SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Backseat American

WASHINGTON DIARIST MAY 5, 2011

The Backseat American

BY LEON WIESELTIER

People cannot be led ambiguously, even if in politics a specious clarity is also hazardous. Perhaps the most exasperating aspect of Barack Obama’s presidency has been the obscurity of his philosophical and even political identity, the great mystery of his convictions and intentions, so that those who seek to understand him, commentators but also voters, are reduced to playing a tiresome game of clairvoyance: he is an idealist or he is a pragmatist; he is a fighter or he is a compromiser; he is in the game or he is the umpire. The man demands too much interpretation. His sensibility is not the most valuable gift that he can give to his country. Subtlety in political life is sometimes a dubious virtue, even if the boorishness of some Republicans makes it seem like the very condition of public service. This is especially the case in a time of crisis, which this time is. In the pursuit, and capture, and killing, of Osama bin Laden, and in his articulation of the meanings of that exhilarating act of justice, the president was dazzling: he acted boldly, unilaterally, without a crippling regard for personal risk or for what his hero Niebuhr once called “the immoral elements in all historical success,” for the sake of a principled and deeply felt objective that he imposed upon his apparatus as its top priority, clearly, like a man with a talent for historical action. That is to say, he acted somewhat uncharacteristically. He did not lead from behind.

 

“Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine,” Ryan Lizza recently wrote in The New Yorker. “One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’” That adviser should be seriously considering the private sector: his coinage is a minor Orwellianism, though it is descriptively apt. He, the unnamed West Wing genius, explained to Lizza that “‘It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world ... But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.’” The features of “this phase” that require such “stealth and modesty,” Lizza reported, are “that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world.” Those, of course, are the two great clichés of American foreign policy in our era, the two hallmarks of the conventional foreign policy mind. (More succinctly, they are what Fareed Zakaria peddles.) The notion that America’s strategic position may be identified with, or reduced to, America’s economic position is absurd. The Iranians and the Libyans, the Japanese and the Haitians, the Israelis and the Palestinians, do not appeal to China or to Brazil in their search for safety and freedom. The Arab awakening has demonstrated that we are no longer reviled in parts of the world that have been famous—in the doctrinaire view of certain liberals, for whom the Arab attitude toward America is the only aspect of Arab life that is somehow still frozen—for reviling us: the democrats and the dissidents look yearningly to the American president. Nor was the historical primacy of the United States ever a historical monopoly: we have had rivals before, and our rivalries were defined, and vindicated, by our differences. Even at 9 percent unemployment, then, and in full view of the almighty renminbi, we are still the United States of America. But never mind that now. It is Barack Obama’s grand (except that such an enterprise can never be grand) experiment in American non-leadership that I wish to ponder.

 

It is not only abroad that Obama leads from behind: his role in the health care debate was conspicuously inconspicuous, and in the budget debate he has oscillated between speaking to the Democrats and speaking for the Democrats. He seems to believe that the only good consensus is a real consensus, which is true enough; but he seems to believe also that the only real consensus is the one that emerges naturally, organically, without intellectual pressure or political coercion, from the prior positions of the relevant parties. He looks for the largest overlap between the antecedent realities, and calls it his policy. Such an approach is curiously accepting of what already is. It is respectful, and also an excess of respect. Listening is one of the political arts, but it is a passive art. Sometimes the overlap of the interests, the answer that merely emerges, is insufficient or wrong (a judgment that can be made only from outside the consensus), or it is not what the president believes should be done. What then? A president is more than a convener or a facilitator. Leading, after all, means not following. Leadership takes people to positions and places that they did not formerly hold and occupy. I understand that leaders must be realistic, because an idea that cannot work is almost as bad as a false idea; but the border between realism and a collusion with reality must be vigilantly patrolled. In a system of compromises, all compromises are not equal; and sometimes compromise is an expression of timidity, or of the fear of a dignified loss.

