Headline Junky: Politics Archives

Saturday, September 27, 2008

McCain's Pakistan Flip Flop

This isn't the first time I've flagged these comments made by John McCain in an interview with the editors of Defense News last October. I'm posting them again in light of last night's debate, where McCain once again attacked Barack Obama for his stance on American strikes against al-Qaida leadership in Pakistan's tribal frontier:

Q: Does the U.S. have any options with regard to al-Qaida and reputed al-Qaida strongholds in the federally unregulated areas in Pakistan? Other than what seems to be sort of a status quo of waiting for them to come over the border, the Pakistani Army occasionally launching a strike to -- well, it's hard to say for what end because they don't seem to be sustained efforts. What are the U.S. options there?
McCain: I think they're very difficult options. I think that if we knew of al-Qaida -- more specifically Taliban, it's mainly Taliban that are operating in these places -- that we have to do what's necessary. We don't have to advertise it. We don't have to embarrass or humiliate the Pakistani government. . .
. . .These are all very tough calls, and in summary I think that what happens in Waziristan will be dictated by events in Islamabad, but I also think that we, where necessary, without in any way embarrassing our friends, can have a lot of options.
Q: So if you were president and you knew that bin Laden were over there, you had a target spotting, you could nail him, you'd go get him?
McCain: Sure. Sure. We have to, and I'm sure that after the initial flurry, that whoever our friends are, wherever he is, would be relieved because, as I mentioned to you before, he's still very effective in the world, very, very effective.

That's a pretty clear case of political bad faith, but oddly enough it hasn't gotten a whole lot of traction.

Posted by Judah in: Media Coverage Pakistan Politics

Friday, September 26, 2008

Amen

Laura Rozen:

It's an extraordinary and disturbing spectacle that's going on now, with this White House unable to convince even and especially its own party to rescue what they argue is essentially the country's financial liquidity. All these years of gratuitous demagoguery, ideological rigidity, ultra-partisanship, secrecy, cronyism, lying, attacks on dissent and the media and immigrants and calling concerns about torture and domestic spying treasonous, it all just comes down to total bankruptcy and weakness and pleas to any and all in the end to please help. Extend them the reasonableness, the decency, the good will that in the almost fascistic overreach of their high power days they never considered extending, they sneered at. They presided over the destruction of so much they touched, sometimes on a cataclysmic scale; and now they are weak and have made this country weaker and more vulnerable before its adversaries to a degree unimaginable a decade ago. Such deeply, deeply irresponsible men.

Amen.

Posted by Judah in: Markets & Finance Politics

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Missing the Obvious Followup

This entire post is covered by the caveat that I didn't see the entire Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin, just the brutal clip of Palin's Russia answer. So it could be that Couric went on to ask the question I formulate below. But it seems to me that getting into a debate about whether or not proximity to two foreign countries qualifies as "foreign policy credentials" actually lets Palin off the hook. Couric should have taken Palin at her word and moved on to the obvious followup: "In that case, what should our policy towards Russia be in the aftermath of the Georgian invasion?" Granted, it's a question that no one can really answer right now, but by forcing Palin to actually discuss a foreign policy question of substance it would have put her claims of being qualified to the test.

Posted by Judah in: Media Coverage Politics

Thursday, September 25, 2008

McCain to the Rescue?

Given how hysterical his response to this financial crisis has been, about the last place John McCain should be is anywhere near the discussions aimed at resolving it.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Pull the Plug

Given that his campaign is the biggest obstacle standing between him and the presidency, it shouldn't come as a big surprise that John McCain is so eager to suspend it.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Saturday, September 20, 2008

More of the Same?

I was just thinking this morning how the problem with the Obama campaign's strategy of equating John McCain to President Bush is that it ignores the ways in which the last two years of Bush's presidency bear very little resemblance to the first six. Between the Democratic Congress, the ascendancy of the Condoleezza Rice-Bob Gates (ie. the sane) axis in foreign policy, and his lameduck status, Bush has managed if not to undo, at least to address and in some cases to mitigate a lot of the damage he did prior to the 2006 mid-term elections. It's a thought that's borne out by this Jonathan Rauch article (via Andrew Sullivan) in the National Journal:

Had Bush left office at the beginning of last year, his tenure might indeed have gone down as calamitous. Winding up in the middling ranks, then, would be no mean accomplishment. Far from being happenstance, such a finish would reflect an unusual period of course correction that might be thought of as Bush's third term.

What's more, I think the country, and even the most die-hard Democrats, are over Bush in a way that seemed unimaginable two years ago. So going after him neither motivates the base nor grabs the fence-sitters, many of whom might have voted for him in 2004 and won't appreciate being reminded of the fact. Obama should go after McCain, who makes a pretty easy target all by himself.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Saturday, September 20, 2008

All Bark, No Bite

The NY Observer ran an important piece earlier this week that didn't seem to get much of an echo on the political sites I follow. Not surprising, since the piece discusses the way in which political print journalism and political journalism in general has lost its ability to resonate:

In-boxes crammed with New York Times articles and Huffington Post hyperlinks do not advertise their relative value or importance. Everything is equal, everything is a tie and nothing, it seems, is important anymore.
Nobody has felt this more acutely than the Newspapers and Magazines of Record in the United States. The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time: all over the world of “quality” journalism, there is a feeling of decline.

The internet is an echo chamber and, of course, one of the effects of an echo chamber is that all you hear is the echo and not the original message. Add to that the "noise machine" that drowns out news with spin and deflection and it's easy to see how the power of the press has been diluted.

But the impact of technology overlaps with a concerted effort by the Bush administration over at least the past four years to endrun the national press of record. This went beyond repeating the longstanding conservative mantra of "liberal media bias" to become an official communication strategy of "taking the message to the American people" that consisted of using "town hall meetings" and local press outlets to broadcast the administration's talking points. This strategy has reached its apogee in the McCain campaign's handling of Sarah Palin, whose inability to credibly address policy on a national level is being camouflaged by an attempt to challenge the very role of the press in scrutinizing candidates.

Now, there's nothing unconstitutional about this, because contrary to the Congressional oversight that the Bush administration has treated with contempt, the Constitution only guarantees the press its liberty, not its access. But the result, when combined with the evolution in communication technology, has been a fundamental shift in the extra-Constitutional system of checks and balances as it had been established over the course of the previous thirty to forty years. We're witnessing the end of the press as "watchdog of democracy," not because the press isn't barking, but because no one's listening.

One of the consequences is the ease with which McCain can get away with a campaign based on lies; the old saw that everyone's entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts seems to no longer apply. Anyone familiar with human nature knows how stubbornly people can hold onto their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence. That has become even more acute now that the authority of the press, formerly the arbiter of what qualified as evidence, has been so thoroughly undermined.

Posted by Judah in: Media Coverage Politics

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Teflon, Talent and Story Arc

Meanwhile, speaking of gaffes, am I forgetting something or has Barack Obama basically not made any? I'm not talking about policy positions that made waves before the conventional wisdom caught up with them, or "scandals" like his pastor. I can't remember a single time where he just muffed one and had to ask for a "do over." They called Reagan the Teflon President because he could get away with so many whoppers. But Obama just doesn't seem to stumble. Regardless of whether you support him or not, he's pretty good at what he does.

Meanwhile, too, so is John McCain. By which I mean he's a pretty good Senator, especially when it comes to stuff he cares about, like getting up in some Defense Department official's face about wasteful procurement contracts. I really don't see how he serves his nation better as President than as Senator, and the proof is that he's been a Senator for forever. It's been almost fifty years since a Senator made it to the White House, but has anyone who ever languished in the Senate for most of their career ever done it?

