THE PLANK JUNE 18, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Two stories from Washington
paint a distressing picture of today's body politic. Firstly, a Newsweek article by Evan Thomas makes a fool out of any
reform-minded American planning to vote this fall. Filing a
"report" of the "consensus" at a gathering of Washington tastemakers this weekend, he makes the
reasonable points that Presidents Carter and Clinton were unable to accomplish their
foreign occupation of Washington
power culture. Will a president Obama meet the same brick wall? The old hand ruefully polls his friends:
[T]he general assumption seemed to
be, of course, any new president will need to hire people who know the town,
who are "wired" and get around….
[T]hey have a strong appreciation for congressional
gridlock and the countervailing powers of influence peddlers. They know that
money--perfectly legal money--can trump idealistic campaign promises in a city
thick with more than 30,000 lobbyists.
I agree with them; I am part of that Washington world as a
journalist and I have low expectations that any politician, no matter how
gifted, can change it in a significant way.
Acknowledgement of
the improbability of seismic change would have been welcome, but appreciation? I won't go Olbermann here,
but what a shocking abdication of responsibility. As a journalist, he ought to
have named each of these glibly complacent friends of his, and the atrophied
civics that allow them to actually appreciate
such dysfunction. Barring that, Thomas should have kept this shaming
story to himself. Obviously, the piece was published for
insiders, by one. But Thomas does ponder, at one point, "what the 20,000
or so people in the crowd, most of them African Americans, would have thought
of the conversation I had participated in two nights before in the living room
of my well-connected friend." I think they--white-collar office parkers, middle-American
homemakers, or rail-riding workers who rise to pour their own coffee before
they pour yours--would have been pissed. Thanks, Newsweek!
Of course, this "news" drops at the same time that the Washington Post editorializes
about the conversation between Barack Obama and the Iraqi foreign minister
Hoshyar Zebari. Zebari rightly laments the warp-speed (16-month) withdrawal
timetable that has propelled Obama to the threshold of the White House. His
full commentary to the Post board--to
be taken with a grain of ideological salt--is worth quoting in full:
Mr. Zebari said he told Mr. Obama that "Iraq
is not an island." In other words, an American withdrawal that
destabilized the country would also roil the region around it and embolden U.S. adversaries such as al-Qaeda
and Iran.
"We have a deadly enemy," Mr. Zebari said. "When he sees that
you commit yourself to a certain timetable, he will use this to increase
pressure and attacks, to make it look as though he is forcing you out. We have
many actors who would love to take advantage of that opportunity." Mr.
Zebari says he believes U.S.
forces can and should be drawn down. His point is that reductions should be
made gradually, as the Iraqi army becomes stronger.
The foreign minister said "my message" to
Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope
any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was
reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama
might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain.
Iraq is not an island, but DC sure is. And here I'll inject my own pessimism: It would be political
suicide for Obama to change his stance on Iraq--even though it is clearly the right thing to do. We've reached a point
wherein hand-waving rigidity is lauded as righteousness (in both parties) and
nuance is punished swiftly. Never mind that Obama drafted his plan for
withdrawal a full 18 months ago, or that the drawdown from the surge is behind
schedule, or that Maliki is emboldened by recent successes, that Bush is kicking the
can down the road, or that General David Petraeus has declared that we won't
know we've made progress "until we're six months past it." The
pitchforked mob will have the flip-floppers, dead or alive.
What's worse, should Obama (or McCain or Petraeus, for that matter)
do the evaluative, sensible thing on Iraq--of which Zebari's "reassurance" suggests
Obama is capable--I anticipate the feeding frenzy to comprise cries of
"betrayal!" from the left and "oho!" from the right. Or
vice versa. A lucid debate over the well-being of our stature in the world and our troops in Iraq
will be utter afterthoughts. This is where our punitive politics naturally leads. For goodness sake--Obama's
great moment in Michigan
Tuesday has been clouded by a report that aides clearcut Muslim
supporters from the television cameras. Because this year, being Muslim is
almost as bad as being a lobbyist, or a reporter--unless, of course, you have the ear of the White House.