 

I do not burn my midnight oil over scholarly studies of NATO, but it is my impression that the history of NATO has been the history of the American leadership of NATO. As for multilateralism, it has usually taken the form of many states agreeing to adopt a course of action proposed or prodded by the United States. “Leading from behind” is a new orientation to America’s role in the world, more ambitious in its renunciation of ambition—and more mistaken—even than the “extended hand.” It is not as smart as it thinks it is. In place of the ugly American, the backseat American—but so far the Libyan results of the backseat American are not edifying. We are standing by idly as Misurata endures the fate that we intervened to spare Benghazi. We are denying NATO the aircraft that will tip the balance on the battlefield. We are refusing to entertain a political objective, neither recognizing the rebel government nor releasing the funds with which they may adequately arm themselves. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs even speaks of a stalemate as an acceptable outcome. The president is enjoying another teaching moment—not about rightful intervention or the promotion of democracy, but about the superfluousness of American leadership. It is a teaching refuted by his own counter-terrorism policy, and by much else. Modesty can be misplaced, in nations as in individuals, and sometimes it is only another face of vanity.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article originally ran in the May 26, 2011, issue of the magazine.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 62 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

62 comments

I am less interested than LW in Obama's style as it relates to US foreign policy than I am in the way it relates to his dealings with the Republican opposition on health care and economic policy, however the general thrust of this essay is spot on. Obama needs to recognize that Paul Ryan poses a greater threat to the American polity than Osama bin Laden ever did, and that should the president deal Ryan and those of his ilk in a manner as decisive and uncompromising as the manner in which he dealt with bin Laden the president will likely be rewarded. (All you literalists out there, please recognize that I am NOT advocating violence against Paul Ryan or any Republican.)

- AaronW

May 6, 2011 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LW’s view of Obama completely misses the mark. It is not “non-leadership”. It is not about Philosophy, political identity, or doctrine. Obama’s goals and values are no mystery, and he is doing pretty good job of executing them in the face of vicious opposition (primarily form within the US, the rest of the world is just sitting on the sidelines). Republicans are acting like children, and do not acknowledge basic facts. Combating them with facts is useless. The best strategy is to let them play out their kabuki before acknowledging they are even saying anything. So far he has enacted serious healthcare reform, begun to re-staff federal agencies with professionals, revoked “don’t ask don’t tell”, and moved financial reforms forward. Oh – and he saved GM and the US economy and took down OBL. Would I like to see more? Sure, but he has accomplished a lot in the face of a take no prisoners opposition. Results in Libya are (rightfully) dependent on Libyans, not NATO or the USA. That is the only path to a real democracy (no matter where it leads, and even if it does go off track). The alternative is to invent a Libyan Chalabi or occupy the country. The results of those approaches are obvious to anyone. He also did not take a "backseat" in Libya. A fleet began to move towards Libya within two days of the uprising beginning. It began attacking loyalist forces within two days of reaching the region. While they were in transit he got NATO and a couple Arab nations on board with the mission. How is that "taking a backseat"? There is nothing ambiguous about that to me.

- Attrill

May 6, 2011 at 2:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice one! Even though I disagree on some of the details, LW presented a useful viewpoint for evaluating future actions.

- floydsm8

May 6, 2011 at 5:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has accomplished more progressive goals in 2+ years than any U.S. President since Lyndon Johnson. I don't think he needs help from Leon Wieseltier.

- DC Spence

May 6, 2011 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe he is not leading from behind, but simply waiting for us to catch up.

- sharib

May 6, 2011 at 7:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with this as a critique of Obama's failure to lead politically. The piece is, however, besmirched by its last passages in which W switches to criticism of Obama's refusal to adopt W's policy goals for Libya. Being a successful leader, in the sense of moving the public, internally and externally, is not at all the same as having in mind the very same goals as Wieseltier. By confusing the two, Wieseltier undermines his own point. Wieseltier seems in the end as confused as the Democrats about the difference between politics and policy.

- roidubouloi

May 6, 2011 at 7:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Galston reads the polls and LW reads the tea leaves but they both reach the same conclusion: Obama's got some teachin to do. Now one would think that teachin would come naturally to Obama, a former law school teacher. Except that the Socratic method is the accepted method for teaching law students, a method by which the students essentially teach themselves by answering an endless stream of questions from the "teacher". Maybe Obama is using the Socratic method to teach America. One distinct advantage of the Socratic method is that it forces the students to think. For those who suffered through law school already know, it takes a while to catch on. Let's hope America catches on before November 2012.