What's more, for all the talk of "Obama the Celebrity" and charges of inexperience, the Presidency has more often been the culmination of a meteoric rise than the epilogue to a stagnant career. Think Bob Dole, or even Joe Biden for that matter. The Presidency isn't an afterthought, what you get for having stuck around long enough to be closest to the ring. Ronald Reagan had been around forever by the time he won the Presidency, but he was a crusader who led a movement from the wilderness to the Promised Land. There was a story arc to the narrative. McCain's story arc flattened out when he lost to George W. Bush in 2000.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, September 18, 2008

You Say Zapatero, I Say Zapatista

There's a very simple explanation to John McCain's refusal to commit to meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero (video via TPM here) were he elected president, and it has nothing to do with whether he knows who Zapatero is or where Spain is. The tell is in McCain's reference to Mexico immediately after the question. I'd be willing to bet that McCain missed the first part of the question that referred to Spain, and after a string of questions dealing with leftist Latin American leaders thought the interviewer was referring to the Zapatista Army and its leader, Subcomandante Marcos. Whether he thought Marcos was running a drug cartel as opposed to the first "post-modern revolution" is another story, since he immediately talks about Mexican President Calderon's success in the war against drugs. But I'm pretty sure this one's being blown out of proportion.

Later, at 4:39 of the clip when the interviewer tries to make it clear she's talking about "Europe", McCain heard "you", to which he replies, "What about me?" Why the campaign wouldn't just fess up is beyond me, although maybe it has to do with the fact that the Zapatista Army hasn't been in the news for about a decade or so, lending weight to the claim that McCain is responding to the last century's strategic threats.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Great for Alaska

Laura Rozen flags a passage from Gail Collins that I think sums up nicely the problem with Sarah Palin. Everything I've seen of her makes it clear that she's not only a gifted communicator (not sure how she'll wear with time, though), but that she's also no policy lightweight. She's got an obvious command of Alaskan politics, from party infighting to the issues that drive voters' concerns. But that's all. The problem isn't that she couldn't eventually achieve the same kind of command of national politics, but that she hasn't yet done so.

During the Democratic primaries, I pointed out that whereas Hillary Clinton was campaigning in an America she already knew intimately, Barack Obama was in many ways discovering America through the campaign. But after a long and hard fought 18 months, he has discovered it, and the four years he's spent in Washington served the same purpose. I think that given the same kind of learning period, Palin could probably hold up, even if she isn't Obama's intellectual equal. (I'm not sure how many people are.) But she hasn't been given a learning period. She's been given a trial by fire.

The question isn't one of qualifications or experience, but of scale. The Obama campaign's line of attack ought to be, Palin's great for Alaska, that's why she should stay there.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Friday, September 12, 2008

The Power Behind the Throne

Laura Rozen weighs the pros and cons of Sarah Palin's folksy appeal. From what I've seen so far, Palin seems like a pretty effective communicator who is very obviously communicating talking points and policies that aren't her own. Think Mitt Romney with a more deftly programmed robotic module. The obstinate repetition of talking points in the face of substantive questions is for me the worst aspect of American politics. But that's not Palin's doing, even if it's a bit scary how talented she is at it.

Of course, every candidate relies on a team of policy advisors to formulate and articulate policy, but it's apparent that Palin is particularly dependent on the cue cards. So far those are being written for her by the McCain campaign, which is to be expected, since the Veep nominee by necessity tailors policy to the top of the ticket. The question no one has asked yet is, Who would ultimately write the cue cards for President Palin if she ever wound up in the Oval Office?

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Friday, September 5, 2008

Whitman on Palin

Back on July 4th, I posted this passage from the introduction to Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass, 1855 edition. It expresses, perhaps as much as anything I've ever read, the essence of America:

Other states indicate themselves in their deputies . . . . but the genius of the United States is not best or most in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges or churches or parlors, nor even in its newspapers or inventors . . . but always most in the common people. Their manners speech dress friendships -- the freshness and candor of their physiognomy -- the picturesque looseness of their carriage . . . their deathless attachment to freedom -- their aversion to anything indecorous or soft or mean -- the practical acknowledgment of the citizens of one state by the citizens of all other states -- the fierceness of their roused resentment -- their curiosity and welcome of novelty -- their self-esteem and wonderful sympathy -- their susceptibility to a slight -- the air they have of persons who never knew how it felt to stand in the presence of superiors -- the fluency of their speech -- their delight in music, the sure symptom of manly tenderness and native elegance of soul . . . their good temper and openhandedness -- the terrible significance of their elections -- the President's taking off his hat to them not they to him -- these too are unrhymed poetry. It awaits the gigantic and generous treatment worthy of it.

I thought about this passage today, and wondered whether there isn't something unseemly about questioning someone's qualifications for the office of president in a country where the people are supposed to be sovereign:

"...the air they have of persons who never knew how it felt to stand in the presence of superiors..."

What a terrible nobility in that simple sentence fragment that Whitman used to describe all of us! Because what else binds Americans together more than the idea, certainly more abstract at times than real, that we are all common people?

And yet, it's a tricky question:

"...the terrible significance of their elections -- the President's taking off his hat to them not they to him..."

Even more so when it comes to the office of vice-president, which has the peculiar feature (not always historically the case) of being voted on only obliquely.

But the beauty of the American system of government, its genius, is not just that it taps its greatest strengths -- as well as its greatest weaknesses -- directly from the strengths and weaknesses of the American people, but that it hedges them with the institutional checks and balances that prevent passion from overtaking reason, and reason from losing its bearings.

All of which is to say, there's no point trying to disqualify someone from running for office, when the Founders devised a very simple method for doing so called the ballot. In a democracy, a people gets the government it deserves. And as Abe Lincoln put it, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Either you believe that or you don't. But the beauty of America is that just as no one is entitled to office, neither is anyone excluded from seeking it.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Friday, September 5, 2008

Message Discipline?

I couldn't really bring myself to get all the way through McCain's speech. For whatever it's worth, I didn't watch Obama's either. But this caught my eye.

I wonder where he spent the evening.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Palin as Bitch Slap

I just got through watching Sarah Palin's speech to the Republican convention, and frankly, I don't think anyone has really gotten the nature of the threat she represents to the Obama-Biden ticket. In the context of Josh Marshall's "bitch slap" theory of politics (which I find repugnant if regrettably relevant), Sarah Palin is the ultimate bitch slap. For anyone who didn't catch the operative line of the speech the first time around, here it is:

There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you in places where winning means survival and defeat means death.

The short version is what the McCain campaign will be running on: There's only one man in this election. They've already done the groundwork for painting Obama as an effete, Paris Hilton-esque celebrity. Now, for the next two months, the McCain campaign is going to be running not McCain, but Palin against Obama. They've already started with this ad, via Andrew Sullivan. The subtext of the ad is simple: Obama isn't even man enough to warrant sending out McCain. We'll send the hockey mom to take care of him.

While it's obvious Palin wasn't vetted, it's still unclear just how calculated her nomination was. But if there was a calculation, it was pretty brilliant and pretty cynical. I imagine the McCain campaign figured that whatever damaging stuff trickles out between now and November can be spun. In the meantime, Palin is going to be hitting Obama hard and, what's even more damaging if last night's speech is any indication, with loads of scorn and derision. The impact of that coming from a woman is enormous. And if you think that because Obama weathered Hillary Clinton's attacks, he's somehow immune from Palin, think again. Palin is not Clinton. She's tough enough to hunt moose (how long before she condescendingly invites Obama on a hunting trip?), but fundamentally she's a mother (ie. a real woman).

Those are the optics, and Obama and Biden will have trouble responding. Hit back too hard and they're bullies, too soft and they're wimps. Even Hillary showed what a difference a display of "feminine vulnerability" (the tears in New Hampshire) can make, and her brand is far more Margaret Thatcher than Sara Lee. The McCain camp is simultaneously using Palin's gender in the most progressive and regressive ways imaginable. Cynical? Yes. Effective? We'll see.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Comments (3) | Permalink

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Dead Man Walking

[This is a guest post by Eva Ostrum, my sister and an Obama donor/volunteer.]

It's official: John McCain's shark meat. Why?

Fact: Sarah Palin turned on both John Stein and Faye Palin, two signators of the original petition for her very first political race (Wasilla City Council in 1992). Sarah unseated Stein as mayor in a “contentious” election and then later refused to endorse Faye Palin (her mother-in-law) to succeed her as mayor.