--Dayo Olopade
13 comments
Carter and Clinton were both Governors. Obama is a Senator, presumably far more versed in the realities of Washington life than were either Carter or Clinton.
- ndmackenzie
June 18, 2008 at 2:17pm
Evan Thomas wrote a very good biography of Robert Kennedy a few years ago. Apart from that, he may as well change his name to Broder.
- NatDaMan
June 18, 2008 at 2:57pm
I think that any visual or similar association between Obama and people who are clearly identifiable as Muslim will be equivalent to him phoning in his concession speech to John McCain right now. Unfortunate? Yes. A sad reflection of our stereotyping and prejudice? Absolutely. A ludicrous conflation of law abiding American citizens with Islamic fundamentalist radicals? No doubt. But I think that any Muslim who wants Obama to win in November should think very clearly about their contribution to that goal.
- ironyroad
June 18, 2008 at 3:10pm
This issue is bound to come up in any presidential debate. The American people are smarter than any Washington insiders will give them credit for, and we will have our b.s. detectors going at full volume. When it comes to voters vs. idealogues, Mark Twain said it best. "When in doubt, tell the truth."
- nbarry
June 18, 2008 at 3:12pm
From www.merriam-webster.com/.../appreciate :
"to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of <appreciate the difference between right and wrong>"
- dhchait
June 18, 2008 at 3:19pm
Thomas writes: "There is a disconnect here, and I don't see what's going to change it."
My response: President Obama, 58-60 Ds in the Senate, and 270 Ds in the House will be a start.
- prnoonan
June 18, 2008 at 3:19pm
I, for one, am an individual who has bought into Obama's "change" meme even though I can appreciate the fact that the Consitution makes radical change nigh unachievable. Evan Thomas seems to think Obama's supporters are expecting some sort of millenarian change and the ushering in of a new golden age.
For me, the change I'm looking for is good management, sensible spending and strategic thinking. I don't expect Washington to change its stripes, but there are incremental steps that can be taken towards better government.
- hellx
June 18, 2008 at 3:21pm
Dayo, I'd like to point out that not only do I not think Obama needs to change any portion of his stance regarding Iraq, I think you yourself are punishing nuance by ignoring much of what Obama has said regarding his plans for Iraq in favor of the hardline "Withdraw" and "timetable" elements.
Obama has been quizzed incessantly regarding his plans for Iraq, with everyone seeming to be looking for some sign of weakness or lack of preparation which would justify voting for the other candidate; even without frequent grilling, Obama has often spoken regarding the various "details" involved with a withdraw. Watch his Hardball interview (youtube) for starters.
I will concede he often does not itemize every detail during any particular speech or interview, but this is fully in line with any candidate speaking to specific groups of people who don't care about those "other" details, or in response to specific questions, and not something anyone from either side should try to highlight as a flaw.
And as for those who would say "Oho!" or "Betrayal!", I see two types of people: those who are actually surprised, and those who are simply being opportunistic. For those who are surprised, I think more complete reporting, for instance including a candidate's nuances in an article regarding their position on X, will eliminate much of the noise; the remainder of their noise should be muffled by the sand under which their heads are buried. The remainder are doomed to obscurity and irrelevance.
- GSpinks
June 18, 2008 at 3:58pm
Dayo Olopade-
You write: "Acknowledgement of the improbability of seismic change would have been welcome, but appreciation? I won't go Olbermann here, but what a shocking abdication of responsibility. As a journalist, [Evan Thomas] ought to have named each of these glibly complacent friends of his, and the atrophied civics that allow them to actually appreciate such dysfunction."
As dhchait suggests above, the word "appreciation" often denotes an understanding or recognition of the various qualities of a situation, or of a person or a thing, and not necessarily, as you imply above, a sympathetic disposition toward those qualities.
One would think that, as a journalist, Dayo, you would have been able to appreciate that distinction.