- rayward

May 6, 2011 at 8:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

President Obama's first two years are some of the most accomplished in our history. Why is that so hard for everyone to grasp?

- maxhencke

May 6, 2011 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's a well known anecdote I always hear from cherry lieutenants fresh out of VMI or West Point. A professor or instructor begins class with an overhead projector beaming a seemingly blank image on the wall. He proceeds to talk about leadership. He talks about leading from the front. He drops a small piece of string on the overhead projector's image surface. He places his finger on one end of the string and slowly moves it so as to drag the string with his finger. He has his students identify that, as he leads the string forward & from the front, the string is straight, in line, rigid, nicely predictable & controlled, disciplined. Then he transitions to talking about "leading from behind." By now, of course, the students know where this may be going, and so the lesson teaches itself. The image drives it home. The instructor places a finger at the tail end of the string and pushes so that the projected image is that of a finger prodding a straight line upward but in disarray. The string wiggles, making an awkward 'S' shape. And so future officers learn the value of always leading from the front. Now, I understand there's a lot of gray area in the approach to foreign policy, diplomacy, and the public relations aspects of these policies, but I also agree with Mr. Wieseltier when he writes, "That adviser [who said 'leading from behind'] should be seriously considering the private sector." Great piece start to finish. TNR's literary editor has, yet again, articulated my thoughts almost perfectly while also challenging me intellectually.

- Konstantin

May 6, 2011 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"President Obama's first two years are some of the most accomplished in our history. Why is that so hard for everyone to grasp?" Because the critical problem of unemployment is barely addressed and because Obama's leadership has very quickly generated a severe reaction that threatens quickly to undo everything that has been accomplished. This is a failure of political leadership regardless of what has been accomplished to date.

- roidubouloi

May 6, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A shepherd leads from behind to get the sheep to go where he wants them to go. Bush was a shepherd who ran far out in front of his flock and lost it. Obama is the anti-Bush. OBL dead, major arms treaty signed with Russia, gays in the military, financial meldown averted, major health care reform enacted...yeah, terrible job. As to Libya, pay attention. NATO has specifically told the rebels in the East to not advance, just a few days ago 500 Gadhafi soldiers in Brega surrendered as they are running out of food and fuel and there remains but 3,000 Gadhafi troops there. If the rebels pushed west they would come up to Sirte and they themselves would have to fight Gadhafi supporting civilians. NATO doesn't want to bomb the rebels and in such a situation could not know who was who. The east is running out of fuel and even basic foodstuffs. Meanwhile fresh recruits in Benghazi train under clear skies and the refinery in Tobruk is chugging away. The goal is that Gadhafi supporters abandon him before a well equipped and supplied eastern army marches west.

- blackton

May 6, 2011 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Impatience like LW's drives the 24-7 news cycle, that, unfortunately, drives the unthinking American public. Because Obama "keeps his eye on the pea"' he is open to the criticism of the reactionary press, and thereby, the public. His inability to look at the public when he speaks (when will he learn that most of us are behind the camera in front of him, NOT those to the left and right, where his eyes and the teleprompter are?), seriously damages his ability to teach, inform, and persuade. His ideas, ideals, and goals are clear and correct, but his presentations cannot compete with the simplistic, sensationalist, nonsense spouted by the opposition, who consistently capture the attention of the mindless press, and, thereby, the public. He correctly asked NATO to do what it has long promised, and been generously paid to do with MANY U.S. Dollars; but the block-headed press and public doesn't hear because they are NOT on the extreme right or left, were the teleprompters are, but in the middle, where the camera is!

- namobo

May 6, 2011 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon Wieseltier faces quite a dilemma: he has so much bile, yet so little talent with which to vent it.

- JTester

May 6, 2011 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More Neocon drivel from Mr. Wieseltier.

