matter.
Here's another example from an earlier time:
This second example -- instantly recognizable as William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech -- is instructive because it's pretty clear that Bryan didn't believe in or understand his own stance on the gold standard. However, having put himself on record as supporting Free Silver in such a public and emotional forum, Bryan no longer had the option of dropping the issue when it ceased to be politically expedient. The speech constituted a sort of binding contract between Bryan and his supporters; if he violated the tenets of what he had uttered, the people would never forgive him or support him again.
Framing a transformational candidacy around an issue or ideology is important for several reasons -- it allows supporters to think instead of just follow blindly, it allows a movement to enable ideological advancement -- but the most important reason is that it keeps candidates honest and accountable. When a leader becomes identified with an ideology, it's nearly impossible for him to pry himself away from it once he's elected (the exception is when circumstances change dramatically, which is why Woodrow Wilson could run on "He Kept Us Out Of War" and then go to war five months later -- unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans changed the nature of American opinion on the subject). Thus, if you voted for Dean in 2004, you were voting to end the war and reform government; likewise (as we Deaniacs explained with varying degrees of patience to Clark and Kucinich supporters) if you wanted to end the war and reform politics, you should vote for Dean. You knew what Dean stood for, and you knew that, once elected, Dean wouldn't dare oppose the principles that had gotten him there in the first place, or he'd be promptly turned out on his ear by his own staunchest supporters.
There are plenty of transformational candidates in 2008 who will tell you exactly what they stand for. If you vote for John Edwards, you're voting to end poverty and support labor. If you vote for Al Gore (assuming he runs), you're voting to conserve the environment and return to a fact-based government. Even non-transformational candidates will tell you what you're getting when you vote for them. For example, if you vote for Bill Richardson, you're voting for Mr. Fix-It, a guy with the experience and the moxie to heal the international wounds gashed by the Bush Administration.
But if you vote for Obama, you're voting for nothing but -- Obama. He's promoting himself just as the Facebook group suggests: as a heroic figure whose substance mattlers little. In doing so, he's preying on the public hunger for headership, cheating his supporters of the opportunity to advance the ideological debate by not advancing it himself.
At the front page of Nation-Building, Aziz (who doesn't really like Obama either) cites Obama's call for universal health care as evidence of "the bold policy risk-taking that we've been waiting for him to embrace." I disagree; Obama's simple mouthing of policy points may be a step in the right direction, but it matters little unless his candidacy internalizes the issue, makes this campaign about more than Obamamania. Without tying himself to the issue, Obama provides us with no guarantee he won't simply reverse himself once elected, since he never really emphasized health care in the first place.
I don't believe Obama is a demagogue, but his candidacy right now is exuding the most dangerous form of demagoguery -- urging supporters to back him blindly, thoughtlessly, because of who he is instead of what he stands for. This is the kind of politics that brought us Huey Long for President in 1936, Douglas MacArthur for President in 1948, Arnold Schwarzenneger for Governor in 2003, and Lyn Swann for Governor in 2006. In a sense, it's also what brought us George W. Bush, who was recruited because of his famous name rather than for his experience, communication skills, or policy credentials. (The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, by the way -- and I would say it. She's another candidate whose support is motivated by who she is instead of what she says or does.)
The cult of personality is more than just vanity politics -- it's the nitroglycerine cocktail that has the power to spell the end of politics as we know it. In the Roman Republic, the cult of personality allowed Lucius Cornelius Sulla to declare himself dictator for life to the cheers of his adoring followers; the cult of personality allowed Julius Caesar to make himself all but king. The result was the end of the Republic and the beginning of Empire, where armies and emperors, not the people, determined policy.
Barack Obama is a smart man with a lot of charisma. He should use his remarkable abilities to advance a bright vision for America's future, not to promote himself as the savior of America's undelineated problems. To do otherwise, to feed the cult of personality while doing nothing to advance American ideological discourse, is irresponsible at best and downright dangerous at worst.
I hate candidacies like Hillary Clinton's -- big, glitzy, establishment-run, and uninterested in issues like people power. But today I'm incredibly glad Clinton's in the race, because her behemoth of a campaign acts as a check on this:Nine days ago, a guy named Farouk Olu Aregbe started a facebook group called one million strong for Barack. A graduate of Missouri Western State University, Aregbe was the student body President for two terms and the President of the black student association, and he's now pursuing an MBA. The facebook group he startedhas broken the 100,000 member barrier. The target is 1,000,000 members by February 5. Every campaign thinks that they are going to be awesome online, that they will hire the best strategists and focus on what the internet can do for them. But here we have a facebook group that might sign up one million young people in three weeks.
