The New Republic

Extremely well-said and appreciated.

Now, where's tep to complain about Obama's changes of position, which he seems totally unable to specify.

Also thanks to the editors for soliciting Ms. Slaughter's opinion, and for posting it here where, unlike Lake's or anybody else's regular articles, we plebes are no longer allowed to comment and engage in discussion in any meaningful way. I guess a comments ghetto is better than nothing, but it's a long way down from where this website used to be.

- Robert Powell

July 18, 2008 at 1:41pm

I understand why people choose past Presidents and their tactics and then compare-contrast what we know about Obama. Since it is used to attack Obama it is especially useful to provide a more comprehensive analysis when an opponent might rely on a snappy slogan. But back when I was a student (early '70's) I concluded the we had the did the same but we were reviewing the President's record in office. In fact much of what was offered by a candidate prior to governing would be both a poor indicator and even misleading when compared to their responses during their term.

The best parts of the Slaughter piece succeed because a perception of "smooth and poised and willing to wade into any crowd" or "tough and pragmatic, but principled" are more useful when they are compiled. Usually, critiquing specific plans that require the hypothetical issue remain static are easy but of little use.

We gain more from the less precise "What will he do on ____ ?" than noticing the gulf between how a person's mind operates. EX: "Obama's willingness to talk to anyone ...the doctrinaire attitudes of the George W. Bush administration." are at opposite poles. Perhaps vague to many, but people decide and react in a reflexive manner and we need to understand (and approve or not) a person's style and approach because those core values are almost a prior in terms of a why decisions are made. All surgeons approach a typical procedure in a textbook fashion till things go south. Then, right or wrong is more a matter of a human reaction that can't be defined in medical terms.  Same with pilots and parents. A person's philosophy and well worn habits are the only reliable indicators of future behavior.

Some will be underwhelmed by her claim "willing to voice some unpleasant truths" but is the very people who support Obama and are upset when he does that which validate his integrity.

This was not only good but (If I'm not full o' it) this long campaign should allow if not demand that the candidates are confronted fewer less specifics and more of the 'how do you think and why' sort of questions.

- michael

July 18, 2008 at 2:34pm

IF, and it's a big IF, as president, Obama acts as described above, his foreign policy will not be a complete disaster.  However, talking and lecturing only gets one so far.

Our enemies are still our enemies, and while I having nothing against talking to them, talking won't change their behavior.  We can talk to the mullahs all day, and they still will not stop enriching uranium, and why should they?  Hugo C. is still going to be bombastic, and no US President will stop him (although he's so bush league he barely rates a mention).

What we don't know is, if and when the situation calls for military action, will Obama take same?  As he is a left-leaning Democrat, I am not encouraged.  Even a relative centrist as Bill Clinton was extremely slow to take action in the Balkans over Bosnia, then Kosovo (places we still have troops, after the Clintonites told us we'd be there 18 months).  The center of gravity of his party is extremely averse to military action - they tend to define the problem away.  Not good enough.

But it's only July - long way to go.

- butchie b

July 18, 2008 at 3:56pm

What an absurd little note. As if realpolitikers aren't willing to cut deals with unsavory characters.

Re Reagan vs Carter, this is unintentionally hilarious. Slaughter talks up Reykjavik while completely ignoring the nearly 7 years of harsh confrontation that caused the Politburo to gamble on Gorbachev the rube, and then caused that rube to unilaterally surrrender: to name a fwe examples, the Cruise missile placements, aggressive countermeasures all over the world, SDI (which the head of the USSR's USA-Canada Institute and other top soviet officials told me was the biggest single factor influencing the Politiburo's conclusion that by 1985 it was Game Over, ie the US semiconductor and other technologies' lead meant that the arms race had been won by the US). Also there was a lot of rather harsh _talk_ by Reagan, none of it apologetic about US sins or misdeeds, that unfavorably compared Soviet values with American ones and rallied lots of Americans AND brave dissidents across Eastern Europe. Not a word about any of this.

Slaughter praises Carter as  a model for Obama, mentioning the Egypt-Israel accords but refusing to mention Carter's botched policies vis-a-vis the Soviets, a f-p dimension of _far_ greater significance to US security, or the fact that Carter the newbie bumbler had by 1980 so alienated every one of our allies that they were openly rooting for his opponent to win. Unbelievable that someone who's supposedly an expert in interstate relations would actually go out of her way to praise Carter and trash Reagan in matters of foreign policy. You expect better of TNR, which one may recall from the era was withering in its scorn for the former and courageous and intelligent in its praise for Reagan's Soviet policies.