- Graydon87

May 6, 2011 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JTester, I know you're just fishing for reactions with such a silly post, but I'll transform the bait into an opportunity to compliment a better person in contrast. I won't quite call myself an expert, but I have some background in journalism and English literature, and I immensely admire most of Mr. Wieseltier's work, especially his columns of the last several months. I would gladly trade my faculty with language with that of the author of this passage: Jewish Cultural Reconstruction recovered 1.5 million Jewish books. What are 1.5 million recovered books, next to 6 million unrecovered people? It is a fair question, except that there was nothing petty or indecent about this bibliophilia. This was a campaign for the re-capture of a people’s dignity. Its objective was to affirm the sovereignty of the Jews over their own resources. The book-hunt in the ruins was based on a proper understanding of the historical role, and the spiritual power, of the books that were hunted. They are the edifices of the Jews. I hold my palaces in my hands. My cathedrals are on my shelves. One loves books because one loves life. Is it possible any longer to grasp that books once meant so much? Does anybody still weep for lost books? It is an illusion that digitalization has made culture less vulnerable: it has invented a new method of erasure. and this passage: A negative review of a book is often not an attack, but a defense against an attack—a retaliation, or, if you will pardon the Begriff, a negation of a negation. The “hatchet job” is sometimes the second hatchet on the scene. A book arrives that in the opinion of the reviewer outrages a principle of politics or philosophy or history or art, and will lead its readers into error or illusion, and will coarsen discourse or experience—for such are the stakes in books, the power of books, and the real nihilism is to deny it. Why should such a book not be received combatively, if the combat is honestly joined? A shabby treatment of a consequential subject or a significant form is a corruption, and it is the mark of a reviewer’s depth of conviction, and of her knowledge, to treat it as such, to fight it. An opinion about a book is an opinion about the world. Anger at the false and the fake—as long as the labor of persuasion is done: a curse is not an act of criticism—is an admirable anger, because it is the heat of a cause, and our causes are the spurs of our culture. No culture, no literature, ever advanced by niceness. Those who curtly say mean things without refuting or offering ideas might learn something from the bold text above.

- Konstantin

May 6, 2011 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Shush, Blackton, don't spoil LW's fun! To paraphrase Rick Santorum in last night's debate, great minds like Leon are about strategy not tactics. Which, come to think of it, is a trait that our Leon shares with his most famous namesake (the one who ended up with an icepick in his head in Coyoacan).

- wildboy

May 6, 2011 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Be careful Mr. LW. Your balls are so big you may trip over them and fall flat on your face. As you have in this oped piece.

- SOUTHVIEW

May 6, 2011 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know what, Konstantin? I stand by my assessment. I discovered TNR as a high school student in 2000 and subscribed to it for a few years beginning in 2004. I've read LW's work since then, and I'll give one example of his sloppiness: his characterization of America's repeated waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as mere "slapping around" (Look it up. It's buried in one of his long essays written in response to Andrew Sullivan a year or so ago.) This is not to defend KSM. Rather, I just want to ask: how did LW get away with such ridiculous shorthand, and has he ever used his TNR column inches to wrestle with the morality of something like torture? I'd like to see that, instead of his endless stream of playground taunts like "slapping around" and "Obama lacks the hardness I seek." (http://bit.ly/k3VE0Z) The 2008 "hardness" taunt, by the way, is totally unsupported by facts, given Obama's early support of escalation in Afghanistan and now, of course, this. If L.W. weren't full of bile, he would've apologized by now. He hasn't.

- JTester

May 6, 2011 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a superb string of comments!

- dossevi

May 6, 2011 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fair enough, JT, but I stand by my belief that the man has a lot of talent. Regarding policy stances, some of us will be shown to have been correct or incorrect in the fullness of time, but, in the meantime, I readily admit that I am often dazzled by the prose & profundity of TNR's literary editor.

- Konstantin

May 6, 2011 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as if wildboy and tester kenw what they were talking about. Posting bile directed at succesful writers is the best they can do. Couple of assholes.

- nr106646

May 7, 2011 at 12:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The fun think is that almost no one read these vapid comments.