Now, of course the notion that this event has any significance is ludicrous. I have a friend who put up a Facebook group offering to wax his entire body if 4,000 people signed up; the group had 400 members within a single week, many of whom had no idea who my friend was. The rapid spread of Internet memetics says little to nothing about Obama's strength among young people, as Matt wisely points out in the linked article.
But I'm more interested in this -- the Facebook group's official description:
The goal here is simple - get one million strong in support of the Next President of the United States
Lets reach this goal, then set a new goal
That's it. No grand explanations of Obama's policy positions, no discussion of why Obama's running, no indication of what we can expect from an Obama presidency. Obama could advocate the introduction of man-eating alligators to the streats of New Orleans -- these kids don't know or care. They're just supporting him because he's famous, and cool, and talks pretty. What does he talk about? Doesn't matter. Bow down to Barack, your new leader -- it's all about the Obama.
This isn't entirely Obama's fault, but a lot of it is. A true transformational leader is inseparable from the issue or ideology for which he or she stands. The goal of politics for such leaders is to make their supporters think about the issues that the leaders believe are important and underserved in current society, not to sell themselves as cult heroes or heroines. For this reason, transformational leaders regularly lead off their campaigns with the issues that matter most to them. Here's how Howard Dean, a transformational leader if I ever saw one, introduced himself to the national scene:
What I want to know... is why in the world the Democratic party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?
What I want to know... is why are Democratic party leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be, the question should be: can we afford a tax cut at all with the largest deficit in the history of this country?
What I want to know... is why we're fighting in Congress about the Patient's Bill of Rights when the Democratic party ought to be standing up for health care for every single American man, woman, and child in this country?
What I want to know... is why our folks are voting for the president's No Child Left Behind bill that leaves every child behind, every teacher behind, every school board behind, and every property tax payer behind?
I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
The text is riveting because it introduces you immediately to what Dean stands for. Vote for me, Dean says, and I'll get America out of Iraq while returning politics to the people and to issues that really matter.
Here's another example from an earlier time:
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
This second example -- instantly recognizable as William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech -- is instructive because it's pretty clear that Bryan didn't believe in or understand his own stance on the gold standard. However, having put himself on record as supporting Free Silver in such a public and emotional forum, Bryan no longer had the option of dropping the issue when it ceased to be politically expedient. The speech constituted a sort of binding contract between Bryan and his supporters; if he violated the tenets of what he had uttered, the people would never forgive him or support him again.
Framing a transformational candidacy around an issue or ideology is important for several reasons -- it allows supporters to think instead of just follow blindly, it allows a movement to enable ideological advancement -- but the most important reason is that it keeps candidates honest and accountable. When a leader becomes identified with an ideology, it's nearly impossible for him to pry himself away from it once he's elected (the exception is when circumstances change dramatically, which is why Woodrow Wilson could run on "He Kept Us Out Of War" and then go to war five months later -- unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans changed the nature of American opinion on the subject). Thus, if you voted for Dean in 2004, you were voting to end the war and reform government; likewise (as we Deaniacs explained with varying degrees of patience to Clark and Kucinich supporters) if you wanted to end the war and reform politics, you should vote for Dean. You knew what Dean stood for, and you knew that, once elected, Dean wouldn't dare oppose the principles that had gotten him there in the first place, or he'd be promptly turned out on his ear by his own staunchest supporters.
There are plenty of transformational candidates in 2008 who will tell you exactly what they stand for. If you vote for John Edwards, you're voting to end poverty and support labor. If you vote for Al Gore (assuming he runs), you're voting to conserve the environment and return to a fact-based government. Even non-transformational candidates will tell you what you're getting when you vote for them. For example, if you vote for Bill Richardson, you're voting for Mr. Fix-It, a guy with the experience and the moxie to heal the international wounds gashed by the Bush Administration.
But if you vote for Obama, you're voting for nothing but -- Obama. He's promoting himself just as the Facebook group suggests: as a heroic figure whose substance mattlers little. In doing so, he's preying on the public hunger for headership, cheating his supporters of the opportunity to advance the ideological debate by not advancing it himself.
At the front page of Nation-Building, Aziz (who doesn't really like Obama either) cites Obama's call for universal health care as evidence of "the bold policy risk-taking that we've been waiting for him to embrace." I disagree; Obama's simple mouthing of policy points may be a step in the right direction, but it matters little unless his candidacy internalizes the issue, makes this campaign about more than Obamamania. Without tying himself to the issue, Obama provides us with no guarantee he won't simply reverse himself once elected, since he never really emphasized health care in the first place.