Fact: Sarah Palin unseated former Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski in the Republican primary – the same man who had given Palin a “plum” political appointment as Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission at a salary of more than $120,000 a year.

I'm sure more examples are out there waiting to come to light. In the meantime, McCain should be watching his back. If he does manage to beat Obama, count on Palin to use her new leverage as the star of the right-wing base to force him out in 2012. They don’t call her Sarah Barracuda for nothing.

Posted by Eva in: Politics

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Family Matters

Friend of the blog GS emailed me asking for my thoughts on the presidential election, reinforcing the fact that it's been a while since I felt like I had something vital to say about it. In fact, although I'm still following the race closely, I often find myself surprised by how much so many other people do still find to say about it.

Watching the videos from the Democratic convention, I was struck by how prominent the almost maudlin use of family and personal narrative is in American politics. Then it occurred to me that American politics really is family politics, and not just because of the Kennedy's, Clintons and Bushes. How many times did a speaker in Denver refer to the "Democratic family"? Party affiliation is so often the product of a person's family culture and it, more than anything else, determines voting. Which means that in a normal election, the majority of American voters have already decided who they'll vote for before the candidates for either party have even been selected. There's a reason why the term "Reagan Democrats" entered the political lexicon, and it's because it represented a phenomenon that happens so rarely.

Those who haven't yet made up their minds will base their decision more on character and personality than policy. There, too, I find little to say, because the choice seems so self-evident. Barack Obama, like all first-term presidents, will have some proving to do. Given his relative lack of national and executive experience, he will probably have more to prove than others. But so far in his handling of his campaign, he's demonstrated that he's a gifted politician and an effective manager. More importantly, he hasn't given any indication that he's categorically unfit for the job.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems to combine all the worst elements of American politics (pandering, fear-mongering, sleazeball tactics) with a reckless lack of judgment that makes the thought of him in the Oval Office downright frightening. I've heard the Palin nomination explained as an example of McCain's penchant for gambling, and insomuch as gambling involves accepting the certainty of longterm losses in return for the possibility of a shortterm gain, it was. But even a gambler studies the odds and bases his bet on some sort of calculation. The Palin pick, by contrast, was a shot in the dark.

As for the horse race angle, I've been saying for months that there's no way that John McCain will defeat Barack Obama. And the reason is that there's something called reality, and it's what happens in a little corner of people's minds -- sometimes without them even realizing it -- when they see a tired, outdated, old man next to an energetic, contemporary, youthful man and are forced to decide who they really trust to be in charge. To go back to the family image that I used above, this just isn't a time to turn the car keys over to Grandpa, and when the time comes to choose, most people (including, I imagine, a larger than expected number of Republicans) will grasp that intuitively. So no matter what the polls say between here and November, Obama is going to win in a landslide.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Comments (8) | Permalink

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Attacking McCain

In a lot of ways, Barack Obama has his hands tied in responding to John McCain's attack ads for reasons that have to do with each candidate's intended audience. And the suggested responses to McCain's attacks being pushed by Democrats and progressives illustrate why. Take the question of "Obama the elitist." Pointing out that John McCain comes from a privileged background and wears expensive Italian loafers ignores the lesson learned from the 2000 election, namely that no matter how big his trust fund, how many Ivy League schools he's attended, or how many free passes he's gotten because of his name, a tough-talking Republican can still pass himself off as "regular guy" more easily than a Democrat committed to policies that actually benefit "regular guys."

An effective counterattack, on the other hand, would be to point out that McCain's loafers are more than likely paid for by his wife's money. Same goes for the GOP ridicule of tire inflation as an energy conservation measure. Obama is right to point out that the measure is effective and recognized by efficiency experts, but that's a message directed at his own audience. To effectively counter McCain's message among McCain's audience (and the echo chamber), Obama would point out that any man who's ever taken his family on a road trip knows the importance of inflating the tires properly, not only for fuel efficiency but also for safety. He would then add that in the McCain household, not only is Cindy in charge of paying the bills, she's apparently in charge of car maintenance, too.

This kind of response rings true to anyone who has ever played the dozens, played pickup basketball, or hung out in a schoolyard, and one imagines that Barack Obama is no stranger to the three. In Josh Marshall's lexicography, it would be a "bitch slap" targeted at McCain's audience, effectively emasculating McCain in the tradition of the dozens: "I called your boy a punk and he couldn't do anything about it."

Trouble is, this kind of blatant misogyny is unpalatable to Obama's progressive audience. And to be clear, I'm not advocating it. I've actually sent a couple unanswered emails to Josh Marshall over the years, taking him to task for his "bitch slap" label. But so long as Democrats and progressives do not have a clear majority coalition whereby they can maintain message discipline and still win elections, they will be at a disadvantage on this playing field, and whining about it only reinforces the image problem.

Obama might end up being the candidate who establishes that majority coalition by sticking to the high road. But part of me wishes Democrats would offer him a "no holds barred waiver," just long enough to get McCain to stick to the issues. You can take the kid out of Brooklyn, I guess, but you can't take the Brooklyn out of the kid.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Obama's Pre-Victory Lap

What's remarkable about Barack Obama's Middle East tour is how unprecedented it is to see a presidency begin before the actual election. But that's obviously what's happening here. For both Obama, who has overnight assumed the presidential air he was by some accounts lacking, and for the leaders he's meeting, who are very clearly eager to get a head start on getting to know the next American president, this is a pre-victory lap. And he hasn't even touched down in Europe, where the buzz around him has already taken on the dimensions of a cultural phenomenon that's being compared to the Beatles' first tour. Obviously, no one here gets to vote, but I can't imagine the American electorate being unmoved by the sight of a candidate for president having this kind of effect everywhere he goes. It would be silly not to put that to good use.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Friday, June 6, 2008

The Pivot

If you haven't read today's WPR cover piece by Shawn Brimley and Vikram Singh, you should. I've been convinced for a while that more than any individual issues, or even collection of issues, this election is going to boil down to a generational choice. I don't know the demographics of U.S. voters well enough to know who that really favors. That said, the logic of the piece seems to argue for Obama without mentioning his name, although that might not be the authors' intention, and it might be my reading of it. I'm curious to hear from anyone who disagrees.

I remember some discussion about the Bush administration's tendency, in the days before 9/11, to emphasize state-based threats in a way that seemed destined to miss those posed by non-state actors. Obviously state-based threats still exist. But even the Bush administration's response to them, e.g. the idea of "containing" Iran, smacks of a certain strategic anachronism.

Brimley and Singh mention the way young voters experience the world via connectivity, which reminded me of a book I recently started (but have yet to finish) by Harold Innis titled, Empire & Communications. It discusses how the physical form of communication, from stone to clay tablets to papyrus to paper, impacted the organizational structure of the empires that used them. It triggered an undeveloped thought that, in some way, states will need to adapt the way in which they wield strategic power to the communication structure of the internet: rapid, fleeting nodes of hyperlinks, quickly dispersing only to reform elsewhere. This election seems like as good a place to start as any.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in: Foreign Policy Politics

Thursday, June 5, 2008

America's Obama Moment

I'm pretty deep in the weeds of a series of articles for WPR, and time has been in short supply the past few weeks, so I've let a few stories slip by without much comment. I'm thinking particularly of Barack Obama sealing the Democratic nomination, but there's also the gay marriage ruling in California, and some others that I'm probably overlooking. I'll try to get some of my thoughts organized and posted over the weekend, and even that might be unrealistic.

But with regards to Obama, I just wanted to acknowledge a moment, one that is the result of generations of hard work, enormous sacrifice, and deep commitment to what is essentially the greatest single American contribution to humankind's collective heritage of ideals. The past few weeks have seen a lot of talk of service to our country, and a lot of it has focused on military service. But just as many have paid for liberty with their lives on foreign shores, so too have many lost their lives in the effort to bring America in line with her highest ideals of justice and equality here at home. Not all of them wore uniforms.

