The New Republic

A long time reader of Mr. W's column's, I enjoy the accidental autobiographical touches. In this latest, Mr. W wishes to express the impossibility of 'greening' an economy. What examples does he choose to exemplify the impossibility of a life free from oil? The schools and cafes of Poland, as in, the schools and cafes of Poland cannot run on sun and wind alone; ergo, they require Texas-T, or as fate would have it, Russian-T. Notice his choice of, er, industries: schools and cafes. I would have chosen car-part factories or steel mills. But that's just me.

- Comitted Straussian

September 23, 2008 at 12:43pm

"The air of ethical exquisiteness in which Barack Obama wraps himself has psychologically hobbled his party." Drinking water, drinking, drinking, reading this sentence, SPIT TAKE! You're joking, right? Are you people in the press (ooh, and academia!) hypnotized or bribed or what? Could you please snap out of it?

- susan k. (NYC)

September 25, 2008 at 1:20am

Obama's campaign hasn't been as exceptionally dishonest as the McCain campaign, but I don't see the air of ethical exquisiteness that you do. I had hoped - and still do - that the game could be played by people who respect the process and want to have that conflict over first principals rather than calling each other sexist child molesters. I think framing it in terms of the ends versus the means is to implicitly accept a completely cynical position. Lying, spinning and fudging can bump short-term poll results but as we've seen lately they can backfire too, and I don't think it's a clear cut case that they win elections anyway.

- simon

September 25, 2008 at 3:30am

I think that every democrat and liberal (let's not conflate the two) has thought to himself in frustration the very sentiments you voice in the beginning of this article. But I must take umbrage with your contention that circumventing morality in adopting the "means justify the ends" approach is harmless and beneficial. There is also, for me, neither "a hope for consensus" nor a "fear of conflict." There is only the hope that Americans, as a people, can set the example of how a democracy can and should function for the rest of the world as opposed to devolving into the theatrical, devoid of facts, state of affairs we now find ourselves. The hope that, one day, enough Americans will haev the eagerness and gumption to search for the truth instead of passively absorbing lies. A country that must be tricked into voting for a politician who will then institute policies disparate from campaign promises once in office is not a conutry I want to live in, regardless of whether that politician is liberal, conservative, socialist or fascist. The only way our country will truly flourish is when Americans start accepting the need for personal responsibility, and the election process is just one example of how Americans still have not embraced this ethos (see also: mortgage default). Unfortunately, I am an expat living thousands of miles from my homeland, which gives some indication of how real the prospect of this cultural and educational rennaissance seems to me.

- Songshu Yi

September 25, 2008 at 4:19am

"A green world will not be a good world." OK, but a green world will be a better world. How can this essay not mention the correlation between corruption and resource-based economies? Putin and Chavez with less economic power are better than Putin and Chavez with more economic power. Is the only point that a green world is necessary, but not sufficient? Well, ...! There is some correlation between a moral campaign and a moral presidency, just not an exact correlation. Why would we assume that Obama will never use hard power? He was an early advocate of hard power in Pakistan.

-

September 25, 2008 at 6:03am

Good article - but I have two quibbles. 1) Mr. Wieseltier charges liberals and the Obama campaign with the ultimate sin in politics - naivete. But I would suggest that the liberal expression of moral indignation at John McCain's dishonesty is itself tactical. McCain's disregard for the truth is the "more of the same" that gave us the Bush Presidency. This remains a powerful narrative. 2). Energy may not explain everything, but it explains more about foreign policy (not less) than the public discourse of the past 8 years would indicate.

- citizenghost

September 25, 2008 at 7:00am

The correlation is not at all false. Ends and means are not two separate identities. The ends incorporate the means by which they were created. Yes, it is an omelette, which includes the tainted ingredients. Breaking an egg is not a bad means to a good omelette -- eggs are made to be broken. Using a poisoned egg is indeed a bad means.

- Pete Beck

September 25, 2008 at 9:15am

I am not sure that Obama wraps himself in "ethical exquisiteness" but simply displays that he is not as gullible as many of his counterparts in confronting the Republican machine. I would actually prefer that he should use terms like "dumb" and, on occasion, "illiterate" to describe some positions adopted by his opponents in this election season.