- nr106646

May 7, 2011 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fun "think" indeed, nr. Neanderthal.

- bunthorne

May 7, 2011 at 1:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"bun thorn" is a great punster name

- willjames77

May 7, 2011 at 7:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone should bag the italics. I like LW's writing just fine, but not all of his ideas. Leading from the front is just what you want a field commander to do. It's not usually the best practice from Corps commander on up, and surely not for the White House. On the greater scale of things, it's more important to call the bluff of the Euros and the Arab League than to quickly defeat Col Q ourselves. And it's a Hell of a lot more important than that to concentrate on winning something approximating victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm more confident than ever that O may be able to do so.

- Robert Powell

May 7, 2011 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suggested to the TNR staff to stop allowing "readers" comments on some of their feature posts. Readers add very little to the comments they read. Some readers like bunthorne, tester and wildboy add nothing at all except a sense of their own superiority. If TBR wishes to continue with reader’s "talk back" they could make it possible for those of us who don't want to either read them or reply to them to be able to blank them out. The only place readers' comments should be allowed is on the strictly political threads like those of Chait and Cohn. I don't subscribe to this magazine to read the comments f disgruntled and hateful readers.

- Newly84

May 7, 2011 at 11:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't care for the bickering either Newly, but what's the problem? If you don't want to read comments, don't read them. No one's forcing you.

- Robert Powell

May 7, 2011 at 11:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very well, Newly, but to "add nothing at all except a sense of (his) own superiority" is a pretty apt description of Leon's entire body of work.

- bunthorne

May 7, 2011 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love reading newly's many insights, particularly his/her thoughts on other posters. It would be tragic if TNR were to take them away.

- roidubouloi

May 7, 2011 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bunthorne "Very well, Newly, but to "add nothing at all except it a sense of (his) own superiority" is a pretty apt description of Leon's entire body of work." Which of his many books "adds nothing at all except it a sense of (his) own superiority." "Kaddish" or his homage to Lionel Trilling. http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Leon%20Wieseltier&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ALeon%20Wieseltier&page=1 Bunthorn it's you who is adding nothing of value here. You and your ilk are not criticizing LW, you wouldn't know how to criticize him, you are trying to demonize him without undertanding him. I wish TNR would stop adding reader responses like yours or at least moderate the forum to publish only comments even if critical of his point of view.

- Newly84

May 7, 2011 at 7:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It would be tragic if TNR were to take them away." It's more tragic to let the likes of you to post here.

- Newly84

May 7, 2011 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such poetry, such wit.

- roidubouloi

May 7, 2011 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/leading-from-behind-obama-clinton.html

- wkwami

May 8, 2011 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leading From Behind http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/leading-from-behind-obama-clinton.html In his 1994 autobiography, “Long Walk to Freedom,” Mandela also described it this way: "I always remember the regent’s axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind." As some conservatives argue, this leading from behind business could certainly be used as a beard to cover up a lack of any leadership at all. But the real test is whether Obama accomplished the U.S. goal of getting the United Nations to authorize war in Libya, and on that score he was successful. It’s no small thing. Bill Clinton could not get U.N. approval for the war in Kosovo and George W. Bush could not get U.N. approval for the war in Iraq. Frankly, what Obama did was a massive bait and switch. He used the Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone to win United Nations support for a far larger military intervention. The debate about the merits of this style of leadership should also take into account what was accomplished.

- wkwami

May 8, 2011 at 12:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no wit in anything roidubouloi writes. As for poetry he doesn't even the meaning of the word. He is all wrath and dread: a real maniac.

- nr106646

May 8, 2011 at 1:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice image wkwami. Much better suited to this case than "pulling the string".

- Robert Powell

May 8, 2011 at 7:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One can only but admire the extraordinary intelligence and style with which newly84 and nr106646 grace these pages. I dearly hope that TNR does not take up newly's suggestion that comments be barred from Wieseltier's columns. What a loss it would be for all of us not to know what these two trenchant thinkers have to say.

