PLANK DECEMBER 1, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
As Republicans keep up their crusade against Susan Rice over her Sunday-morning-show statements on the death of an American ambassador in Benghazi, there's been rumbling among Rice's defenders -- and even among some liberals less sympathetic to her cause -- about the role that her race may be playing in the episode. It's a simple fact that a disproportionate share of the Obama administration officials to catch serious flak from the right have been African-American (Eric Holder, Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Shirley Sherrod), which prompts natural speculation about whether there's something about Obama's fellow black aides that particularly riles his opponents and invites attack. Today, the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus chimed in with a variant of this question, asking whether there is an element of sexism at play in the piling-on against Rice:
The model of female leader has morphed from Iron Lady to soft power. And the controversy over Rice stems in part from the fact that she does not fit comfortably into this model of collegial, nurturing, division-healing woman. The adjectives used to describe her are fraught with sexist undertones. Blunt. Sharp-elbowed. Driven. Egotistical. Some of these terms come from her friends. No one thinks she would win Miss Congeniality.
Writing on ForeignPolicy.com, Rice’s Clinton administration colleague David Rothkopf called her “hard-headed and prickly.” But, Rothkopf added, “The nonsense that she is somehow not qualified for the job is indefensible. . . . As for her temperament, raising it is pure sexism. Why is she called abrasive, when clearly, similar toughness was hailed in our most powerful and respected secretaries of state — from Henry Kissinger to George Shultz to James Baker?”
It goes too far to say pure sexism, but I think gender plays a role, however subconscious. My analysis assumes that the Rice critique does not stem solely from her comments on a single Sunday morning of talk-show rounds. Something more is going on here: A touch of chummy old-boy (and old-girl, for that matter) networkism in support of Senate colleague John Kerry. A residue of bristling over previous encounters (see Rice’s tart 2008 comments about then-GOP presidential nominee John McCain).
Republicans of course hotly reject any suggestion of bias in their move against Rice, and they have a handy exhibit to offer in their defense: Condoleezza Rice, whom the party not so long ago embraced as the first-ever black woman to serve as secretary of state. However, this whole episode is serving as a stark reminder that the Republican Party's lack of diversity is not just a problem on Election Day, when its disproportionately white-male base left it falling short at the polls, but is in fact exacting an ongoing, day-to-day toll on its effectiveness in Washington. There is no way of knowing just what is driving John McCain and Lindsey Graham to such heights against Rice -- surely, much of it has to do less with her identity than with McCain's resentment of Obama, Graham's fears of a 2014 primary challenge and the general air of conspiratorial-minded outrage that Fox News and others have managed to whip up around Benghazi.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
But the image of an indisputably accomplished senior diplomat being relentlessly hounded by two angry white Sun-Belt senators is presumably not the one that Republicans would ideally have dominating the scene as they start trying to broaden their appeal. It is surely no accident that Graham and McCain have been joined in their mission by Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and that they got crucial backup this week from Susan Collins -- Ayotte and Collins are, with Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, the only Republican women staying on from the current Senate (and are also, as it happens, the only New England Republicans left in the entire U.S. Congress.) Ayotte, in particular, has often been willing to step out on her colleagues' behalf to defend them against the charge of being unenlightened in matters involving women. But there's a limit to the extent to which the party will be able to rely on a tiny handful of trusty non-white-males to serve this role. The picture is hardly better in the House, where the party is left with a single black member and has just named a slate of committee chairmen consisting entirely of white men; when administration officials are inevitably summoned to hearings in the next four years, whether on Benghazi or Solyndra or whatever it may be, it will be a Republican white guy staring from behind the gavel or letting rip at press conference microphones. Whatever the merits of the matter at hand, the contrast will be further confirmed, of the party of white men of advanced years facing off against a younger, more diverse tableau.
On the eve of Election Day, I attended a Romney rally at an airplane hangar in Columbus, Ohio. I had attended my share of Romney events during the year but I was still unprepared for the scene: thousands of cheering people, of whom, in a city that is more than 25 percent black, virtually every single face was white. A day later, we found out that this homogeneity had helped cost the Republicans their second straight presidential election loss and helped foil their golden chance to regain control of the Senate. Now, we're seeing the cost in the regular churn of governing. To the extent that Republicans in Washington have sincerely-held misgivings about Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, Sonia Sotomayor or whomever else, those misgivings would be more persuasively stated if they weren't coming from a row of men who, in the immortal words of former Ohio Republican senator George Voinovich, "get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr.'"
Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis
15 comments
Here are a couple of ways to screw Republicans, have Hillary hang on for a few monthes, then during Easter recess resign suddenly and recess appoint Susan Rice, this will give her a year at State and then when her year is up submit her name for full appointment. After a year and a half will Republicans still be screaming about some press interview about Benghazi, especially after she will have shown her ability at state? The second is to shift Donilon from NSA to state and then appoint Rice to the NSA where she does not need Senate confirmation, and then have her act as defacto Secretary of State like Kissinger did under Nixon's first term. If Donilon is not up to the job send him to the UN instead, in that case Obama can choose whoever else he wants (not Kerry) with their understanding Rice's input would be foremost.