- Cary Fraser

September 25, 2008 at 9:44am

Is McCain too Distraught and Overwhelmed by economic crisis to debate and explain to the American people what clear ideas and solutions he has to handle this crisis. May be McCain is unable to handle the stress and is having a senior moment, because when you are President of the United States, there is no rest for the weary, and you are always on Call! Or, is McCain really being dirty and underhanded, trying to pull the wool out from under Barack’s feet, when he reached out to him early Wedensday morning in a bi-partisan moment, so together they could show solidarity and release a Joint Statement, however, McCain did not like that idea and decidied to bring politics into an already unsteady situation in an attempt to aid his political career, pretending that it was he who reached out to Barack and not the otherway around! However, that was not good enough, he must one-up him and cancel the campaign all together, the crisis is so great, a sudden change of heart that makes McCain look phony and untrustworthy. That is not putting Country first, but we already know that by his Pallin pick! And, of course, the debates should not be cancelled. A President has to be able to multi-task, big time! McCain’s cancelling looks more like a senior moment or that he is too overwhelmed and distraught to be albe to explain to the country just what he would do to address this problem. Maybe McCain will not be able to answer that 3:00 a.m. phone call as a President is always on call. McCain the Wizard of Oz now pretends he has a heart, brain and courage! If so, its not working very well. His wall of lies and deceipt are closing in on him and soon there will be no place to hide, not even in the Senate. McCain you can run, you can lie, but you cannot hide and Humpty Dumpty couldnot be put together again!

- angellight

September 25, 2008 at 9:52am

YES JOHN McCAIN DID say it was OK for the U.S. to occupy Iraq for a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years! He is saying twice on a You Tube video of him speaking as a guest on Face The Nation (and we all know that Bob schieffer is a rock-ribbed Republican) and in the same video making the same claim to Tim Russert on Meet The Press. This isn't the first time I've heard the media try to debunk the Obama campaign's claim the McCain said it was OK to be in Iraq for a hundred years (at least!!) He did say that, please stop defending McCain when the truth is there for all to see who will look for it. Thank You.

- April Green

September 25, 2008 at 10:44am

Sounds like a slippery slope to me, Leon. Shanah tovah.

- Jerusalem Expat

September 25, 2008 at 12:17pm

Leon, what have you been smoking? What does the relationship between campaigning and governance have to do with wielding the soft power of environmentalism? It is a non-sequiter at best, but I shall address both. The lies being told by the McCain campaign are off the chart in terms of their magnitude, frequency, and how readily disprovable they are. When news organizations point out these mis-truths, the reaction has been to cowardly cry that the liberal media is not being fair. Boo hoo. But the fact remains that it is an overt campaign strategy on the part of McCain and his people to misrepresent the truth (lie) while claiming that the broader truth is being served. It's okay to lie about Governor Palin's support for the bridge to nowhere and her love for federal dollars because the broader truth is that she is a maverick and butts heads with Congress and likes hockey. Meanwhile, a shockingly high percentage of people think Obama is a Muslim (gee, I wonder how/why?). No doubt there is a huge overlap between these people and those that thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and that we found the WMD. Don't you see, this stuff matters. Democracy is a sham without objective truth. I would have supported the war in Iraq in a heartbeat if I'd though that Saddam was involved in 9/11. As for your contention that both sides lie ... well, both campaigns certainly selectively present information to frame their positions. Your example of an Obama "lie" is the quoting of McCain saying we could be in Iraq for 100 years. Since this is a direct quote verifiable through video, one has to assume you are quibbling with the context. That what McCain meant is that we could be there as peace-keepers just as we are in North Korea. And this is supposed to make me feel better how? The Bush Admin had to lie to get us into a war that they thought would be over in months with the US soldiers being greeted as liberators. Imagine what a tough sell it would have been had they told us that the conflict would really never be over and we should be prepared to be there for decades. And, by the way, North Korea has a nuclear weapons program and we have absolutely no realistic military recourse to stop it. So YES, I think reminding people that McCain feels that it may be appropriate to be in Iraq for 100 years is not only fair, but a critical differentiator. As for your wacky segue to the environmentalism as national defense issue, I don't think I've heard ANYBODY suggest that weening ourselves off of fossil fuels would cure the worlds ills and allow us to ignore foreign aggression. It is undeniable that oil wealth can paper over a lot of social ills and permit a totalitarian state to stay in power. But nobody is arguing that the converse is true -- that depriving these tyrants of oil wealth would bring about peace, love, and happiness for all. In conclusion, it is sad that you've adopted this Nixonian attitude that the ends justify the means. You contribute to the coarsening of society. I expect this from the dunderheads that think Saddam attacked us, but not from the thoughtful folks at TNR.