More giggles from Slaughter:

"But he is equally willing to voice some unpleasant truths on subjects ranging from fuel subsidies to race"

"Fuel subsidies" - good grief. We're talking about the man who supports the ethanol embarrassment that has raised food prices for the poor around the world and lined the coffers of those progressive worthies, Cargill and ADM, while doing f-all for either energy independence or reduced carbon emissions. This is one of many examples of Obama's smarminess and willingness to pander. It's the opposite of courage.

As to "unpleasant truths about race", even this guy's most diehard groupies now recognize the most important truth about race in America in 2008, which is that it ought to be made irrelevant to school and university admissions. (The voters of California and Michigan and intelligent liberals like Kinsley got there years ago.) Not least because race-based aff action has, like the ethanol boondogggle mentioned above, done next to nothing in the way of furthering its purported policy rationale, in this case helping poor ghetto kids (as opposed to buppies' brats). Funny, again, that the Wonder Boy refuses to do the right thing-- also the politically smart thing, but who's counting-- to come out and openly advocate scrapping race-based aff action in favor of class-based aff action.

But that would require spending some political capital. As opposed to pandering to European (!) audiences with rock-star tours, or promoting idiotic, JFK-style reckless adventures like simultaneously withdrawing from Iraq and invading Pakistan.

Robert P, I'm surprised at your amnesia concerning US-USSR relations between 1975 and 1987. Is this the same Robert Powell who's teaching politics in Pland now, or did someone hack that moniker?

- teplukhin2you

July 19, 2008 at 3:03am

"An Obama Doctrine would be tough and pragmatic, but principled."

Doctrine -- credo, dogma, belief, teaching, ideology.

Does Obama really have any?  If so, I'm yet to discern it, esp. in f-p.  To add his another confused position to this discussion:  he presumably has a problem with the Jewish voters, so he goes to the AIPAC conference and, to the rousing cheers,  proclaims the indivisibility of Jerusalem -- only to reverse himself a few days later.

Anybody with a modicum of knowledge on the subject would know how huge and sensitive this issue is, and how careful one has to be with it.  Obama apparently had no clue.

 The other night I was listening to an NPR talk show which featured a couple of (far and farther) leftists, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of the Nation, and a guy from Slate.com (didn't catch his name).

The question was, given Obama's tacking to the center,  whether he was still one of them or not.  The Slate guy felt that the most recent Obama was the true one, betraying the left, while KvH was confident he was still one of them merely faking a centrist to win in general election.

Now, one of them (among many others holding very different political views, eg,  MPeretz, Robert Powell, Z. Bzhezinski, just to name a few) will eat crow in case Obama is elected.  We just don't know yet who those fools will be.

Which is to say -- to borrow from Teplukhin, voting for Obama is a crapshot.  He may turn out to be a good, even a great president, or a terrible disappointment.

I'm afraid of the latter -- from the very beginning I was taking aback by his lack of any qualifications for the position (apart from him delivering vary inspirational albeit often contradictory and misleading speeches).  As his campaign progressed, I became even less reassured.  

Read this piece:

The Audacity of Vanity

By Charles Krauthammer?Friday, July 18, 2008; A17

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008071701839.html

- sabaka

July 19, 2008 at 12:38pm

Tep, if SDI was what convinced the Soviets that it was game over, then we absolutely snookered them, because even 25 years later that is largely science fiction. When you look at the internal stresses within the late Soviet Union, it is not so clear to me how much to weight the military factors vs. the internal disintegration of the Soviet system. The aim of glasnost and perestroika was not openness and restructuring of the military apparatus, but of the society as a whole.

An interesting aside: over the last few weeks I was in Russia and working with a Russian-AMerica student, among others. His father had been drafted in the Army after college (thanks to a clerical error in his deferment papers, he had to go into the military instead of grad school), and was assigned to intelligence. After intercepting enough Swedish diplomatic transmissions, he decided which side of the Iron Curtain he wanted to end up on -- but had to wait until the Sovet collapse to migrate to the West.

My point is that the military power imbalance was only one factor of many in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

- JEFF FREY

July 19, 2008 at 6:20pm

Jeff Frey - SDI represented a larger principle, the increasingly high-te h nature of hte arms race. As my Soviet professor put it to me, the fact that the USSR had fallen behind not only the uS but even Taiwan Japana nd Korea in the realm of semiconductor and other advanced technologies meant that there was simply no way they could catch up. SDI brought this home to the Politburo, in a dramatic way. By 1985 the Soviets were still trying to master the industrial revolution. They had not even entered the phase of the information revolution. Game over.

- teplukhin2you

July 19, 2008 at 6:53pm

Jeff Frey  -- because of the nature of the system (no private property, central planning of everything, a small group of cleptocrats deciding which industries to develop and how, etc.), the Soviet economy was hugely inefficient, resistant to innovation and priding itself in totally meaningless indicators, such as the amount of steel or coal produced.