- blackton
December 1, 2012 at 11:46am
Graham's fears of a 2014 primary challenge - the reason - a deminted effort but he is dead meat anyway
- jemerk
December 1, 2012 at 12:08pm
The irony of the opposition to Ms. Rice for being "abrasive" is that she is likely to promote a much more interventionist policy in the middle east and elsewhere, the very interventionist policy that so many on the right prefer. Yes, Ms. Rice has stated many times that the US should use its power, including military power, to stop oppressive governments from inflicting suffering on their own people. If I had any doubts about Ms. Rice, it's that she would allow her sympathy for the oppressed to affect her strategic judgment.
- rayward
December 1, 2012 at 1:09pm
Mill instructs us that non-intervention is the default position. But he also instructs us that intervention can be justified, including in a prolonged civil war. Rice's public comments about intervention may not reflect her more nuanced views as an academic or as a diplomat, but I still find it ironic that she would be opposed by some Republican politicians. I wonder how the interventionists who dominate the Republican foreign policy establishment feel about Rice. Of course, today's editorial by David Ignatius on the subject of Rice is devoid of substance.
- rayward
December 1, 2012 at 1:57pm
From the article: "There is no way of knowing just what is driving John McCain and Lindsey Graham to such heights against Rice -- surely, much of it has to do less with her identity than with McCain's resentment of Obama, Graham's fears of a 2014 primary challenge and the general air of conspiratorial-minded outrage that Fox News and others have managed to whip up around Benghazi." Wondering about Benghazi is indeed fair game. We had high-ranking folks on the ground for 7 hours and nothing was done. Maybe nothing could be done. But at this point, it's hard to know because the administration hasn't been consistent and forthcoming. Second, Susan Rice must have to deal with tougher, nastier people as Sec of State than those who called her incompetent. It's come to this? Our potential SoS's cannot be called incompetent? And yet they will have to deal with the likes of the Muslim Bro'hood? Oh please. And finally, have we all forgotten Condi Rice? The woman who one nationally syndicated cartoonist called a "house nigga" and another drew her as Aunt Jamima? The one who Babs Boxer said "frightened the american people" into supporting a war and Pat Leahy who said Condi Rice lacked "strong headership, openness and sound judgement" And let's not forget, the dems had the largest negative votes for a SoS for Condi Rice in 180 years. Hmmm. Seems it would have been pretty easy to cast the dems as racist back then. They said bad things about her, they voted heavily against her, they did nothing when the cartoons came out. And, now that we think about the this, the dems were attacking Yoo, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales. All ended with their reputations in ruins. What is it about the dems and people of color? Why are they so against them? It's an easy came to play for the intellectually lazy.
- seattleeng
December 1, 2012 at 2:05pm
"Wondering about Benghazi is indeed fair game." I wonder where "wondering" stops and paranoid conspiracy-mongering and impossible security demands start. If we (or the Congress) are asking for complete and seamless security and total predictability, especially when operating in unstable parts of the world, then no administration could ever meet the standards and we might as well give up diplomacy entirely.
- ironyroad
December 1, 2012 at 2:42pm
irony, most of the "wondering" is just delusional. The idea that "nothing" was done for 7 hours is a ludicrous statement. At 9 Stevens went to his rooms, at 9:40 the walls were breached and Stevens was moved to a safe building, at 10 PM that building was set on fire. Here is a timeline from Time: The attackers gets into Building C, lights furniture on fire, then the building's exterior. Stevens, Smith and Agent Strickland move to the bathroom and lay on floor but decide to leave safe haven after being overcome by smoke. Strickland goes out an emergency escape window. Stevens and Smith do not follow. Strickland returns several times but can't find them in the overwhelming smoke. He goes up to the roof and radios the other agents. Three agents return to Building C via armored vehicle. They search and find Smith's body, but not Stevens. 10:25 p.m. (4:25 p.m. ET): A six-member CIA team arrives from the annex with 40 to 60 members of 17th of February Brigade. The team removes Smith's body. Now how the hell did 30 odd minutes suddenly become 7 hours? Because of complete and utter bullshit that people like seattle ingest from Fox. The next morning at 5 AM At around the same time, the additional security team finds transportation from the airport under the escort of the Libyan Shield, another local militia, but decides to head to the annex after learning that Stevens was almost certainly dead. Just after their arrival, the annex takes mortar fire, sustaining three direct hits. The precision of the attacks indicates a level of sophistication and coordination. Former U.S. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed in the mortar assault, which lasts just 11 minutes before dissipating; a DS agent and annex security member are severely wounded. After the mortar attack, about 30 Americans evacuate the annex and head to the airport, with the assistance of the Libyan security convoy. This was, in essence, two separate attacks at two different locations using two entirely different methods of attack, one used fire the other was a mortar attack at the CIA annex a distance away. The timeline has been out from the very beginning, the circumstances have as well. Being that the first attack seemed to be mob related it is understandable how anyone can imagine it was a mob not an armed attack. The second attack using mortars was clearly a different kind of attack. Therefore what Rice said was perfectly reasonable if you know the facts on the ground.