- Eric

September 25, 2008 at 12:50pm

"Again the Democrats are surprised by the brutality of the Republicans. They are lying. Yes, they are. THEY WANT VERY MUCH TO WIN . . . More grandly, the objection is that the MORAL CHARACTER OF A CAMPAIGN IS A PREMONITION OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF AN ADMINISTRATION." Leon Wieseltier cannot see any correlation between a dishonest candidate and a dishonest administration? Do you not noticed a correlation between Bush as a President and Bush as a candidate? Anyone who can so blatantly lie because "they want very much to win," will also baltantly lie to stay in office (win again)! You are a fool to believe otherwise.

- Jackie

September 25, 2008 at 1:00pm

I mostly agree with Leon except I believe it is possible to engage in an aggressive and hard hitting campaign without lying. What it takes is for the Obama camp to package the facts so that the conclusions the voters will reach make the most compelling case for the policies that he stands for and his election. On some issues it is not only a matter of presenting the facts to support policy; but, also showing competency. For example, on this whole economic crisis, presenting the facts and policies are very indeed important but it is just as important for Obama to show that he is competent to grasp what needs to be done and showing he is competent enough to get it done. While McCain has shown himself to wrong on the policies and gives me no feeling that he would be competent to carry out even good policy (Sen. Graham?), Obama has been far to slow to react and to show leadership. I think he has it in him; but, he has been far too cautious. The best thing for him is that McCain cannot get away from his and the Republicans record.

- michael

September 25, 2008 at 1:02pm

Who wrote this? Karl Rove? A resurrected Lee Atwater? Even they would not go so far as to deny a "correlation" between campaigning and governing -- publicly, anyway. This is beyond cynicism. What justification is there for the messiness of democracy if this is what it means? Maybe that is the message: It's time to try something else, such as a delayed counterrevolution to restore a form of monarchy. I'd be for that if I could pick the monarch.

- john

September 25, 2008 at 1:21pm

Wieseltier, back in fine form. Superb piece. /////// Straussian - you mean "Texas _tea_." Equivalent in Russia wd be "Russkyi chai".

- teplukhin2you

September 25, 2008 at 1:58pm

The supporters of Obama have gone so far astray from a moral campaign that it will be impossible to exercise a moral presidency. The hatred from the left has been so vehement that we can expect it to continue should Obama assume the presidency and I fully expect an enemies list from here to the moon. There will be, as they say, hell to pay for conservative America. The silver lining in all this, however, is that hatred ultimately turns upon itself.

- Ernie

September 25, 2008 at 3:29pm

This is just insane.

- shadowofwind

September 25, 2008 at 4:32pm

The level of denial that the current "liberal" movement ,so ably represented by Mr. Wieseltier, has reached is stunning. The Democratic party and Senator Obama are ethically every bit as bad as the Republicans they lambast for moral failure. As an independent, I am amazed at this seeming lack of self-awareness by our supposed elites. Every election cycle the respective parties and political affiliates line-up behind the chosen standard bearer and impute virtues on them largely because they have similar political beliefs. Over the course of the respective campaigns the opponent and respective supporters become less and less honorable. You can decry the McCain that is suddenly odious, but know your candidate does many of the same morally dubious things and comes with numerous questionable affiliations of his own (Tony Rezko comes to mind.) Get over yourselves. You like Obama because you agree with him politically on more issues than you disagree. The man is a politician as is his opponent. If you seriously believe your side is the perpetual victim of Republican dirty tricks, while remaining pristine during the same campaigns....It is time to put the cool-aid down. Broaden your circle of friends beyond those that agree with you and hopefully you will become slightly more self-aware. And Wieseltier...the ends do not justify the means. Attempting to justify unacceptable behavior because you believe you have cornered the market on virtuous social policy is disgusting. Truly pathetic.

- Et tu?