I don't believe Obama is a demagogue, but his candidacy right now is exuding the most dangerous form of demagoguery -- urging supporters to back him blindly, thoughtlessly, because of who he is instead of what he stands for. This is the kind of politics that brought us Huey Long for President in 1936, Douglas MacArthur for President in 1948, Arnold Schwarzenneger for Governor in 2003, and Lyn Swann for Governor in 2006. In a sense, it's also what brought us George W. Bush, who was recruited because of his famous name rather than for his experience, communication skills, or policy credentials. (The same could be said for Hillary Clinton, by the way -- and I would say it. She's another candidate whose support is motivated by who she is instead of what she says or does.)
The cult of personality is more than just vanity politics -- it's the nitroglycerine cocktail that has the power to spell the end of politics as we know it. In the Roman Republic, the cult of personality allowed Lucius Cornelius Sulla to declare himself dictator for life to the cheers of his adoring followers; the cult of personality allowed Julius Caesar to make himself all but king. The result was the end of the Republic and the beginning of Empire, where armies and emperors, not the people, determined policy.
Barack Obama is a smart man with a lot of charisma. He should use his remarkable abilities to advance a bright vision for America's future, not to promote himself as the savior of America's undelineated problems. To do otherwise, to feed the cult of personality while doing nothing to advance American ideological discourse, is irresponsible at best and downright dangerous at worst.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
abolish the corporate income tax http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010604.php
Kevin Drum notes that the age of conservative tax revolt is ending, heralded by the last six years of profligate spending and massive deficits under Republican rule. Fiscal conservatism is dead, at least as far as conservatives go.
It's clear that taxes must go up if we are to meet the challenges of the more dangerous world of the 21st century. We need a larger army with better peace-keeping and nation-building training; we need national healthcare; we need to meet the challenge of global warming (which as Al Gore just said to a cheering crowd in Boise, only lacks political will, "and political will is a renewable resource.")
The best way to raise revenue is probably some kind of VAT, but the regressive nature of such consumption taxes would have to be addressed.
Of course, introducing a VAT would be a huge political challenge, so as part of a grand bargain to make it more palatable, Kevin has the novel idea of pairing such a policy with abolishing corporate income taxes:
Even if there's some huge flaw to this plan - and I am sure that a pro-business conservative will be along shortly to educate us why cutting taxes for big business is good but abolishing them is bad - it's exactly the kind of bold policy proposal that presidential primaries were born to enable national debates over. Since a recurring theme here at Nation-Building is that a candidate should seek transformative change, it would be nice to see someone take up this issue (it would be delightful if it were Obama, but I'm not holding my breath).
It's clear that taxes must go up if we are to meet the challenges of the more dangerous world of the 21st century. We need a larger army with better peace-keeping and nation-building training; we need national healthcare; we need to meet the challenge of global warming (which as Al Gore just said to a cheering crowd in Boise, only lacks political will, "and political will is a renewable resource.")
The best way to raise revenue is probably some kind of VAT, but the regressive nature of such consumption taxes would have to be addressed.
Of course, introducing a VAT would be a huge political challenge, so as part of a grand bargain to make it more palatable, Kevin has the novel idea of pairing such a policy with abolishing corporate income taxes:
it doesn't raise all that much money any more (less than 2% of GDP); it's by far the biggest source of tax complexity we have; it mostly gets passed on to consumers anyway; and it's the foundation of all corporate welfare. Take away the corporate income tax, and presto! No more tax breaks for special interests. K Street would be decimated.
Consider this deal: The corporate income tax goes away. It's replaced by a VAT plus an increase in capital gains and dividend taxes to the same level as the tax on income. (Added bonus: the whole "double taxation" argument goes away since corporate profits aren't taxed in the first place.) And the whole thing is used to fund national healthcare (along with the payroll taxes and general fund revenues that are already dedicated to healthcare). States could be encouraged to follow suit by agreeing to pick up the Medicaid costs of any state that kills its own corporate income tax.
Big business ought to love it. Their income taxes go away, and with it whole platoons of their accounting departments. No more relocating corporate headquarters to Aruba! Healthcare also goes away, which promises to save them both money and hassle. The replacement tax, a VAT, is easy to administer and is directly passed on to customers, much like a sales tax. Every business would be on a level playing field, regardless of size or industry.
Even if there's some huge flaw to this plan - and I am sure that a pro-business conservative will be along shortly to educate us why cutting taxes for big business is good but abolishing them is bad - it's exactly the kind of bold policy proposal that presidential primaries were born to enable national debates over. Since a recurring theme here at Nation-Building is that a candidate should seek transformative change, it would be nice to see someone take up this issue (it would be delightful if it were Obama, but I'm not holding my breath).