- JosephCuomo
June 18, 2008 at 4:16pm
Another bizarre Plank post on Iraq. Where to start? How about with this spin:
"the warp-speed (16-month) withdrawal timetable that has propelled Obama to the threshold of the White House"
While one could make a case that Obama rose to prominence in the Iowa _caucus_ via his anti-Iraq authorization vote mantra, it's silly to suggest that this message, or even this issue, will "propel him to the White House." The only people in this country whose voting behavior turns solely or even mainly on Iraq are a) the Norman Podhoretz true believer crowd on the far interventionist right and b) the MoveOnner true believer crowd on the far isolationist left. Together these two Iraqicentric groups make up maybe 20%, absolute maximum, of the likely voting population.
"Never mind that Obama drafted his plan for withdrawal a full 18 months ago..."
Well, that was pretty stupid, wasn't it? As I and plenty of other sane voices mentioned at the time, pledging withdrawal is foolish, full stop. It merely emboldens our enemies in the area and undermines the troops in the field. The only conceivable advantage of doing so is for reasons of rank opportunism, at home, in front of MoveOnner-friendly audiences. Such as the Iowa Democratic caucus-goers.
"...or that the drawdown from the surge is behind schedule"
Oh, please, we're all adults here. Any complex undertaking will fall behind schedule-- and many simple undertakings (like providing a user-friendly media website?) often fall behind schedule as well. (What's it been, a year now, with the Great Can'tWest Klooge?) Military matters are complicated, folks.
"... or that Maliki is emboldened by recent successes"
? There weren't enough clauses in this sentence already? What does this mean, or add, to the argument?
"....that Bush is kicking the can down the road"
Bullshit. If anything, Bush is putting far too much time and emphasis on "victory" in Iraq. He's hardly dodging the issue. If anyone's guilty of that, it's his predecessor.
"... or that General David Petraeus has declared that we won't know we've made progress "until we're six months past it."
More heads-I-win, tails-you-lose pseudo-arguments. We've clearly made huge progress, and just as clearly are not going to "win" in Iraq.
Perhaps less clearly-- to our party's anti-Iraq War obsessives esp-- this election will NOT turn on Iraq, neither on what's happening now, what to do next, or what was done/decided years ago. Unlike each side's True Believers, the broad US public knows that neither driving for "victory" nor withdrawal is a realistic goal and that the only sensible option is to muddle on through, taking such small victories as we can and making small redeployments along with them.
That Obama is moving toward this sensible position is hugely reassuring. Maybe he has real judgment and depth after all. More like this, please.
- teplukhin2you
June 18, 2008 at 4:17pm
In an attempt to prove you can fool some of the people all of the time, teplukhin2you starts his post with "another bizarre Plank post on Iraq" and ends it with "more like this, please." In the middle, he writes:
-- Perhaps less clearly-- to our party's anti-Iraq War obsessives esp-- this election will NOT turn on Iraq, neither on what's happening now, what to do next, or what was done/decided years ago. Unlike each side's True Believers, the broad US public knows that neither driving for "victory" nor withdrawal is a realistic goal and that the only sensible option is to muddle on through, taking such small victories as we can and making small redeployments along with them.
Um, this election has already turned on Iraq with the unexpected defeat of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. The Republican Party nationwide is being kept back due to a President with a job-approval rating below one-third in large part due to actual and perceived failure in Iraq. So this election has turned and will continue to turn on Iraq.
Since teplukhin2you once again uses the phrase "our party" to disparage the Democratic Party he might wish to consider what his real party affiliation is. There is, after all, nothing intrinisically wrong with being a Republican.
- ndmackenzie
June 19, 2008 at 12:45pm
I think this A1 Times piece is a smart, important piece of reporting, if its underlying thematics point
- Anonymous
June 24, 2008 at 12:32pm
I wanted to sound off on the ongoing national security duel between John McCain and Barack Obama. Two
- Anonymous
July 15, 2008 at 5:23pm