September 25, 2008 at 4:54pm

Why do we continue to dance around the eight hundred pd gorillia in the room RACISM If OB had pulled the same bone headed grand stand play that MC is trying to pull off The repugs would be calling for????? How people continue to vote aganist their own intrest is astounding to me. I want a president who is SMART,who can multi task!!!! No one with an ounce of common sense believes Mc is putting country first. This just gives the closet racists another disraction to point too1 MC is not on any committes he really had not even read the proposal just what was he going to DC to do? MC had not even spoken with the key players prior to his BS annoucement to suspend his campaign Bye the way his ads are still running and his talking pariots are still defending his win at all cost shameful behavior Americans WAKE THE HELL UP!! Do some home work this man is a liar and a cheat The world is watching let us live up to the real ideals we are about not hide behind gimmicks !!

- Ms.T

September 25, 2008 at 4:57pm

Means and ends as a moral problem . . . This from a man who advocated the bombing Iraq in the name of freedom . . . Give me a break. Means DO count.

- Rob

September 25, 2008 at 6:00pm

I think I've heard it all. "Ethical exquisiteness"? Spare me. You're going to hold it against Obama that he's run the classiest campaign in forty years? Of course you are. A moral campaign does not predict a moral presidency? That could be true, although you don't seem to have been able to cite any examples of a candidate who took the high road and then became a desperate criminal in office. No, you realize that your candidate of last resort *is* morally and ethically bankrupt, as well as lacking in judgment and reason, and so you're going to attempt to turn morality and ethics into vices as well! You consider Obama to be soft because he recognizes that our dwindling natural resources are quickly becoming a major national security issue and wants to attack the problem at the root instead of just torching the whole garden. But, Mr. Wieseltier, there's something you don't see in that extraordinary even temper, reasonableness, and consistency. This man is hard as nails. He is determined. He is thoughtful, reflective, and practical. Nothing fazes him. This is not a man who will react in a predictable, kneejerk fashion to anything that Putin or Chavez or Kim Il Sung or Ahmadinejad might hurl at him. His belief in the importance of consensus demonstrates his willingness to take counsel from others. But Obama is also a man who keeps his own counsel and has a quiet gravitas born not of blind religious conviction but of careful study and observation and--for such a young man--a fair share of wisdom and maturity. That is the person I want to handle an international crisis or a national catastrophe, not a confused, vicious, half-senile loose cannon with a gambling problem. There is an enormous difference between craven appeasement and polite, quiet resolve, and it is the latter that makes for good foreign policy, not brash threats and childish, melodramatic condemnations of evildoers. You might even say Obama embodies that famous motto of T. R. Roosevelt about speaking softly while carrying a big stick. You're afraid of him, Mr. Wieseltier. And you should be, because he is decades younger than McCain, but far more grown up.

- atsah

September 25, 2008 at 6:44pm

Read this article and you might begin to understand why USA has lost its moral standing in the rest of the world

- jan danoe

September 25, 2008 at 7:17pm

Sen McCain is not to "distraught and overwhelmed", but leading. Perpetual candidate Obama is perpetually playing politics.

- Don Jacobson

September 25, 2008 at 7:59pm

Mr. Wieseltier accuses OBAMA of condescension?!!! The admitted elegance of his prose cannot disguise his typical right wing contempt and hubris for those who still have the audacity to hope for a better world. He is obviously, like the current administration, unable to conceive of such, the "vision" thing, I suppose. But as Pericles said,"Where there is no vision, the people perish" and under W.(either one) we are doing so brilliantly JM

- john murphy

September 25, 2008 at 9:48pm

An 'air of ethical exquisiteness' does not actually equal ethical exquisiteness. What grates is that Obama wraps himself in it, ignores his own questionable behavior by pointing to the other side and saying "but look what HE did." Not a great defense from such a lofty height. And then there's that Claude-Rains-in-Casablanca thing: I'm shocked! Schocked, to find gambling at Rick's. It's a presidential campaign folks, and while it's certainly possible for a candidate to remain ethical, it's not probable.