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Do we need a hero as President? http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/34080.html
[Cross-posted at ProgressiveHistorians.]Rick Shenkman, in an excellent essay, argues persuasively that we don't. Adapting a framework of Bruno Bettelheim's, he compares JFK, Reagan, and Obama as different types of heroic figures in the American psyche. I highly recommend the entire essay, though I would take some issue with Shenkman's postulate that Democrats have not seen an Obama-like figure since the 1960's with JFK and RFK, one who inspires "ecstatic joy." For many activists, Howard Dean inspired that kind of mindless ecstasy in 2004. Perhaps for a broader spectrum, Jesse Jackson inspired it in 1988.
Here's Shenkman's punchline regarding Obama:
What kind of hero is Obama? I don't think we can know for sure quite yet, though he seems very JFKish to me. But that he is in the heroic mold can't be doubted.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether what we need is a hero or a president. Sometimes presidents can be heroes. But rarely. Me. I'd settle for a president who shares my basic outlook and is competent at the job. I'll leave the hero stuff to Friday nights at the cinema.
If you're looking for a "competent," pragmatic figure like Shenkman is, then you should go vote for Bill Richardson. Seriously -- there's no shame in that at all. The guy has been a Congressman, Energy Secretary, Ambassador to the United Nations, and two-term Governor. He's been a special envoy to North Korea and just finished making peace in Darfur. He's easily the most qualified person to seek the office of President since Alexander Haig, and possibly since Adlai Stevenson.
But I won't be joining you. Because I believe the Presidency isn't solely about government, it's about inspiration, about uplifting the national character. People need someone to look up to, to pin their hopes and dreams on, to be an almost mythical (in the Bettelheim sense) role model. There's an inherent conflation between the mythical and the fairy-tale in politics: the ordinary person is raised up to become extraordinary, and is then deified upon reaching that height.
Where would America be if John Kennedy had not asked us "what you can do for your country"? Conversely, where would America be if Bill Clinton or George Bush had displayed one tenth the heroism of a Kennedy or a Dean? The body politic needs every so often to be renewed by larger-than-life inspiration. It is something that cannot be provided by a mentor, a local office-holder, or even a religious figure (inasmuch as religious leaders do not speak for all Americans). It is uniquely the prerogative of the President to inspire America at a single stroke, and Americans hunger for this as never before.
I oppose Obama precisely because he eschews this type of inspiration. In his book The Audacity of Hope, he extols the virtues of "the pragmatic, nonideological attitude of the majority of Americans" (p. 34) and criticizes the Right for, of all things, its "passionate intensity" (p. 39). But you cannot have transformational leadership without these things -- without a passionate, desperate belief in the importance of an issue or a viewpoint. John Edwards is an example of such a belief regarding poverty; Al Gore is an example regarding climate change. Speechifying about "civility" while poor people starve and the earth hurtles down the road to disaster, as Obama likes to do, is brainless pablum.
I believe America is past due for a hero President. In fact, I believe the American psyche is desperate for one. Whether such a figure will emerge in 2008 is a question worth pondering, perhaps worth influencing. But I refuse to abandon the field to support a candidate who has no interest in transforming America.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
nailing down Obama
I've been arguing for some time that Obama, despite a compelling personal story, immaculate history of selfless public service and social work, and mastery of unifying rhetoric that does admittedly push just the right emotional buttons for a purple-politics inclined fellow like myself, still hasn't said a single practical thing in terms of policy prescriptions. When he does, his fairytale "above it all" meta-political persona is going to crudely deflate and he will be projected onto either the "wonk" or the "hack" axes like the rest of us mere mortals.
Conservative blogger Daniel Larson, whose weblog is the epitome of Purple commentary, thinks it's the Wonk's Road ahead:
I have to agree that the Wonk persona is more likely than the Hack, perhaps because I hhave also bought into the Obama-as-Saint narrative to some degree and "hack" is such a dirty word.
Of course there is a third narrative waiting in the wings: Barack (Saddam) Hussein Osama the Defeatocrat Surrender Monkey who dresses like Iranian tyrants. I'll leave that sordid meme to RedState.com for flogging.
At any rate, in a year's time, everyone will have nailed Obama to one cross or another. The question is whether Obama will respond as has been his wont until now: by trying to please everybody? Or will he take a stand, and say I am liberal, I am for single-payer, for public campaign financing, for... (insert Big Idea of Transformative Change here). Time will tell.
Conservative blogger Daniel Larson, whose weblog is the epitome of Purple commentary, thinks it's the Wonk's Road ahead:
By this time next year, Obama will have had to say something distinctive about substantive policy. He will have to cast votes on the war and numerous other issues that he will have to be able to defend, and this time he won’t have a cartoon opponent like Alan Keyes to overcome.