Even though that struggle continues, it's important to appreciate today's victories. Barack Obama is a very special individual who has accomplished something that not many of us imagined was possible even six months ago. Regardless of the outcome this November, that's already a victory for all of us, and for everyone who dreamed, struggled and believed before us.

Posted by Judah in: Politics Race In America

Sunday, June 1, 2008

An Eleventh Reason

Anyone feeling a bit uneasy about Barack Obama's chances come November against John McCain would do well to read Gerry Scorse's guest post over at Voices of Reason, 10 Reasons Obama Breezes in November. I'm already on record as saying that Obama is going to win easily, so I'm glad to see I'm in such good company. I'd just emphasize one thing that Gerry mentions obliquely. I think that the generational turning point presented by this election is really going to take on a much greater significance than people realize yet. And that's not just a way of saying that John McCain is old, and will appear even more so when appearing side by side with Barack Obama. Among other things, Obama represents a changing of the guard that corresponds to a general societal trend, both in America and abroad. Take a look at the G8 group and you'll see what I mean. Even if you allow for the addition of Silvio Berlusconi, John McCain just doesn't fit in. I think that once voters in the 30-55 year old range hear Obama explain his vision of national security, in particular, in a contemporary language that is at once both familiar and convincing, McCain is finished.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Monday, May 19, 2008

Not Happening

This is why I'm so confident that John McCain stands no chance of winning the presidency:

Everybody needs to relax. There's no way John McCain will beat Barack Obama. Period.

Update: As an afterthought, it occured to me that videos like this are useful up to a certain point, but Barack Obama himself should avoid using frontal assaults on McCain's "straight talk" reputation. Instead, he and his campaign should very simply and knowingly begin referring to McCain's "credibility problem." If pressed for comment, he should reply, "People who have actually been listening to John McCain over the years know what I'm talking about."

Confronting someone with the obvious falsehood of one of their bedrock assumptions is a surefire way to trigger their defense mechanisms. As an example, imagine you wanted to inform a friend that his "devoted" wife is actually having an affair (leaving aside, for simplicity's sake, the question of whether or not you should, in fact, do such a thing). Tell him the missus is cheating on him and you're as likely as not going to end up with a black eye and one less friend. Mention in passing how a mutual acquaintance got wise to what those "extended business lunches" were all about and he's liable to start asking himself some questions. The key is not to give people answers they don't want to hear, but to get them to ask themselves the questions that will lead them to those answers.

The advantage of taking McCain's "credibility problem" for granted is that it confronts McCain on one of his core strengths, while forcing ~~his most loyal constituency~~ the press to do the legwork on examining the claim. And it does so without raising the natural defenses of voters who have integrated years' worth of puff pieces into their construction of reality.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Wright's Politics, and Obama's

I think Ezra Klein's right here, in that the essential problem posed by Jeremiah Wright is the political content of his remarks, and not the racial content. In fact, outside of the AIDS conspiracy theory, there isn't really that much racial content. But as I argued here when the sermon clips were first circulated, the political content of Wright's remarks grows out of the black American experience, one that has nurtured a dual identity, equal parts affirmation and ambivalence towards a country that is at once home and bitter exile. Ezra correctly traces the moral outrage over Wright's remarks to their Chomsky-ite quality, but it's no coincidence that, outside of the anti-globalization movement and far-left academia, black America is probably the most sympathetic echo chamber for Chomsky's analysis.

Ezra's thought experiment of a white candidate's white preacher espousing the same political views does support his argument that this is not a political issue simply because Obama and Wright are black. But it overlooks the ways in which Wright's views mean something essentially different in the context of the black narrative of the American experience, where they are inseparable from the struggle to move from object to subject in the larger national narrative, and from which they form a bridge between that national narrative and the global narrative beyond. The result is not a rejection of American history, so much as a correction to it, one that resonates all the more powerfully for coming from the ranks of the oppressed and not of the oppressor.

But the underlying ambivalence that comes from condemning America on the one hand, and fighting for one's rightful place in it on the other, means that a black politician like Obama can immerse himself in Wright's Chomsky-ite worldview without necessarily rejecting the broader socio-economic structure of American society. Within the black narrative, it is a radical perspective, but not a leftist perspective, anti-colonial, but not anti-capitalist. (Although Trinity UCC's philosophy does disavow "middle classness.")

The equivalent scenario for a white politician would have much broader implications, since they would suggest no ambivalence, but only a political orientation largely incompatible with mainstream American politics. Not only would this still be a story were Obama and Wright white, as Ezra argues, it would probably be a more politically damaging one. It would also be a very different story, as Ezra also argues, and that's very much due to the fact that Obama and Wright are black.

Posted by Judah in: Politics Race In America

Friday, April 25, 2008

Playing the Petraeus Card

It looks like I'm the only one who's underwhelmed by the Petraeus appointment to CENTCOM commander, but what the heck. In for a penny, in for pound. So here's another thorny question that I've yet to see directly addressed. (Hampton, make sure you've had your morning cup of Joe before reading any further.)

I mentioned that by using his direct lines of communication with the Oval Office to leapfrog Adm. Fallon, Petraeus had already been serving as de facto CENTCOM commander. But in thinking about it, the leapfrog actually went much further than that, because President Bush made it clear that he would follow Petraeus' lead in Iraq, and not the other way around.

Now, if you're a cynic like me, you might think that was a political ploy to use the persuasive authority of the Iraq theater commander to implement military tactics in Baghdad that serve Bush's political purposes in Washington. (All the better if they've been responsible for the improved security situation, but the causal connection remains disputable, and subject to developments on the ground.) But if you're not, it means that Petraeus was exercising a command that far exceeded the bailiwick of MNF-I or CENTCOM, for that matter. Petraeus was calling the shots for the Commander-in-Chief, and not the other way around.

Of course, so long as Petraeus' strategic vision is consistent with President Bush's political agenda, there's little reason to believe the relationship will suffer from his assumption of CENTCOM duties. But what happens when Petreaus decides that Bush's political line jeopardizes our regional strategic position? Well, it turns out we have a recent example of what happens to a CENTCOM commander who isn't in lockstep with the Bush administration's Middle East policy. It's called early retirement.

Now call me cynical, call me cranky, call me contrarian (just, please, don't call me punctilious). But to my eyes this looks like the latest installment of the Bush administration's politicization of the officer corps, and I suspect that anyone who expects Petraeus to suddenly start thinking differently about the big regional picture than he did about the Iraq theater is in for a disappointment. Petraeus will ask Bush for what Bush wants to give him, and Bush will then give it to him under the pretense that it's what his military commander asked for. And if Petraeus upsets the apple cart between now and January 20, 2009, he'll be joining Fox Fallon on the motivational speaking tour.

The problem isn't that the President calls the shots in time of war. That's how it should be. The problem is that the Petraeus-Bush relationship is a closed feedback loop, hermetically impervious to disproof and driven by a political agenda whose ideological foundation Bush has pragmatically sidelined but never explicitly renounced. And it's about to go regional.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in: Iraq Politics The Middle East

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

The Petraeus Principle

What's clear so far about the Petraeus CENTCOM announcement is that all anyone can do right now is speculate on what impact this will all have. But while answers will only come with time, the fundamental questions are shaping up pretty quickly. According to Abu Muqawama they boil down to how Gen. Petraeus' experiences in Iraq are going to influence his regional vision in general, his approach to Iran in particular, and his ability to make detached decisions about how to distribute scarce resources between the two theaters of war now under his command. Tom Barnett, on the other hand, flips the formulation a bit and wonders how the added regional perspective will impact Gen. Petraeus' approach to Iraq and Iran, although he worries about the fact that the DoD is now pretty much all "bad cop," up and down the line, when it comes to Iran.