It was also mostly militarized supporting equally huge and inefficient Soviet Army whose main purpose was to keep up with the US/Nato.  As a result, consumer goods, housing, agriculture were even in much worse shape than the military.

The progressively widening gap between the West and the USSR caused all sorts of strains in the Soviet Union.  Reagan didn't win the Cold War singlehandedly, but his push with SDI (among other things) was a big factor, esp. coming after those "realists" who were prepared to live with the USSR forever.

And, the main purpose of perestroika and glasnost was an attempt to preserve the communist system that, to "young Turks" (such as then-Secretary General Gorbachev), was obviously not working, not to ruin it.

Dept of Corrections (from the previous post):  taken, not taking, aback; crapshoot, not crapshot.

- sabaka

July 19, 2008 at 10:18pm

Every Presidential election is a crap-shoot.  Anyone who imagines that they can predict now the unexpected geopolitical crisis(es) Obama or McCain will face, much less exactly how either of them would react, much MUCH less what the long-term consequences of those reactions might be, is living in a fool's paradise.  So far I haven't seen anything in either candidate that causes any particular concern, but then we almost never see the important stuff until it's too late.

The short-term memory probably ain't what it used to be, tep, but my recall of US-USSR relations between 1975 and 1987 is solid. Here in "Pland" there's still an active public debate about it, including Lech Walesa's role as a police spy. One of my colleagues worked for many years in Soviet intelligence. He said as soon as he walked into an office and saw the copy machine in the middle of the workspace and accessible to everyone, he knew they had lost.

I have great respect for the political judgments of everyone who's posted on this so far (noon Sunday CET), including Ann Marie Slaughter. I don't think you're being altogether fair to what she actually wrote, tep, no matter how well-founded your complaints about Carter etc.

Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter any more than John McCain is George Bush. Quite a bit less like, actually. I get that you don't like Obama, but a clear difference on policy I have not heard. Were you for the ridiculous "gas-tax rebate" scam?

- Robert Powell

July 20, 2008 at 6:07am

Which Obama are you talking about? They're proliferating these days. I'm mystified by your confident belief that Obama shares your views and not Katrina Vanden Heuvel's. One of you is mistaken.

Or both of you.

- teplukhin2you

July 20, 2008 at 6:26am

Robert Powell:  Of course you never know how a candidate, once elected, will behave in the office, and what crisis may come his way,  And, even the current administration gave "great" examples when people with toms of experience in government & private sector pursued very wrong-headed policies.

But to conclude from that that no experience required for the arguably most important job in the US (as I think you did on another thread) is just plain wrong, IMO.  In 2000, I voted for Al Gore because, among other things, I considered him far better qualified than GWB.

Yes, the future commander-in-chief will face unexpected crises.  But even the continuation of the current ones (and they *will* continue, likely even intensify) , both domestic and foreign, will be more than enough to fill his plate.  So, as a voter, you try to assess the candidate's past record, his world view, his character, the issues he's passionate about to arrive at your simple binary conclusion.

I'm not terribly excited about either of the candidates;  with Obama, though, I feel that I know far too little about him, and what I do know, and learn,  is progressively less appealing.

- sabaka

July 20, 2008 at 1:24pm

Obama has been appropriately specific and consistent on all the major policy issues he's discussed as far as I can tell. Many months ago he said repeatedly what he saw our role in Iraq should be going forward, for example. A former Pentagon auditor's analysis put the number of troops needed to meet those requirements at between 40- and 60,000. Obama many months ago also specifically called for an increase in our infantry forces, Army and Marines, by 97,000, and I don't think he's planning to send them to Germany.  Compared to McCain, Obama has been remarkably consistent.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel is nearly always mistaken, while I am nearly always correct.

- Robert Powell

July 20, 2008 at 1:31pm

RP:  "Obama has been appropriately specific and consistent on all the major policy issues he's discussed as far as I can tell."

Yep, he, unlike you, was consistently opposed to the war in Iraq, was opposed to the troops surge there (claiming it would never work), and wants to get out of Iraq on firm and quick schedule (if you don't count his recent little side trip to the center and back on the troop withdrawal).

That position was THE thing that won him the nomination, and I, recalling your previous fierce arguments on these threads with people who held similar uncompromising positions, am a little surprised at your glowing endorsement of Obama.  Is it because, in your opinion, he's simply better than McCain?

That would be understandable, but not your enthusiasm and attempts to whitewash his rapidly changing positions.

Here's something else interesting:  for a future prez who's going to repair our (nearly destroyed by GWB) relations with the European allies, your man is remarkably reluctant to talk with foreign correspondents:

Snubbed by Obama

By Christoph von Marschall

Barack Obama is on his way to Europe, where an adoring public awaits. But I wonder if the reception would be quite so enthusiastic if Obama's fans across the Atlantic knew a dirty little secret of his remarkable presidential campaign: Although Obama portrays himself as the best candidate to engage the rest of the world and restore America's image abroad, and many Americans support him for that reason, so far he has almost completely refused to answer questions from foreign journalists.