What he says is almost beside the point. Some people will agree, probably more will disagree, but at that point the dream of an Obama who will reconcile all oppositions within himself will be over. That is inevitable in political contestation, which is why the promise to “bring people together” is always such an illusory, deceitful one. Once he finally does say something, he will no longer be Barack, Font of National Good Feelings, but will become a rather conventional and boring pol who will either reveal himself to be a dreary technocrat spouting, Gore-like, minute details of legislation or the creamless cream puff I take him to be. Because of his inexperience and the superficial nature of his appeal to date, he will probably take the technocratic route to show that he “understands the issues” and he will overcompensate here. He will cease to charm, and he will try to persuade by rattling off facts and figures.
I have to agree that the Wonk persona is more likely than the Hack, perhaps because I hhave also bought into the Obama-as-Saint narrative to some degree and "hack" is such a dirty word.
Of course there is a third narrative waiting in the wings: Barack (Saddam) Hussein Osama the Defeatocrat Surrender Monkey who dresses like Iranian tyrants. I'll leave that sordid meme to RedState.com for flogging.
At any rate, in a year's time, everyone will have nailed Obama to one cross or another. The question is whether Obama will respond as has been his wont until now: by trying to please everybody? Or will he take a stand, and say I am liberal, I am for single-payer, for public campaign financing, for... (insert Big Idea of Transformative Change here). Time will tell.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Battle of the campaign advisors: Dodd vs. Edwards
Hey fellow Deaniacs, remember the guy who said this?
Or this?
Yes, folks, Jim Jordan has now signed on to work for Christopher Dodd.
Compare Dodd's choice with this guy:
David Bonior, that's who. New campaign manager for John Edwards.
Who do you think made the best choice?
[Dean] kicks up so much dust to make sure voters never ask, "Is this man ready to be leader of the free world?" Once the campaign is on that turf, and not the Internet and fly-arounds, that’s when we will show our real strength.
Or this?
[Dean]'s tapped into an angry, motivated constituency who, for one quarter at least, pulled out their checkbooks.
Yes, folks, Jim Jordan has now signed on to work for Christopher Dodd.
Compare Dodd's choice with this guy:
We don't need another commission. What we need is action. What we need is pressure. What we need is enforcement and action.
David Bonior, that's who. New campaign manager for John Edwards.
Who do you think made the best choice?
Why Edwards over Obama?
I think it largely inevitable that Obama will declare his presidential ambitions before the end of January. I am a native of Illinois, and have a deep respect for this man. But I think that in the end he is running for the wrong reasons. His motives are gold, but his assessment and strategy are based on the reality crafted by fawning media coverage, and the illusion of invincibility that arises from never having truly been tested in a national campaign by a worthy opponent.
In a nutshell, Obama is being seduced by the tales of his own prowess and his own exceptionalism.
Edwards, meanwhile, is walking a deliberately harder path. Edwards gave up his Senate seat in 2004 to run and has spent the intervening two years building genuine grassroots organizations. And now as he announces his campaign he is embracing the very issues that even mainstream liberals tend to overlook - the poor, the weak. The symbolism of announcing from New Orleans brings tears to the eye - a commitment and statement about just who Edwards has in mind. Recall that no other candidate in 2000 even mentioned poverty - not even my champion, Howard Dean - as a policy goal.
Ultimately, Obama's desire for the presidency makes him a less effective Senator. Edwards is the one who has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the status quo, whereas Obama seeks to build consensus across an aisle and a divide that has been poisoned. Do we seek incremental change or revolutionary progress? That is the choice before us.
Edwards has my support, unless Gore runs. I regret that I must publicly hope that Obama decides to serve the people of Illinois and the nation as Senator, completing his term and being a force for renewal and ethical action, rather than waste the opportunity he has been handed in a bid for the Presidency.
In a nutshell, Obama is being seduced by the tales of his own prowess and his own exceptionalism.
Edwards, meanwhile, is walking a deliberately harder path. Edwards gave up his Senate seat in 2004 to run and has spent the intervening two years building genuine grassroots organizations. And now as he announces his campaign he is embracing the very issues that even mainstream liberals tend to overlook - the poor, the weak. The symbolism of announcing from New Orleans brings tears to the eye - a commitment and statement about just who Edwards has in mind. Recall that no other candidate in 2000 even mentioned poverty - not even my champion, Howard Dean - as a policy goal.