- blackton
December 1, 2012 at 6:08pm
Even competent people are sometimes unlucky to the point of fatal results. For example, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, who was hit by both atomic bombs dropped on Japan. (Still alive, today, though.) Perhaps Ronald Reagan was really competent (as some people believe). I think he was mostly lucky. Sometimes incompetent people are very lucky. (Search on YouTube for "The Luckiest People" on Earth.) Or look at the Jon Stewart takedown of Obama: http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/09/jon-stewart-claims-that-president-obama.html. Susan Rice needs to drink some lucky juice.
- skahn
December 1, 2012 at 11:36pm
" The most diverse states" California--bankrupt. Google "CA ciities w/Mexican majorities, bankrupt." This is not theoretical. This is the reality of the Mexican invasion. Google "black/hispanic high school riots in Los Angeles." Google "black/hispanic prison riots in CA" Let blackton run his mouth about the joys of diversity. New York--bankrupt. If diversity was so great, CA & NY would be so prosperous.Factually, they are not. If I were Japanese, & I thought importing millions of illiterate Mexicans would improve my Japanese economy, gee i sure would support Mexican immigrants . Or maybe I would think twice & realize that my Japanese culture w/its history & tradition was more important than importing illliterates. Mexico does not support outsider immigration. Neither does Japan. Or any other sensible country. Israel goes w/o saying. But TNR wants to see America destroyed by choosing otiose diversity
- raygun
December 2, 2012 at 6:33pm
There are worse kinds of bankruptcy than fiscal bankruptcy. Moral bankruptcy, for example, so ably exhibited by raygun.
- cspencef
December 2, 2012 at 8:15pm
raygun, um...what thread are you reading? I wrote about Rice and the timeline in Benghazi, nothing about Mexico. As to Mexico, net migration is now zero. And Mexicans are not illiterate (except for some elderly indigenous in rural areas). By the way read a map you clueless jackass. Nevada, New Mexico, California Texas, etc. used to be all Mexican territory, we invaded them. And Mexico does allow outsider immigration, I could, if I chose, get Mexican citizenship since I have had an FM2 for a number of years. There are also quite a few Chinese Mexicans as well as Arabic ones. The wealthiest person in the world, Carlos Slim, had family come from Lebanon. By the way my chinese born wife has dealt with more racist shit in America than she ever did in Mexico Now kindly piss off you pig.
- blackton
December 2, 2012 at 11:41pm
"Neither does Japan." Oh raygun - always amusing, from a purely intellectual perspective, to see you here. I gather you must suffer from dementia, seeing how easily you mistake your keyboard for a toilet bowl, right after taking your metamusil ... Actually, there are lots of migrant workers in Japan. There used to be quite a lot of foreigners, in fact, between 1931 and 1945, but mostly as slave labour (gotta love that tranditional Japanese culture), but for the past twenty years, as the Japanese get older and have fewer babies, and as they get richer and are less willing to work the crappy jobs that need to be done, Japan has been importing low-skilled labour. So, you know, piss off.
- icarus-r
December 3, 2012 at 9:30am
blackton: you are correct that Mexico welcomes American pensioners who bring their US pensions to retirement in sunny Mexico. But I am correct that Mexico does not allow illiterate Guatamalans (is there any other kind?) to stay in Mexico. Mexico hates Guatalamans and requires them to keep moving North, that is, move on to the US, which tolerates the illegals Mexico does not tolerate. Icarus: the toilet bowl is so apt for your comments. Please tell everyone here how Mexicans have enriched the Japanese economy? Name 10 Mexican millionaires in Japan. Can't? Cunt..
- raygun
December 3, 2012 at 4:54pm
raygun, one thing about a cunt. It recognizes a dick when it sees one.
- zardoz67
December 3, 2012 at 6:32pm
Why the hell would Mexicans move to Japan? What an idiotic comment. Actually In the mid 1990s, the Guatemalan government, under a bilateral agreement with the state government of Chiapas and with support from the International Labor Organization (ILO), established a system of identity cards for the migrant workers to encourage more of them to migrate through official channels. The Ministry of Health has also established binational programs to provide primary health care for Guatemalan migrant workers in Mexico. But go ahead, keep up your stupidity. Try visiting Chiapas sometime, especially Tapachula. Many of the indigneous people in that area speak the same language and share the same culture... why do I bother, willful ignorance is a waste of time.
- blackton
December 4, 2012 at 12:03am