...

One of his campaign advisers told me recently: "Why should we take the time for foreign media, since there is Obamania around the world?"

Read in full:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008071802612.html

- sabaka

July 21, 2008 at 12:32am

sabaka--Obama made a speech against the invasion when he was a State Senator representing a quite liberal district. Nice speech, which included some points Bush would have done well to consider more seriously. There are a lot of people who had serious reservations in 2002, and in retrospect it's hard to discount all of their arguments.

I think the opponents of the invasion missed the boat in terms of the true nature of the threat Iraq represented, but then Obama also said in very clear language that if he'd been the the US Senate with access to the intelligence and with the experience of having dealt with the problem directly as his colleagues had, he might have also voted for the AUF. He's never said anything that struck me as kin to the relentlessly sanctimonious preaching from ignorance of many invasion opponents.

Moreover, since becoming a US Senator he's been a reliable vote for supporting the war, and as noted above has outlined a plan for what we need to do going forward that I think makes good sense, hitting all the important points in terms of remaining engaged without attempting to be the Baghdad P.D. in perpetuity.

Obama will be under a lot more pressure than McCain not to appear to have been duped by the upcoming settlement in Iraq. He's been consistently explicit about his views on our responsibilities there, and once he's in the White House he will be presented with a different set of equations. He'll have a huge interest in getting the best deal possible, and in some respects will be better placed to make it.  McCain would be beset from Day 1 with a hostile Congress that will make it very difficult for him to do some of the things both he and Obama will want to do, while Obama can reasonably expect more leeway both in Washington and abroad.

I don't blame the Obama people for making US journalists a priority over the Euros. There will be plenty of time for holding forth in the cheese-eating capitols after the election. The priority now is to win, and to the extent that a campaign organization can be a precursor to an administration thereby giving us something to look at in terms of what to expect, I'm a big fan of the Obama Machine.  

- Robert Powell

July 21, 2008 at 12:15pm

RP: "to the extent that a campaign organization can be a precursor to an administration thereby giving us something to look at in terms of what to expect, I'm a big fan of the Obama Machine."

And well you must be impressed by the Obama Machine.  With regard to Iraq, if all Obama did was to have raised a few legitimate concerns about the future US invasion of Iraq (while being a not-yet-fully-informed state senator), then a large chunk of the Democrats, the Nation magazine, MoveOn.org, the excitable youths, etc. etc. were brilliantly duped by said Machine into believing that their candidate has always been adamantly against the war, and will get us out of there in shortest order, no matter what.  An objective observer would add that these groups have more evidence for their claims than you, but who knows?

Maybe Obama is indeed a smart and pragmatic politician who has a clear picture of what's going on, and will get us out of our troubles there with the best deal possible.  And not a win-at-any-cost brilliant panderer and obfuscator.  We shall find out fairly soon.

As to his steadfast refusal to have an interview with a Euro reporter, there too exists an explanation different from yours.  He may simply not know enough about f-p, and be afraid it will come out.  If you noticed in the article, McCain, on the other hand, talked to foreign press.  But then again, he probably knows he won't have "plenty of time for holding forth in the cheese-eating capitols after the election."  As the newly-elected president, that is.

And one last thought:  any interest in a really good bridge in NYC?

- sabaka

July 21, 2008 at 4:17pm

Actually sabaka I'm trying to diversify my portfolio away from US real estate, but thanks anyway.

Obama is not entirely responsible for the fact that lots of people have projected onto him what they want to believe he will do.  The fact that he hasn't gone out of his way to prevent them from doing so just means he's a reasonably sensible guy. But there's never been any ambiguity about Obama's prescription for Iraq, which is basically the same as mine since late 2003--put an Iraqi face on the domestic security, and keep our people available in the background for the Big Picture--balancing among the major factions, encouraging democratic political and economic development, and guaranteeing Iraqi territorial integrity.

If Obama goes too far with the currently fashionable idiocy of focusing on Afghanistan to the detriment of our interests in Iraq, I'll have no problem voting for McCain. I'm rather pleased to have two good choices.

- Robert Powell

July 21, 2008 at 6:10pm

The sadomasochist in me hopes that we all get Obama and the resulting blow up in Iraq and subsequently terrorist training camps that funnel them directly into NYC.  Then I realize that hundreds of Americans will die and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die and I sober up.

- jwl2672

July 23, 2008 at 4:13pm

Hillary Clinton has made it known that she plans to appoint Anne-Marie Slaughter as the State Department's

- Anonymous

January 9, 2009 at 6:13pm