One thing that's implied in AM's remarks about Petraeus' regional vision being shaped by the prism of Iraq, but that I'd draw out even more explicitly, is that his vision of the Iranians has been shaped by the prism of what amounts to a proxy war there. So whatever broader regional approach to Tehran he adopts can't help but be conditioned by the fact that he has already been engaged in low-intensity warfare with them for the past year and a half. To use the language of Petraeus' own COIN manual, his Iran narrative has begun as a war story. So either he's capable of making a very significant pivot, or else the plotline is about to be expanded to a regional level (which, as Tom Barnett points out, does not necessarily mean a decisive attack on Iran but logically suggests one).

Meanwhile, some questions are being raised (Phil Carter here and Charlie from AM here) about Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno's fit as commander of MNF-I. But I'm surprised that, so far, no one's had the temerity to point out that compared to his CENTCOM predecessors, Gen. Petraeus' credentials are underwhelming for such a strategically vital regional command. Admiral Fallon's prior regional command experience was too deep to count. Gen. Abizaid did prior staff tours in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff, the Southern European Task Force, and the U.S. Army Europe HQ. Gen. Franks commanded the 3rd Army for three years prior to taking over CENTCOM, and Gen. Zinni was CENTCOM Deputy C-i-C for nine months before assuming the top spot.

The bulk of Petraeus' experience, meanwhile, has been in operations and training (which is what you'd expect for someone who has demonstrated such tactical brilliance). Challenging as it is, Commander MNF-I is his broadest command to date. Now it could be that Petraeus is, in addition to being a tactical genius, a strategic genius as well. But a case could be made for the argument that, in leapfrogging Adm. Fallon through his personal relationship with President Bush, Petraeus has essentially served as de facto Commander of CENTCOM for the past year and a half. And in that time he has put the Iraq theater ahead of our broader regional interests, and according to many, ahead of the health of the Army.

Again, only time will tell. But so far, the only real qualification Petraeus seems to have for the job is to have offered President Bush a fortuitous tactical approach that coincided perfectly with Bush's political needs.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in: Iraq Politics

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Real McCain

So is the problem that McCain wasn't paying attention at last week's Petraeus hearings? Or is it that he doesn't understand the difference between a theater commander, a regional commander, and the commander-in-chief? Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum are correct in saying that it will be tough to convince the public that the perception of McCain as a national security icon is a mistaken one. But he certainly is generous about providing the proof necessary to make the case.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Obama's Speech: The Explainer in Chief

I just got a chance to watch Barack Obama's speech, after having read the transcript earlier today. Most of the commentary has focused, for obvious reasons, on his treatment of race and its legacy in American history and politics. And rightly so, because it's about the most succinct, balanced, inclusive and unflinching synthesis that I've seen, and I'm no stranger to the subject.

But not enough has been made, I think, about this portion of his remarks that deals with the capacity for change that exemplifies the American experience:

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation.

Change has obviously been a theme of Obama's campaign, and the election in general, but it has often been reduced to a boilerplate message about changing the way in which we practice politics. This, on the other hand, strikes to the heart of what has historically led people, and continues to lead them, to our country in the hopes of starting anew against all odds: our capacity to change our conception of what America is and what it can be.

It's what gives us such an advantage over countries that are still struggling to reconcile the tensions caused by differences of origin and custom, and what makes us a model for what can be accomplished. American exceptionalism is often a manipulative device hauled out for jingoistic effect, but if there is a reason that America might be considered an exception, truly this is it.

I've also been convinced for some time that the most compelling case for Obama is a generational one. It's time not to turn the page, but to pass the torch. What the previous generation accomplished should not be rejected but refined, improved and built upon. That's what I heard here:

. . .This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

And that's really all I need. Whether Obama survives this controversy is to my mind no longer relevant. He has moved the torch along, and if in the end that proves to be insufficient, he will have lost the election with his dignity and character intact.

Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator. With any luck, Obama will become known as the Great Explainer. Hopefully America can spare the half hour it takes for him to lay out his case, not just on this but on other issues of the day as well, because it's a half-hour well spent. If not, if the soundbites carry the day, it will be America's loss. Not Obama's.

Posted by Judah in: Politics Race In America

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Obama, Wright, and Black Ambivalence

It just so happens that the first post of mine that got widespread attention on the web was one I wrote back in February on Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, titled "Obama As Rorschach Test." Periodically since then, someone clicking through from a "Obama afrocentric" Google search will show up in the HJ traffic logs to remind me of it. Which is all by way of saying that the post has stuck with me more than the thousand-odd other ones I've written in the past year.

So each time the question of Wright's association with Obama has come up, I've been tempted to re-visit the post, but have held off. Now that the issue is front and center, though, I figured I'd mention two things. The first is that if you click through to this 2005 radio interview with Wright that I linked to in it, at about the 3:30 mark, Wright mentions that he'd had the honor of being invited to two clergy breakfasts during Bill Clinton's presidency. So if he's as radioactive as people are saying, what was he doing on the presidential mailing list ten years ago?

The second point is that, with respect to Wright's 9/11comments, I can't help but feel that the outrage over them illustrates the extent to which the far-left is non-existent in American political discourse. In fact, the only places you can still find remnants of radical leftist analysis are in the Chomsky-ite anti-globalisation movement, and in Wright's brand of afro-centric Black liberation theology.

Provocative declaration alert: It's impossible to put a number on it, but I'd wager that the only place on Earth where Wright's analysis of 9/11 could be dismissed out of hand is in the United States. Not that the rest of the world agrees with it. But I think you'd find a substantial amount of people willing to accept that a valid case could be made for it, even if they subsequently disagree with that case. I suspect that more people consider it defensible (not correct, but defensible) than consider it outside the realm of acceptable debate.

Now it could very well be that I'm totally wrong on this. But I don't think I am. I'd offer two reasons for why this is. First, the far-left still exists across Europe and most of the world (by which I mean the real far-left, not the Clinton administration), which means that analyses such as Wright's are heard more often and have a certain legitimacy. And second, the great cleansing narrative of globalization has all but erased America's memory of historical resentments (torture and disappearances in South America, agent orange in Southeast Asia, the plight of the Palestinians) that feed anti-Americanism worldwide. But that doesn't mean the rest of the world has forgotten.

It also doesn't mean that there isn't great love felt for our country around the world as well. But it's important to remember that the ambivalence is always there, ready to tilt one way or the other depending on the latest American foray on the global stage. The dramatic shift in sympathy for America between 9/11 and the Iraq War is all the illustration necessary to see how fluid and volatile the world's feelings towards us really are.

The significance of Wright's analysis is that it illustrates the similarities between the world's ambivalence towards the United States, and many black Americans' ambivalence towards the United States. It's no coincidence that his particular brand of Afro-centrism traces its historical roots to the moment when black Civil Rights leaders like Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X placed the struggle in the context of the Third World's post-colonial struggle for independence. That's why it functions as America's conscience, not only for its treatment of blacks in this country, but also for its spotty post-colonial record abroad.

Now, obviously someone with Wright's views could not be elected president of the United States, so Obama is forced to denounce and reject them. The question is whether Obama's spiritual relationship, not just to Wright or a few sentences Wright has uttered over the years, but to Wright's core ideology, will now cost him the election. Back in February, I concluded that:

Assuming that his membership in the church signifies his acceptance of its agenda, Obama would do well to articulate his vision of Afrocentrism, and how it fits into his vision of a united America. Not only would it keep his opponents from doing it for him. It would bring a meaningful discussion of race in general, and his race in particular, to the forefont of the campaign. Until then, everyone will just see what they want to see.

I don't think Obama ever did that. Instead his campaign chose to present him as a post-racial candidate, in the hopes that we'd finally arrived at a post-racial America. The result is that his opponents have done it for him. And now everyone will just see what they want to see.

Posted by Judah in: Politics Race In America

Comments (4) | Permalink

Monday, March 10, 2008

System Capacity

Ezra Klein:

But the capacity of the system to stand against those who would reform it, and who come into office with a broad mandate to do so, is really quite sobering.

As it happens, he's talking about Eliot Spitzer. But the comparison to Barack Obama is... really quite sobering?