- roidubouloi

May 8, 2011 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The wisdom of the exhibitionist roidubouloi This is the sum and substance of his wisdom “Me dreaming ': I'm God,. And sit in heaven above, And Angel sitting around me, Praising my verses….”

- Newly84

May 8, 2011 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The poetry of the poster: “Law, says (he as) judge as he looks down his nose, Speaking clearly and most severely, Law is as I've told you before, Law is as you know I suppose, Law is but let me explain it once more, Law is The Law.” No, we don't need poster lie Roid and his sadly merry cronies.

- Newly84

May 8, 2011 at 5:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not really clear what exactly you're contibuting to this thread yourself, Newly.

- bunthorne

May 8, 2011 at 5:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It's not really clear what exactly you're contibuting to this thread yourself, Newly" Strange question coming from you, bunthorne. This is your contribution: "Very well, Newly, but to "add nothing at all except a sense of (his) own superiority" is a pretty apt description of Leon's entire body of work." And you haven't even read any of his books. Had you done so you would never have made the inane comment you posted. This is why LW and other serious editors would benefit from am absence of "readers" responses. Most seem as ignorant as bunthorne or a small town conservative republican.

- Newly84

May 8, 2011 at 6:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You're right that I haven't read any of Leon's books. I'm gonna go ahead and assume that they consist of more of the same pompous, arrogant, verbose and unedited nonsense that he somehow manages to get published in these pages. I simply don't have enough time in life to waste reading any more of it than I already do. Sorry.

- bunthorne

May 8, 2011 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You're right that I haven't read any of Leon's books. I'm gonna go ahead and assume that they consist of more of the same pompous, arrogant, verbose and unedited nonsense that he somehow manages to get published in these pages. I simply don't have enough time in life to waste reading any more of it than I already do. Sorry." It's obvious that you haven't read any of his books, which is no loss to LW or to those who read his work and admire it. It's also obvious that you feel inferior to him and people like him. Anyway, I don't care what you say, but for someone who spends his time posting on people whose views he knows nothing about one would assume that you do have a hell of a lot of free time. Is there any reason the editors of this magazine should let an ignorant person like you to post here?

- Newly84

May 8, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More pearls from the sublime newly.

- roidubouloi

May 8, 2011 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

more swinish noises from roidubouloi who has also never read a book by LW.

- Newly84

May 8, 2011 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Newly84, There is a smallish herd of ignorant jackals who wait impatiently for the next postings by folks like Peretz and LW. They rush to be the first to dismiss whatever is written as "the usual drivel" or "more racist neo-con lies" or "pompous blather from a total asshole". The recurring sneers and putdowns reveal their pathetic inability to contribute to reflective conversation about anything. In Hans Solo's memorable words, they are "just Minoks chewings on the power cables". Relatively harmless and best ignored.

- willjames77

May 9, 2011 at 4:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With all due respect will, jackals run in packs, not herds. When the comments turn to bickering nonsense, IMHO it's time to move on....

- Robert Powell

May 9, 2011 at 4:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tthe common idea between Leon Wieseltier and me, we are both the enemies of Fareed Zakaria.

- sf4200

May 9, 2011 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We do indeed have a pack of jackals here, the refugees from the Spine. When Peretz still had his own little corner for his dementia, they were largely self-confined there. Now we see them elsewhere from time to time. They are distinguished not by their opinions of this, that or the other thing -- it would difficult to ascribe opinions to a group as vapid as they -- but by the fact that most of what they write consists of attacking other posters. It has been my great pleasure in the past, a civic duty, to give it back to them in kind but considerably more ferociously than anything such boobs can muster on a good day. Invariably, this condign punishment was met with whining about how they, the invariable protagonists and purveyors of abuse, were being abused and victimized. Here we see them at work again, out of their little hidey-holes at the invitation of Leon Wieseltier and his spleen. The same pack of jackals, the same vapidity, the same creepy claims of victimization at the hands of people whose opinions they just don't like but who have not set upon anyone here as the jackals themselves do. Yet, it seems unnecessary to smack them around here. Out here in the light, out of the dark, odious, noisome corner formerly provided for them by Martin Peretz, they are self-evidently absurd, not least for their sheer pomposity.