- Melissa

September 26, 2008 at 10:17am

No doubt, Obama has to replace "silly" with "stupid" or "idiotic" because silly implies something trivial. He also has to call a lie a lie. I suppose he could never say "a goddam lie" without alienating the queasy. Pity. Mr. W, when you try to get into a discussion of the ethical question of whether the end justifies the means, you must surely recognize that (although the moral purists might object) this can have relative dimensions. And Kant's Categorical Imperative does not always apply. Still, a lie is a goddam lie, and I for one cannot tolerate it. Obama can win this abysmal election if he pulls no punches regarding McCain's record and his cynical and irresponsible choice of veep. Obama doesn't even have to fib/prevaricate/or be ambiguous. He must courageously acknowledge & address the fears and prejudices of the Undecideds and Independents. It would not be unethical for him to express concern about McCain's age and health, for example. God knows McCain will harp on Obama's youth and so-called inexperience. This illustrates what I'm getting at when I say that there's room for relativity in this ethical conundrum. In Kant's ideal world, there would be no "age-ism", for example. But lest you think that I agree with your statement "the moral character of a campaign is a premonition of the moral character of an administration. I do not see the correlation", I ask you, Sir, what the hell else are campaigns for but to provide insights into what the moral character of an administration might be? We misjudged in 2000 and 2004, absolutely. However, if this is your point, I wish you would make it clear. And what is your remedy?

- diane moran

September 26, 2008 at 10:38am

McCAIN most certainly did say that American forces might have to stay in Iraq for 100 years. He clarifies by saying that he did not forsee 100 years of warfare and American casualties- but the 100 year statement is on videotape.

- Bernard Chasan

September 26, 2008 at 1:18pm

The problem with nearly every deeply partisan advocate on this and every other forum is the bad habit of equating everybody with an opposing viewpoint as "the enemy." It happens every election, yet when the election is over the advocates begin the whine about the hostility, gridlock, and suspicion the campaign has generated. This is true at every level from city council to President. I'm an elected Democrat, and conversations with our Republican representative over her retirement from the House of Representatives revealed her disgust at the loss of her own campaign to the hired guns and outside organizations that lately seem to hijack every election. The New Republic has been at the forefront of so-called "green" advocacy, often at the expense of real world applications. As I write this, there is an ad running on HGTV from some group DEMANDING!!!!! 100% clean, renewable energy in 10 years. Swell. The city just to our south just lost a major manufacturing plant upgrade to to the inability of the local power provider to guarantee sufficient and uninterrupted power. There are growing battles over where to put wind and solar power generators along with the inevitable wars over transmission of that power to anywhere useful. These are fought district by district, precinct by precinct, village by city. There are no "dilithium crystals" or unobtanium diodes from some basement genius that will remotely solve problems on the scales we face. Most of the people who "demand" such things or criticize the blue collar folks who provide our current energy supplies have never taken a basic course of physics, nor would they stoop to learn how to weld. Words will solve everything, from diminishing the value of the current programs to demeaning those who slave mightily to keep them functioning and affordable to creating from the whole cloth the wonderful replacements. This has alienated much of the potential support for the Democratic Party among those who were once among its strongest allies. There's another commercial. Hmph. John McCain doesn't understand the pain of the loss of the workers at a glass plant in Pennsylvania when their work moved to an overseas plant. The plant made glass for pictures for traditional television sets and CRT computer monitors. Seen any of those for sale lately? One plant in Columbus and another in Circleville that made the same products closed years ago as technology made them obsolete. Both sit empty today until that land is valuable enough to tear the buildings down. Is this some politician's fault? Words make the New Republic what it is, but both the magazine and its readers need to develop a little respect for the invisible people who drill for oil, mine for coal, and even work at gas stations or delivering propane. Every time you take a shot at their industry, you threaten their occupation, their mortgage, their kid's health care, and their support of your candidates. Run a clean campaign? Go for it. Remember, however, that even brutal blows that you think are good, clean efforts will also beat up little old ladies who live off of the income from once safe stock in energy companies and banks. Sure, you like embryonic stem cell research, which will absolutely without a doubt cure every disease known to humankind, or maybe not, which makes abortion not only legal but a necessary step in the stem cell industry. But then must you overplay your hand by insisting that every pharmacist, medical student, doctor, hospital, insurance company, and employer be required to march at the front of the abortion parade? Never make the smug assumption that because your opinion is based on reason and right that the little old lady who opposes you is an enemy that deserves to be marginalized, demonized, or frightened into staying homw on election day. You might win an election or two this way, but you will have lost everything else that keeps the "civil" in civil rights and civil government.

- chiefwiley

September 28, 2008 at 11:55am