THE PLANK APRIL 15, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Regarding our erudite debate about the Olympic Games, it does seem a little odd to label Hillary's call for a boycott "immature." After all, she's taking a calculated, pain-free political position that she will never have to deliver on as president. Let's tally up the possible benefits:
-
Bashing China is always popular, and criticizing China on human rights elides well into hitting China on trade.
-
Looking hawkish on China--or any country for that matter--is probably a plus with white-ethnic, union voters.
-
On top of that, she might skim off--or at least soften up--some of Obama's support in the Janeane Garofalo (Free Tibet) and Samantha Power (No, really, let's free Tibet) wings of the Democratic Party.
-
It could put Obama in a position where he's forced to equivocate on human rights, making him look less like an idealist and more like a traditional pol.
-
It won't become a general election issue, because McCain's stance is identical.
-
There's a difference between threatening a boycott and performing a boycott. If a U.S. opposition candidate pushes the president to stage a walkout, it actually makes a U.S. threat to walk out more credible--without ruining the U.S.-China relationship. In this sense, Hillary is actually performing a service to advocates of a nuanced, realistic foreign policy.
It's not a gold mine, but let's look at the costs:
-
The Chinese could remember her stance and hold it against her. Maybe. Or they'll remember how Bill Clinton ran to George H.W. Bush's right on China in 1992--yet pursued a policy of engagement once elected.
Besides, John McCain is threatening to create a League of Democracies to contain Russia and China, while pressuring them on human rights. I doubt Hillary's low-impact sniping will sting for long.
-
Obama could use the issue to attack her "experience" claim. He'd have to warn that we shouldn't anger China at a crucial time in its development. But I don't see him gaining traction that way, while he'd run the risk of looking like an elite, an appeaser, and a scold.
Any way you slice it, Kissinger-Scowcroft realists just aren't a decisive Democratic primary constituency. There's little to be gained by taking the "mature" position here, and free votes for whoever counsels a boycott. Maybe it's Hillary who's being the realist after all.
--Barron YoungSmith
7 comments
I don't quite know on the analysis, but that picture at the top of the post sure makes Hillary look like the old Chinese stereotype, and seems a tad racist.
- Crock1701
April 15, 2008 at 9:34pm
Love the photo.
Now we need a caption contest. My first stab at it.
Hirraly Lodham Crinton wants to Flee Tibet.
- CRS9TNR
April 15, 2008 at 11:12pm
How about running a photo of a just-killed or raped victim in Darfur?
Might change the discussion. At least the tone. Or has there been too many of those on TNR Online and not enough of Obama/Clinton?
Yes, let's all mock Hillary CLinton for endorsing Nancy Pelosi's call for a small symbolic statement to at least keep Darfur/Tibet in the news, because there's so many other options on the table we are discussing.
- Lymon1
April 16, 2008 at 8:15am
jesus lymon, talk about a jarring image.
To get a few percentage points pain free Hillary would bite the head off a live chicken, it is all tactics, no strategy. But we all know this already. We also know that her posturing won't be heeded by Bush, who she surely knows won't turn around and say "you know, Hillary is right." If Hillary had any true conviction about this, then surely she would have convinced a bipartisan group of Senators to secretly confer with Bush on this, urging him to take the lead (even making a deal of some kind, like confirming some judge). Of course, the problem with the second that although it might be far more effective, it will win her no votes. And we all know how much more important that is to her.
- blackton
April 16, 2008 at 10:41am
crock, I agree it makes her look ridiculous, (just as Karl Rove would look ridiculous in a tight swimsuit, some people just don't look good in some clothes) but it ain't racist. It is what the rice farmers wear. Traditional doesn't equal stereotypical, and it doesn't equal racist.
- blackton
April 16, 2008 at 10:52am
blackie, it's not just the hat. The way her mouth and eyes come out, she really looks like a Chinese caricature circa the 1800s. And that part is somewhat racist.
- Crock1701
April 16, 2008 at 11:17am
crock, you are right, but I am just loathe to say it. I mean, it is not exactly her fault that she looks like a caricature. I am just trying to stay away from the perception that westerners dressing in traditional clothing can be considered as playing into a caricature is all. So what i am saying is, you are right, but lets agree not to go there.
- blackton
April 16, 2008 at 12:29pm