Ultimately, Obama's desire for the presidency makes him a less effective Senator. Edwards is the one who has demonstrated a willingness to challenge the status quo, whereas Obama seeks to build consensus across an aisle and a divide that has been poisoned. Do we seek incremental change or revolutionary progress? That is the choice before us.
Edwards has my support, unless Gore runs. I regret that I must publicly hope that Obama decides to serve the people of Illinois and the nation as Senator, completing his term and being a force for renewal and ethical action, rather than waste the opportunity he has been handed in a bid for the Presidency.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Lying Plagiarists for President!
[Note: This is my first post at Nation-Building, and I'm proud to be the newest part of the team here. This post is crossposted at my community site, ProgressiveHistorians, as well as at Daily Kos, MyDD, and My Left Wing. I promise not all my posts will be as hard-hitting as this one.]
Greetings! I'm Nonpartisan, proprietor of ProgressiveHistorians and longtime liberal blogger. I'm here to tell you about a new project I'm heading up, a new grassroots movement that will sweep the country with its brilliance: Lying Plagiarists for President.
Much in the same way Unity08 is a front group for Michael Bloomberg, Lying Plagiarists for President is organized as a platform for 2008 Presidential candidate Joseph Biden. Co-chaired by former Columbia University professor Joseph Ellis, former New York Times columnist Jayson Blair, and former Washington Post blogger Ben Domenech, who crossed parties to back Biden, the group's long-term goals include providing resources and support to lying plagiarists everywhere and transforming plagiarism reputation from a crime into the bold and courageous act we know it to be.
As you may or may not know, I'm a historian. And historians as a profession have been effusive in our praise for plagiarism. For instance, here's what our most influential professional organization, the American Historical Association, has to say on the subject:
And prominent historian and blogger Johnathan Dresner has this to say about the unfairly maligned art:
As you can see, the historical community truly understands the critical significance of plagiarism to American life. But one prominent politician understands it even better -- for he martyred his career in its defense eighteen years ago.
In 1987, Joe Biden was well on his way to becoming the next President of the United States. According to reporter Lawrence I. Barrett, writing in TIME Magazine, Biden was a particularly strong contender in the large field:
But then the bottom fell out of Biden's campaign, as an "attack video" put together by the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis (likely without Dukakis' knowledge) proved that Biden was, in fact, a lying plagiarist. Michael Harvey explains:
TIME reporter George J. Church wrote that the video, of which I was unable to obtain a copy, was even worse:
Joe Biden learned the hard way that standing up for the lost art of plagiarism is killer for one's political career. But he's hoping that eighteen years have broadened the public's tolerance for the oppressed minority of proud plagiarists. Biden's running for President again, and Lying Plagiarists for President is thrilled to support his Presidential run. Our slogan is: Lying Plagiarists for President -- Because That's What The Other Guy Said. And we're proud to support our guy, the next President of the United States -- Joe Biden.
Greetings! I'm Nonpartisan, proprietor of ProgressiveHistorians and longtime liberal blogger. I'm here to tell you about a new project I'm heading up, a new grassroots movement that will sweep the country with its brilliance: Lying Plagiarists for President.Much in the same way Unity08 is a front group for Michael Bloomberg, Lying Plagiarists for President is organized as a platform for 2008 Presidential candidate Joseph Biden. Co-chaired by former Columbia University professor Joseph Ellis, former New York Times columnist Jayson Blair, and former Washington Post blogger Ben Domenech, who crossed parties to back Biden, the group's long-term goals include providing resources and support to lying plagiarists everywhere and transforming plagiarism reputation from a crime into the bold and courageous act we know it to be.
As you may or may not know, I'm a historian. And historians as a profession have been effusive in our praise for plagiarism. For instance, here's what our most influential professional organization, the American Historical Association, has to say on the subject:
The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author’s work, and the presentation of it as one’s own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It seriously undermines the credibility of the plagiarist, and can do irreparable harm to a historian’s career. ...
Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another’s language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without subsequent attribution. Borrowing unexamined primary source references from a secondary work without citing that work is likewise inappropriate. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others.
And prominent historian and blogger Johnathan Dresner has this to say about the unfairly maligned art:
Definition: Plagiarism is the use of the words or ideas of another person without proper acknowledgement.
Policy: Plagiarism is intellectual theft: it is not acceptable in any endeavor, but in an educational setting it is particularly repugnant.
As you can see, the historical community truly understands the critical significance of plagiarism to American life. But one prominent politician understands it even better -- for he martyred his career in its defense eighteen years ago.