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Monday, March 10, 2008

Yoko vs. The Graduate

Like everything else in the Democratic primary, how you answer the question of experience probably says more about you than about either of the candidates. Take the Hillary Clinton-Yoko Ono "analogy as insult", for instance, which is revealing for what it leaves out. Namely, that Yoko Ono was an accomplished and internationally recognized artist before she met John Lennon (ie. a person in her own right), and that while she might not have been a Beatle, she certainly understood what being one was like as well as anyone besides than the Fab Four themselves.

As for the commander-in-chief brouhaha, take this McClatchy article about Barack Obama's foreign policy team. Basically it says that Obama's surrounded by a pretty pragmatic team whose input he seeks out due to his voracious interest in foreign affairs, an interest that the article implies (but never says explicitly) springs from his lack of experience. What it doesn't do is offer anything other than the team members' word for it that Obama has what it takes to run American foreign policy.

The quality that comes across most strongly to me is a certain kind of vision of the world, free of pre-conceptions, a sort of lived experience that can only result from a lack of policy experience. Unlike Clinton, who already seems to have the world grouped into good guys and bad guys according to a pro forma prism, or McCain, who already has his bombing targets circled in red on his bedside atlas, Obama doesn't seem to have things sorted out yet. Whether or not that bothers you probably depends on how you see the world yourself.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, March 5, 2008

The Advantages Of Going Long

Kevin Drum offers '68 as proof that Democrats are over-reacting to the potential divisiveness of the ongoing primary campaign, which yesterday did nothing to settle:

In other words, [1968] was the mother of all ugly, party-destroying campaigns. No other primary campaign in recent memory from either party has come within a million light years of being as fratricidal and ruinous. But what happened? In the end, Humphrey lost the popular vote to Nixon by less than 1%.

I'd add that there's even an advantage to the primary campaign lasting into April: it has forced both candidates to develop ground games in states that they would otherwise have ignored had the nomination been wrapped up a month ago. That means networks of volunteers, media saturation and personal appearances that can only come in handy for the general election.

It also occurred to me that all the hand-wringing is an illustration of how deep the traumas of 2000 and 2004 really go. In many ways, it will probably take a Democratic president for the party to finally and fully recover from hanging chads and Swift Boating.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Cite Unseen

Here's Barack Obama, off the cuff and without the script:

Obama restated his opposition to gay marriage, but asserted that he supported civil unions because "people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with diginity and respect and the state should not discriminate against them." He added, "If people find that controversial, than I would just refer them to the "Sermon on the Mount."

Now I understand this is a campaign, and there are some swing votes to appeal to. Heck, I'm a big fan of the Sermon on the Mount; Prabhavananda's Vedic reading of it, The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta, is among the most moving spiritual texts I've ever read. But is it asking for too much to expect a presidential candidate to refer people to the Constitution of the United States?

Meanwhile, as a practical matter, it occurs to me that supporters of gay marriage might get more mileage out of framing the debate in terms of contract law, rather than civil rights. Because in essence what's being denied, as much as legal recognition of the state of matrimony, is the right to enter into a legal contract. Which to the best of my knowledge, outside of a consensual slavery agreement, the government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Friday, February 29, 2008

It's 3 A.M...

...and you're children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing... and ringing... and ringing...

Since it seems to be the topic of the day, I'll simply observe that that phone rings a long time (six, to be exact) before someone finally answers. That conveys something other than "ready" to me.

More broadly, I'd note that Hillary Clinton seems to have entered that phase of a campaign where she just can't catch a break. Which is a very unhappy phase for her to be in, seeing as how there's still a couple crucial primaries on the line.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

The Softer Side Of McCain

There's been a lot of speculation about what a John McCain presidency would mean in terms of America's military adventurism. But anyone worried about McCain's hawkish declarations regarding a 100-year occupation of Iraq should find this video, courtesy of the Iranian Intelligence Ministry, reassuring. McCain, it seems, has accepted the limits of American military influence, and once President would focus more on "culture-building" and "velvet revolution" operations funded by his friend and co-conspirator, "Jewish tycoon" George Soros.

I should note that the idea that America is trying to gather intelligence through recruiting a sympathetic network of influential and well-placed Iranian elites is not at all farfetched. But when the motivations behind that campaign get boiled down to a basement cabal funded by "Jewish tycoons", it gets pretty pathetic. This stuff reminds me of the kind of rumors being circulated about Barack Obama, with the difference being that the Obama slime is being funded by private interest whackjobs, and this is the product of an Iranian government ministry.

Big hat tip to Small Wars Journal for catching this priceless reminder of just what kind of government we're dealing with in Tehran.

Cross-posted to World Politics Review.

Posted by Judah in: Iran Politics

Monday, February 25, 2008

The Political Value Of Wit

In case it doesn't make the American news, Nicolas Sarkozy caused a new uproar yesterday at the Agriculture Salon when he responded vulgarly to an insult from a passerby. As Sarkozy was making his way through the Salon, reaching out and shaking hands with those headed in the opposite direction, a man in his late-fifties or so objected, saying "Don't touch me," in a very hostile tone of voice. He added an expression that translates poorly into English but which roughly means "You'll contaminate me." (Literally it translates as "You'll dirty me".) To which Sarkozy without hesitation responded, "Then beat it, you pathetic bastard." The actual French, pauvre con (which more literally translates to "poor cunt"), is a vulgar expression of absolute contempt. The entire incident (neither man stopped walking, so it can't properly be described as a confrontation) was of course captured on video.

The episode is revealing for yet again demonstrating Sarkozy's "man of the people" bona fides, for better or worse. But it also serves to set up this great passage that Art Goldhammer over at French Politics flagged from Marianne's online edition:

Older folks will remember that, confronted with equally difficult situations, presidents in the past adopted a more regal bearing. Take Jacques Chirac, for instance, to whom an onlooker called out "Bastard!" while he was leaving mass at Bormes-les-Mimosas. "Nice to meet you," replied the former Head of State. "Jacques Chirac, here." Compare that Cyrano de Bergerac-like riposte with General de Gaulle's inspired response when confronted with a vibrant cry of "Death to the morons!": "A vast undertaking." (Translated from the French.)

The passage made me realize to what extent Barack Obama represents a return of wit to the American political arena. Every time he is attacked, he manages to respond in a way that impresses with its cleverness, and that is perfectly lethal not despite, but because of the absolute lack of venom in the parry. I'm thinking in particular of his, "I'm looking forward to having you as one of my advisors, too, Hillary." But there are other examples.

As a reflection of character, it contrasts favorably with the brittle reactivity of the Bush administration, as well as the rapid response tactics of the Clinton era. In fact, I hate to say it but I think you'd have to go as far back as Reagan to find its equivalent.

Posted by Judah in: La France Politique Politics

Friday, February 22, 2008

Set Up?

Is Bill Keller the Dan Rather of 2008? That's the distinct impression I got when I noticed, as Kevin Drum put it, "the fast congealing conservative consensus that this will help McCain." Maybe the Times has got the goods. Or maybe they got set up. Either way, it's odd seeing McCain bash their impartiality seeing as how they endorsed him.

On the other hand, is Kevin right when he claims that no one really cares about the corruption angle? Is the story really about McCain's affair? The story about the story certainly is. But let's assume for argument's sake that McCain really did have an affair with this woman. Why is that a story? I couldn't care less who's screwing who in Washington, as long as nobody's screwing us.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Presidential Cage Match

Look for the NYT's McCain story to have an insidious effect on the Democratic contest. A lot of people have already questioned Hillary Clinton's bareknuckled tactics against Barack Obama with the prospect of a tough general election looming on the horizon. If McCain's campaign comes out of this media cycled mortally wounded, the logic of Democratic restraint becomes less operative. To say nothing of the fact that a crippled McCain gives the Democratic nominee a lock on the White House. Which means Clinton's so close she can almost taste it.