- roidubouloi

May 9, 2011 at 7:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is only one jackass here who used to post on the spine and it roidubouloi. I never posted there becaue of people like Roid and don't miss that site at all. He is also the reason why in time TNR will stop allowing reader responses from people like him. Already on their web site The Book TNR doesn't allow comments to be posted and it's a much better wbesite for that. limiting posting to the political blogs is sufficient. TNR could also moderate posts do many other good websites. There is not reason why readers should be inflicted by rabid bigots like Roid or ignoramuses like many of the respondents here.

- Newly84

May 9, 2011 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But newly, if the posts were moderated then, self-evidently, then nothing you say would ever be published here. Think how much poorer the place would be without the benefit of your wit and wisdom.

- roidubouloi

May 9, 2011 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But newly, if the posts were moderated then, self-evidently, then nothing you say would ever be published here." That's fine with me.

- Newly84

May 9, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then why don't you start now? You don't care whether anything you say is published here. No one else does either. Those of us who have something to say to each other can continue without you. And then you won't have to upset yourself so.

- roidubouloi

May 9, 2011 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's get this straight: following Wieseltier's work through the years, pulling some of his past stuff up and measuring it against what he's written here is a sign I am acting "superior." Given the lengths to which some of L.W.'s fans go to defend him around here, one wonders if he followed Marty Peretz's example and gifted these loyalists with houses and suits. For the record, "leading from behind" is but one phrase from a long article by a former TNR writer. L.W. picked out that phrase and used it to blast the President for multiple paragraphs. For example: "The Iranians and the Libyans, the Japanese and the Haitians, the Israelis and the Palestinians, do not appeal to China or to Brazil in their search for safety and freedom." Clearly, these are the words of someone who WANTS to believe something, because the fact that the US military is aiding Japan in its relief effort is overlooked, as is the fact that Americans have long given generously to Haitian disaster relief. Israelis remain respectful of the United States, but of course, pronounced differences between the ruling governments have come into the open, so I'm not sure what L.W. wants the President to do in that case. Obama's unflinching approach to providing Israel with the material aid it needs is, unfortunately, overlooked by L.W. There's also this: "The Arab awakening has demonstrated that we are no longer reviled in parts of the world..." The phrase needs unpacking, to say the least. Beyond L.W.'s famous, infamous shorthand, comes the question: do the demonstrators truly love America, or have they just turned their attention entirely to the affairs of their own countries? Also, how can L.W. believe with certainty that America has not been sufficiently supportive of the democratic uprisings when DOD has long been run by an old CIA hand, and is about to be taken over by another one? Leaders can be hawkish without being overtly so. I'd add that the escalation in Afghanistan-an open show of American hawkishness if ever there was one-is also overlooked by L.W.. Worse yet, L.W. was allowed to repeat the ugly lie that "Obama's philosophical and even political identity" are somehow "obscure." What's the writer going to do next, ask for the President's birth certificate? How can L.W. watch the President's endless roadtripping and speechifying on something like health care and conclude that Obama is a weakling with no clearly-defined views? POTUS didn't get all of what he wanted, but he got out there, argued and worked. TNR has before endorsed compromising, pragmatic Democrats who, at least arguably, subscribe to the very "back-seat Americanism" L.W. now condemns. Al Gore and Joe Lieberman come to mind. They're not right about everything, but they get things done, and they've had to contend for their whole careers with the nonsensical claim that they are bores willing to surrender the farm in the name of compromise. As much as Leon loves to go to town on bloggers like Ezra Klein (http://bit.ly/edECBq) and Andrew Sullivan, he is no better than they are, shaking his fist from behind a computer screen without showing any real understanding of how the power of the American Presidency relates to our present challenges. I mean, when he fumes, "we are still the United States of America" you expect the writer to pound the table. Table-pounding isn't an argument. Mind, I do not wish to embrace wholeheartedly the argument from authority, not after eight years of "The Decider." But I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more from a writer like L.W. I don't want anyone to simply bow before this President, but it's long past time for unflinching hawks like L.W. to face the fact that past bellicosity may just have made-for a long time to come-"backseat Americanism" the least worst option for the nation.