In 1987, Joe Biden was well on his way to becoming the next President of the United States. According to reporter Lawrence I. Barrett, writing in TIME Magazine, Biden was a particularly strong contender in the large field:
Biden remains at the bottom of polls, but party donors, who know that ! preliminary surveys are not critical, have put his campaign treasury in the penthouse with more than $2 million in contributions. Says Republican Analyst John Sears: "Biden, on paper, has more to work with in putting together a broadly based candidacy than any of the other Democrats."
But then the bottom fell out of Biden's campaign, as an "attack video" put together by the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis (likely without Dukakis' knowledge) proved that Biden was, in fact, a lying plagiarist. Michael Harvey explains:
In 1987, for instance, Senator Joe Biden, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, was accused of plagiarizing passages in speeches and interviews from the oratory of a British politician, Neil Kinnock. Here are some of the passages in question:Kinnock (original)
Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?
Was it because our predecessors were thick? Does anybody really think that they didn't get what we had because they didn't have the talent or the strength or the endurance or the commitment? Of course not. It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.Biden
I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college?
Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? . . . No, it's not because they weren't as smart. It's not because they didn't work as hard. It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand . . .
It turned out Biden had also borrowed passages from old campaign speeches by Robert Kennedy and had inflated his academic record. But oratory has a long tradition of borrowing and even "heavy lifting," as speechwriters call it, so Biden stayed alive in the presidential race. The last straw, however, came when it turned out that twenty years earlier Biden had received a failing grade in a law school course for plagiarizing a legal article (he'd given a single footnote while lifting five full pages from the article). Biden said he'd been unaware of the appropriate standards for legal briefs, but the public was unimpressed. His campaign collapsed and he withdrew from the race.
TIME reporter George J. Church wrote that the video, of which I was unable to obtain a copy, was even worse:
The tapes of the two speakers, which were eventually aired on U.S. television, show Biden not only echoing Kinnock's words but aping his gestures.
Joe Biden learned the hard way that standing up for the lost art of plagiarism is killer for one's political career. But he's hoping that eighteen years have broadened the public's tolerance for the oppressed minority of proud plagiarists. Biden's running for President again, and Lying Plagiarists for President is thrilled to support his Presidential run. Our slogan is: Lying Plagiarists for President -- Because That's What The Other Guy Said. And we're proud to support our guy, the next President of the United States -- Joe Biden.
Monday, January 01, 2007
10 Questions for Heather Mac Donald http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/01/10-questions-for-heather-mac-donald.php
Over at GNXP I have a 10 questions up for Heather Mac Donald, the atheist conservative who was recently the center of controversy because of her vocal secularity on the Right. Below the fold is the first Q & A.
1) OK, I'll get this out of the way. What prompted you to "come out" as an atheist in The American Conservative earlier this year? A friend of mine suggested that you might have become frustrated with the lack of a "reality based" conservatism during this administration, in particular in its attitude toward immigration. Is he going down the right track?
I wrote The American Conservative piece out of frustration with the preening piety of conservative pundits. I attended a New York cocktail party in 2003, for example, where a prominent columnist said to the group standing around him: "We all know that what makes Republicans superior to Democrats is their religious faith." This sentiment has been repeated in print ad nauseam, along with its twin: "We all know that morality is not possible without religion." I didn't then have the courage to point out to the prominent columnist that quite a few conservatives and Republicans of the highest standing had no religious faith, without apparent injury to their principles or their behavior.
Around that time, I had started noticing the puzzling logic of petitionary prayer. What was the theory of God behind prayer websites, for example: that God is a democratic pol with his finger to the wind of public opinion? Is the idea that if only five people are praying for the recovery of a beloved grandmother from stroke, say, God will brush them off, but that if you can summon five thousand people to plead her case, he will perk up and take notice: "Oh, now I understand, this person's life is important"? And what if an equally beloved grandmother comes from a family of atheist curs? Since she has no one to pray for her, will God simply look the other way? If someone could explain this to me, I would be very grateful.
I also wondered at the narcissism of believers who credit their good fortune to God. A cancer survivor who claims that God cured him implies that his worthiness is so obvious that God had to act. It never occurs to him to ask what this explanation for his deliverance says about the cancer victim in the hospital bed next to his, who, despite the fervent prayers of her family, died anyway.
As I was pondering whether any of these practices could be reconciled with rationality, the religious gloating of the conservative intelligentsia only grew louder. The onset of the Iraq war expanded the domain of religious triumphalism to transatlantic relations: what makes America superior to Europe, we were told by conservative opinionizers, is its religious faith and its willingness to invade Iraq. George Bush made the connection between religious beliefs and the Iraq war explicit, with his childlike claim that freedom was God's gift to humanity and that he was delivering that gift himself by invading Iraq.