Where do you go when you're already down to bare knuckles? Any street fighter knows the answer to that: the gutter.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Political Penalties

I've been a bit burned out on the Democratic primary campaign. Truth be told, I think the turning point for me was once I'd actually voted. I made a decision, felt good about it, had some buyer's remorse the next day, realized that I would have had the same feeling had I voted the other way, talked with my Dad and found out that -- separated by an ocean and a six-hour time difference -- we did the exact same thing on Super Tuesday (ie. we both went to the polls intending to vote for the same candidate only to change our minds and vote for the other one at the last minute) and that was enough for me to put the whole thing aside.

So I've watched the campaign unfold over the past few weeks with a somewhat dispassionate eye (although as someone who genuinely liked both candidates, my passions were less than enflamed to begin with). Which makes me feel comfortable making the following observation:

The Clinton campaign's performance since February 5th makes me wish that there were some sort of procedure in place whereby a candidate can be penalized by having delegates that they've previously won taken away from them. Something along the lines of a 15-yard penalty and loss of down in football. Because I've never seen anything as pathetic as what the Clinton camp has trotted out, not just once or twice, but consistently, almost daily, for the past two weeks.

As classless as Bill Clinton was in NH and South Carolina, I was willing to put that on him, not her. But there's really no one to hang the blame on for what's gone down the past few weeks. This is Hillary's campaign; in some ways it's her government-in-waiting, and she's the Commander-in-Chief. And if this is "ready from day one", well, then, Obama could probably get away with claiming that he really can walk on water.

I've said before that whenever I actually see Clinton in action, as opposed to just reading her press coverage, my opinion of her improves. Not surprisingly, I haven't actually seen much of her of late. It could be that the two upcoming debates could prove decisive in turning things around for her. But seriously, these past few weeks have reminded me of an elementary school class president election.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Symptoms Of Election Fatigue

Somewhere over the past week something turned for me, so whereas before I'd honestly felt that an extended campaign for the Democratic nomination was a good thing that would bring out the best in the candidates and the party, now I've got a serious case of election fatigue. It's not just that I'm mildly sick of both Clinton and Obama. It's that the longer this thing drags on without a resolution, the more full of crap both of them seem to be.

So, for instance, when Clinton says she's going to fight for the unpledged superdelegates even if she's behind in pledged delegates when the voting's done, that seems perfectly legit. It's an election, after all, one that she wants to win, and the unpledged superdelegates are, oddly enough, not actually pledged. But when she talks about trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, that's very obviously the type of win-at-all-costs approach that might have served Al Gore well in Florida seven years ago, but is entirely uncalled for in an up to now riveting and fairly above board Democratic primary election.

Then there's the debate question. Clinton has every right to press for more debates with Obama, since it's a format in which, by consensus, she seems to have an advantage. But to suggest that Obama has some obligation to debate her is ludicrous, especially if by ducking her he suffers less among voters than he would by taking part. It's not the most honorable move, perhaps, and Clinton can call him out on it all she wants. But if you try to win at all costs, you can't fault your opponent for doing so too.

Meanwhile, when Obama resorts to hackneyed political phrases, like calling Clinton's debate ad the "same old politics", it becomes all too clear that his above-the-fray posture is simply a well-worn routine from the "same old politics" repertoire, albeit one that he's enjoyed more success with than anyone else who has used it before. As for his dazzling speeches before legions of transfixed supporters, they perfectly illustrate the defining conceit of Obama's campaign -- the artifice of authenticity -- whereby he does the same thing night after night while managing to give each successive audience the impression that they're privvy to a unique and special experience.

Moreover, when he talks about uniting the Red states and the Blue states, I for one get the distinct impression that he's still something of a stranger to many of those states he's referring to. As if he's actually getting aquainted with the country he aspires to preside over through the very campaign he's waging to convince voters to elect him. Say what you will about Clinton's experience or lack thereof, but she did register voters in Texas thirty years ago, and she did work for a children's legal fund in Connecticut twenty-five years ago, and something tells me that she's checked back in regularly with just about everyone she ever met in both places ever since. Which is why she doesn't give the same speech in El Paso as she does in New Haven.

It's bad enough when general elections are decided by 800 votes in Dade County. But there really seems to be a crisis in the decision-making process when we can't even select the candidates anymore. I know democracy is the worst system except for all the others. But I'm thinking that with the advent of Web 3.0 they're bound to come up with some widget that works better than this.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Blogs Eat Their Young

In many ways, the Clintons' brand of politics, if it didn't actually spawn the blog, served as a precursor to it in that the Clintons popularized techniques at the dawn of the internet era -- rapid response war rooms, spin, talking points, polarized partisan broadsides -- that blogs would later appropriate, greatly contributing to the proliferation of the new form. The polarization of blog discourse came to a peak during the first term of the Bush administration, where in many ways blogs were the only platform available to resist a media narrative that was at best complacent and at worst complicit. What's more, as recently as the 2006 Congressiona mid-term elections, blogs seem to wholeheartedly embrace the idea of partisanship.

So it's kind of ironic that so much of the Hillary Clinton backlash, especially among the blog set, has focused on the polarizing effect of the Clinton brand. It's also worth considering what blog discourse will look like under an Obama administration where bi-partisan cooperation and respectful dialogue have become the norm.

Posted by Judah in: Media Coverage Politics

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Meltdown

My experience over the past few months is that I respond much more favorably to seeing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton debate than I do to print media coverage of either them. With Obama, seeing him discuss the issues reminds me that there's more to him than just the euphoric adulation that his campaign has been reduced to by the media. With Clinton, it's just the opposite. Seeing her reminds me that she's a lot more likable and impressive in person than the media allows for.

Now, it's been observed that the debate format is not one that favors Obama. And it's also obvious that euphoric adulation is not in and of itself a major disadvantage for a presidential candidate. So it doesn't surprise me that Hillary Clinton's meltdown-in-progress coincides with the end of the debate season. What does surprise me is that she hasn't been more insistent about getting some more debates scheduled.

Meanwhile, I'm not so sure her strategy to pin her hopes on Texas and Ohio is such a bad move. By conceding the past week's worth of primaries, she's put herself in the position of authentic underdog going into next month. Now she can legitimately make the case to her supporters in those two states that if they don't mobilize for her, and in a massive way, she's finished. Conversely, if she loses either one, or if her victory is not on a corresponding scale of magnitude, she's got to be willing to bow out.

Update: Apparently Clinton is calling Obama out for not debating In Wisconsin (YouTube at link). Andrew Sullivan calls it a negative ad. If so, it's pretty tepid as far as negative goes.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Audacity Of Nope

About halfway through reading this Congressional testimony by Col. Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) explaining why the Joint Declaration of Principles between the US and Iraq more closely resembles the Warsaw Pact-era Brezhnev Doctrine than a US Status of Forces Agreement, it occurred to me that for all the outrage over the executive power grab of the past seven years, the Bush-Cheney administration has done nothing that the Founders did not foresee and anticipate. They understood and accepted as a matter of course that the executive would have a tendency to encroach on the powers of Congress.

But while the Founders also understood the corrosive effect of political parties on a democracy, I think what might very well have surprised them about today's political climate would be the degree to which Congress, faced with the Bush-Cheney putsch, has simply rolled over. From torture to habeas corpus to domestic wiretapping to signing statements, President Bush might have run roughshod over the Constitution, but Congress did nothing to stop him.

It's worth thinking about that for a moment, now that interest in the presidential campaign has reached a frenzied peak. A lot of thought and discussion has been devoted to which of the two Democratic candidates would be most likely to pull back from the expansive precedent of the Bush imperial presidency. Less has gone into identifying and promoting the kind of Congressional leadership in the Democratic Party that will actually push back against executive overreach.

With the superdelegates (of whom Congressional Democrats make up roughly a third) poised to decide the party's nominee, now would be a good time to consider just what Congress will be getting in return for its tie-breaking Convention votes. Obviously these sorts of deals are made between individuals. But hopefully there will be some institutional dealmaking going on as well.

Posted by Judah in: Iraq Politics

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Five Easy Pieces vs. Easy Rider

In the comments to this previous post, regular reader, frequent commenter and all-around "friend of HJ" Gerald Scorse wondered if I would venture some suggestions for a "signature enemy" for Obama to wage his "smart war" against. Guilty as charged: it's easier to formulate the idea in the abstract than to articulate an instance of how to put it into practice.