- JTester

May 9, 2011 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert Powell, thanks for your correction (and I second your advice). If I had it to say over again, I would delete "herd of jackals" and probably opt for "a cackle of hyenas" or "a chattering of starlings".

- willjames77

May 9, 2011 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JTester : “Let's get this straight: following Wieseltier's work through the years, pulling some of his past stuff up and measuring it against what he's written here is a sign I am acting "superior."" Yes, let’s get this straight, this is what you said: JTester “Leon Wieseltier faces quite a dilemma: he has so much bile, yet so little talent with which to vent it.” If this is how you feel about him why don’t you ignore him? It’s you who is full of bile this is why you keep posting about a writer you know very little about. How many books of his did you read? Again, on most articles published here should be comment free, since the people who comment the most know the least about the writers.

- Newly84

May 9, 2011 at 6:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon Wieseltier’s article offers an excellent critique of Obama’s style of leadership. He also praises some of his policies. To some people any criticism of Barak Obama is a kind blasphemy. These Democrats act like Tea Partiers of the left. They can brook any dissenting voice on any issue. They have a right wing mindset even if they are on the left. This is why they resort to insult instead of engaging people in real debate. One criticism I have of the article is the title” “leading from behind” is too ambiguous a phrase to have any clear meaning. I doubt though that LW chose the title for his superb essay.

- Newly84

May 9, 2011 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And here I thought you were leaving us, newly. Thank god you have had second thoughts and continue to grace us with such superb posts as these.

- roidubouloi

May 9, 2011 at 7:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, tester comes back with a long and well-thought out critique of LW's work, and newly it's you who cannot stop attacking him. And for what? Because he doesn't worship Leon like you do? Ah yes, well, he hasn't read enough of LW's oeuvre. So, if we keep reading this crap it somehow gets better? Not worth it in my opinion. Guess it's all over my head.

- bunthorne

May 9, 2011 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An example of Tester's "well thought out critique:" "Worse yet, L.W. was allowed to repeat the ugly lie that "Obama's philosophical and even political identity" are somehow "obscure." What's the writer going to do next, ask for the President's birth certificate? How can L.W. watch the President's endless roadtripping and speechifying on something like health care and conclude that Obama is a weakling with no clearly-defined views? POTUS didn't get all of what he wanted, but he got out there, argued and worked." This is both incoherent and ignorant. It's ignorant because Tester doesn't know to what LW is referring when he talks about “philosophical and political identities” he is referring to ideas and beliefs and not to birth certificates or party affiliation. It’s incoherent because he goes from there to talk about the quantity of speeches on health care and not about his deeply held beliefs on the subject. Is anyone here enthusiastic with the results of his economic policies? How many real jobs did his economic stimulus create? How is giving money to bankers a help to job creatioin? These are authentic and politically legitimate and not angry questions. Tester and Bunthorne fail the test of serious or legitimate critics of LW.

- Newly84

May 9, 2011 at 11:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, well, well. Here is newly finally, actually, making some point. I won't even comment on it substantively. It would only take away from the moment. It could do with a little less of the abuse of other posters that is heretofore pretty much the entirety of newly's oeuvre, but we should welcome the fact that newly actually makes an argument. A small step in the right direction.

- roidubouloi

May 10, 2011 at 5:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I, too, have found myself increasingly frustrated by President Obama's lack of direction on issues like healthcare. While it's great to not have a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, the chief executive must help frame the debate. The far right will distort anything you say, so at least get out in front of them with a cogent message. I'd like to see him come out and clearly state his goals on a given issue, then let Congress work it out. Obama and all the Dems could use some serious messaging advice; they don't seem to grasp the art of persuasion at all. They use the wrong liberal, touchy-feely approaches and buzzwords. And they don't adequately tout their successes, like the fact that almost all the TARP money has been paid back, with interest. No wonder most Americans don't know what Obama has accomplished to date.

- Wolfman

May 16, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close