I need not rehearse here how Bush's invocation of the divine gift of freedom overlooks the Bible, the persistence throughout history of hierarchical societies that have little use for personal autonomy, and the unique, centuries-long struggle in the West to create the institutions of limited government that underwrite our Western idea of freedom. Suffice it to say, the predictable outcome of the Iraq invasion did not convince me that religious belief was a particularly trustworthy ground for political action.
So in the American Conservative piece I wanted to offer some resistance to the assumption of conservative religious unanimity. I tried to point out that conservatism has no necessary relation to religious belief, and that rational thought, not revelation, is all that is required to arrive at the fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law. I find it depressing that every organ of conservative opinion reflexively cheers on creationism and intelligent design, while delivering snide pot shots at the Enlightenment. Which of the astounding fruits of empiricism would these Enlightenment-bashers dispense with: the conquest of cholera and other infectious diseases, emergency room medicine, jet travel, or the internet, to name just a handful of the millions of human triumphs that we take for granted?
My hope in writing the piece was that the next time a conservative pundit, speaking for and to other conservatives, assumes that he is surrounded by like-minded believers because of course to be conservative is to be religious, that for just a moment a doubt might pass through his mind whether some in his audience may be without faith. And the worst part would be: he couldn't tell who they are.
1) OK, I'll get this out of the way. What prompted you to "come out" as an atheist in The American Conservative earlier this year? A friend of mine suggested that you might have become frustrated with the lack of a "reality based" conservatism during this administration, in particular in its attitude toward immigration. Is he going down the right track?
I wrote The American Conservative piece out of frustration with the preening piety of conservative pundits. I attended a New York cocktail party in 2003, for example, where a prominent columnist said to the group standing around him: "We all know that what makes Republicans superior to Democrats is their religious faith." This sentiment has been repeated in print ad nauseam, along with its twin: "We all know that morality is not possible without religion." I didn't then have the courage to point out to the prominent columnist that quite a few conservatives and Republicans of the highest standing had no religious faith, without apparent injury to their principles or their behavior.
Around that time, I had started noticing the puzzling logic of petitionary prayer. What was the theory of God behind prayer websites, for example: that God is a democratic pol with his finger to the wind of public opinion? Is the idea that if only five people are praying for the recovery of a beloved grandmother from stroke, say, God will brush them off, but that if you can summon five thousand people to plead her case, he will perk up and take notice: "Oh, now I understand, this person's life is important"? And what if an equally beloved grandmother comes from a family of atheist curs? Since she has no one to pray for her, will God simply look the other way? If someone could explain this to me, I would be very grateful.
I also wondered at the narcissism of believers who credit their good fortune to God. A cancer survivor who claims that God cured him implies that his worthiness is so obvious that God had to act. It never occurs to him to ask what this explanation for his deliverance says about the cancer victim in the hospital bed next to his, who, despite the fervent prayers of her family, died anyway.
As I was pondering whether any of these practices could be reconciled with rationality, the religious gloating of the conservative intelligentsia only grew louder. The onset of the Iraq war expanded the domain of religious triumphalism to transatlantic relations: what makes America superior to Europe, we were told by conservative opinionizers, is its religious faith and its willingness to invade Iraq. George Bush made the connection between religious beliefs and the Iraq war explicit, with his childlike claim that freedom was God's gift to humanity and that he was delivering that gift himself by invading Iraq.
I need not rehearse here how Bush's invocation of the divine gift of freedom overlooks the Bible, the persistence throughout history of hierarchical societies that have little use for personal autonomy, and the unique, centuries-long struggle in the West to create the institutions of limited government that underwrite our Western idea of freedom. Suffice it to say, the predictable outcome of the Iraq invasion did not convince me that religious belief was a particularly trustworthy ground for political action.
So in the American Conservative piece I wanted to offer some resistance to the assumption of conservative religious unanimity. I tried to point out that conservatism has no necessary relation to religious belief, and that rational thought, not revelation, is all that is required to arrive at the fundamental conservative principles of personal responsibility and the rule of law. I find it depressing that every organ of conservative opinion reflexively cheers on creationism and intelligent design, while delivering snide pot shots at the Enlightenment. Which of the astounding fruits of empiricism would these Enlightenment-bashers dispense with: the conquest of cholera and other infectious diseases, emergency room medicine, jet travel, or the internet, to name just a handful of the millions of human triumphs that we take for granted?
My hope in writing the piece was that the next time a conservative pundit, speaking for and to other conservatives, assumes that he is surrounded by like-minded believers because of course to be conservative is to be religious, that for just a moment a doubt might pass through his mind whether some in his audience may be without faith. And the worst part would be: he couldn't tell who they are.
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