But in thinking it over, it occurred to me that this is in essence why so many of the historical examples Obama uses in his stirring rhetoric (the American Revolution, Abolition, Women's Suffrage, WWII, the Civil Rights movement) just don't pass muster as comparisons to what America faces today. The fact is, the most urgent moral issues on the agenda (ending the practice of torture, restoring habeas corpus to terrorist detainees, ending warrantless domestic spying) can all be resolved with a stroke of the pen through executive order.

The meme bouncing around the spherical world of online opinion today is that the Clinton brand of politics is either commodity-based (ie. Brooks) or else packaged into issue-ettes (ie. Sullivan). Both of which strike me as alternate ways of saying that it's the product of Mark Penn's micro-political mind. Obama offers the exact opposite with his call to a transcendent cause that rallies all the micro-political niches into a mass movement. But for that to happen, the transcendent cause has got to be up to the task as defined by the historical moment.

So far, Obama has relied on an ecclesiastic formulation of the American dream to serve as the glue which holds his grand majority together, which is why the choice between Clinton and him has become the choice between a Chinese menu (ie. a patchwork quilt of custom-fitted solutions to address the discrete fears of the electorate) and an epicurian cookbook (ie. a sense of purpose to satisfy the collective hunger for an organizing logic for action). The question is whether or not the historical moment bears out the former or the latter.

To be clear, I'm talking about rhetoric and imagery here. I think there are other, more convincing arguments for supporting Obama's candidacy than his appeals for unity, and I think he's capable of creating and carrying a broad majority based solely on his personal charisma even in the absence of the collective yearning for unity that he evokes. But if he does manage to identify some concrete popular crusade to rally America to a cause that is not, as he has currently formulated it, simply the cause of America, I think he could actually manage to live up to his rhetoric.

I'll try to identify what one might be, but in the meantime, if anyone has any ideas, feel free to pop them into the comments.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Obama's War

A friend was making the case the other day for Barack Obama, to the effect that he'd be able to rehabilitate liberalism in the political worldview of an entire generation. He argued that with the comfortable Congressional majority the Democrats will in all likelihood have, he'd be able to govern effectively and demonstrate that liberal policies work, while seducing some centrists with compromise. My counter-argument was that with a comfortable Congressional majority, Clinton would be able to pass a more liberal agenda, so compromise wasn't necessary.

Thinking it over, though, I think my friend has a point. I'm an advocate, after all, for the idea of Israel offering the Palestinians in particular, and the Arab world in general, a generous peace. So the logic of that sort of approach in domestic political terms does appeal to me.

But here's the thing. The problem with Obama's rhetoric of unity and bi-partisanship is that it ignores two fundamental aspects of the formation of group identity. First, that there has to be a distinct and easily recognizable boundary separating inside from outside. (Like a cell wall, this boundary can be permeable, but it needs to be identifiable.) And second, in order to form that boundary, fighting for something works, but fighting against something works better. Whether or not you subscribe to Rene Girard's theory of the origins of human religion, the scapegoat mechanism is a historically proven component of human collective behavior.

Take Ronald Reagan, who Obama has repeatedly cited as an example of the kind of game-changing political mandate he hopes to generate. Reagan had two made-to-order scapegoats: the enemy without (the "evil empire") and the enemy within ("welfare queens"). The former allowed him to cherrypick blue collar Democrats who were alienated by the defeatist image that had, fairly or unfairly, stuck to the party of Carter like a wad of chewing gum on the sole of a shoe. The latter combined racial/racist dogwhistle appeals with a call for fiscal responsibility that got him the support of white collar Democrats who understood the value of a balanced checkbook. But while Reagan's new majority grew in part out of a national zeitgeist (whereby a return to American triumphalism compared favorably to the prevailing sentiment of fatigue, self-doubt and defeat), it certainly didn't represent a collective yearning for unity.

A few months ago, when Obama was still intriguing the electorate but not quite sealing the deal, Josh Marshall suggested that he needed a signature policy for his campaign to shift gears. I'd go a step further. He needs a signature enemy. In the logic of his oft-repeated formula for opposing the Iraq War (ie. he's not opposed to wars, he's opposed to dumb wars), Obama needs a smart war.

Now at first glance that might seem to be diametrically opposed to the inclusive logic of his campaign, as well as his refusal to use fear as a political tool, but it needn't be so depending on the enemy he identifies. Before Bush's War on Terror (to say nothing of the Constitution) or Reagan's War on Drugs, after all, there was LBJ's War on Poverty.

It might be too late for it to have much of an impact on the Democratic primaries. But in the event that Obama does win the nomination, it would set him up effectively for the general election.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Thanks, Dad

My dad made a few points about the Democratic race this afternoon that I thought bore repeating. For better or worse, Obama has now effectively appropriated the legacy of John F. Kennedy. Now to my dad, who is relatively immune to glitter and the whole blang blang thang, JFK does not represent a stellar example of presidential accomplishment. And on the merits it's not a tough case to make that his myth has far exceeded his record.

But on the symbolic level, and especially abroad, the JFK aura can't be underestimated. By way of illustrating, when I still lived down in Provence, I once went to pick up my son at a friend's house. The mother of the parents was visiting, a woman in her sixties who had emigrated to France as a young woman from her native Italy. When she heard I was American, she immediately grimaced and made a remark in a heavily accented French to the effect that it was a shame we had such a moron for president. Then her gaze wondered off to some interior horizon, and she added, "Not like Kennedy. Or Clinton. Now they were good."

My dad, too, had mentioned the irony that the last politician to consistently be invoked in the same breath as JFK was, of course, Bill Clinton. In other words, in a very real way, Obama's political persona threatens Clinton's historic legacy. (It's unrelated but worth noting here that however he was regarded in the States, Bill Clinton was pretty universally adored around the world.)

The other thing I found thought provoking were the presidents my dad invoked to measure Obama. In the untested category, he offered up Truman. And in the character category, he mentioned Eisenhower. I don't often talk politics with my dad, which is a shame, because he's a real mensch and the blog would probably benefit from his insight.

Posted by Judah in: Politics

Thursday, February 7, 2008

Obama, Clinton & The American Imagination

Dug took me to task in the comments to the previous post about Obama and Clinton representing two halves to a whole:

Two different, evenly matched candidates who triggered different identity factors would carve things in half, but different halves. In short, you need to say something substantive about the constituencies, something to the effect that only this kind of pair would generate an even split. Otherwise, the speculative question about a larger collective dynamic at work isn't very interesting.

I was going to add something more substantive about the qualities I had in mind last night, but it was already pretty late and I was already up past my bedtime. What I was going to add, though, wasn't quite so much about the "identity factors" that Dug mentions. I was thinking more along the lines of American archetypes and our national genius. It's the sort of thing that isn't as easily measured as who carried which race, class, or gender among voters, and it's also much less useful in terms of the nuts and bolts of winning an election. So it's not likely to show up in any exit polling data.

The Rorschach of Obama and Clinton is the story of American archetypal opposites. See them at their best and Obama represents the tent revival movement leader, Clinton the party machine fixer working for the little guy. Obama the vertiginous and meteoric rise, Clinton the plodding and tedious ascent. Obama the promise of American renewal, Clinton the reassurance of American decency.

Take them at their worst and Obama takes on all the trappings of the charlatan snake oil salesman, while Clinton becomes the bought and sold politician in the special interests' pocket. Obama is the American idealist with his head in the clouds, Clinton the vulgar striver with her ankles in the muck. Obama is the teacher's pet, Clinton the crooked school board boss. On and on it goes, off to the horizon of the American imagination.

I'm not arguing that Obama and Clinton are the only two politicians who could ever inhabit such diametrically polar corners of the American archetypal landscape. But neither do I think it's just a question of finding images to stick onto two politicians who happen to split the electorate. A few dozen votes separated Bush and Gore, and the same exercise does not seem to apply.

Posted by Judah in: Politics