It Is To Be Expected
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians? ~Matthew Rothschild
No doubt it’s because he thinks war with Iran should be a last resort! Snark aside, the answer is to be found in what I mentioned earlier today and in what I have been saying for well over a year. The very accommodating, consensus-oriented “pragmatism” many of his admirers find so attractive, in no small part because it was a departure from Bush’s governing style, is the same thing that makes him an unlikely candidate to revise policies and methods in dramatic ways. Besides, Obama is smart and sees what’s what–he knows that progressives are not going anywhere after eight years of GOP misrule and two years of a stalemated, ineffective Democratic Congress, so he knows that he can ignore them with impunity. The glass-half-full types will latch on to anything remotely positive and progressive that Obama does as the reason why progressives should stick by him, there will be a lot of talk about being “realistic” and there will be frequent reminders that “at least he’s better than Bush,” which will probably have the virtue being true.
This is how it begins: movements tie themselves to a President because he is the best chance they have had in ages of having their ideas heard and their agenda advanced, the President becomes in some respects identified with that movement even though his policies do not necessarily reflect many of their concerns, and the fate of the movement becomes tied in the mind of the public and especially in the mind of the opposition to his success or failure. Progressives will find themselves soon enough facing the same dilemma that movement conservatives faced with Bush, to whom the latter rallied when Bush was absurdly demonized as a crazy right-winger. Partisan team players who tried to stress all the ways that Bush was in line with conservatives in order to forestall conservative rebellions against him then found themselves in a ridiculous situation just a couple years later, as they also started to see the need to put distance between themselves and a failing administration. Suddenly the team players remember skeptical comments they made during the primaries from years before before the current President was nominated, which they then tout as proof that they “always knew” that Bush was no conservative. Something similar will probably unfold on the other side in the coming years.
All of the “Team of Rivals” interpretations of Obama’s reported moves seem off-base to me. If he really does bring Clinton into his administration, it will not be as a counterbalance to his own inclinations or as a sop to “centrists” or as a payoff to her, but it will be because the two of them are fundamentally in agreement about policy objectives. From the primaries, we can assume that they are in agreement. Their strongest disagreements were in foreign policy, but their disagreements over foreign policy were minute and process-oriented. They were differences of degree and style; she is probably not quite as crazy as her “obliteration” comment made her sound, and he is certainly not as reasonable as his supporters want him to be when it comes to the possibility of striking at Iran. All of the hawkish love being sent Clinton’s way recently echoes the convenient new respect interventionists on the right gave her during the primaries; it is their way of saying that Obama is proving to be as acceptable to them (and as unacceptable to the rest of us) as some skeptics have maintained all along.
So it is inevitable that progressives are going to be disappointed, and not just in the “politicians always disappoint their voters” way. That said, I think Rothschild might have been raising his expectations to dangerous heights if he ever thought that naming Kucinich to head the State Department was in the cards.
By the way, Rothschild also has an interesting link to a story providing some additional information on Brennan and Jami Miscik, Obama’s two top intelligence advisors during the transition.
Update: On the Iran question, obviously I agree with Alex Massie’s take:
Take Iran, for instance: as the world knows, Obama has talked a good deal about talking with Tehran. (Ignoring, conveniently, that there’s already a good deal of “dialogue” between Iran and the West). This is all very well and good. It would be a fine thing if Iran were persuaded to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Perhaps it can be. But what if it can’t? Obama has repeatedly said that a nuclear Iran is “unacceptable”. That means military action remains an option. It is still – as you may say it must be – on the table. Which is to say that the goal of American policy has not changed, only the emphasis placed, perhaps, on the various possible ways of reaching that goal.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
“That said, I think Rothschild might have been raising his expectations to dangerous heights if he ever thought that naming Kucinich to head the State Department was in the cards.”-DL
Oh that would be great. I just want to dwell on that image for just a moment. Kucinich following in the footsteps of Jefferson, Madison, Webster, Powell… albeit in shoes about 5 sizes smaller.
That would definitely be an act of peace in terms of foreign policy. You don’t whip out Denis Kucinich in your cabinet because you are looking to clean house with extreme prejudice in the Middle East.
Well, it would certainly send a signal.
“The very accommodating, consensus-oriented “pragmatism†many of his admirers find so attractive, in no small part because it was a departure from Bush’s governing style, is the same thing that makes him an unlikely candidate to revise policies and methods in dramatic ways.”
I have to disagree with you. Although I think your assessment of Obama is correct before he became President, the incentives are different now that he has been elected. The way I see it, Obama was pragmatic and consensus-oriented before the election because he really is a person who likes accommodation and consensus, but also because as someone with presidential ambitions, he had to stay close to the center so as not to scare voters, especially considering how inexperienced he was; he would have never been elected had his positions not been establishment approved; he would have been seen as a naive young dangerous fool.
But now that he is President, the incentives are changing. His ambition will push him to be reelected (but that is not a problem now and he will probably have a good honeymoon period before he has to worry about this) and, more importantly, to build a strong legacy. Obama has a strong sense of history; as long as he is not fighting for reelection, his ambition will push him to put his mark on the country and the world. He will not reach the level of Jackson, Lincoln and FDR by only following consensus.
His style will not change much though; on a wide range of issues he will be the same pragmatic centrist we’re now accustomed to. But he will act very boldly on a few select issues, like alternative energy, climate change and health care. The first two topics he can position himself as the first President who “gets it” and health care he might attempt to go for universality of health care (although he did not support it during the campaign, Congress might go for it if they feel they can). Also it appears that he might attempt to bring a resolution to the Kashmir problem and he supports the Arab Peace Initiative for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both can only be qualified as very bold proposals; and incidentally, if either succeed, Obama would widely be hailed as one of the best “peacemaker” of our time.
Barack Obama was a man ambitious enough to become President of the United States at 47 years old. That ambition is not going away. And unlike many other Presidents, Obama is lucky enough to be elected in a very favorable political climate; I’m sure he will use it to continue his self-aggrandizement.
Victor T, shame on you. Obama seeks competency and ability, and trusts his ability to meld that together into a governing philosophy. His band of rivals is more of a brain trust (novel thing to have in the White house after having only Rove and Cheney’s with functioning brains for so long, and they seemed so insecure they didn’t welcome other intelligent, thoughtful folks inside — but they seemed to rely heavily on the think tanks and their corporate backers.)
One of the biggest failures of the Bush administration was the disjointedness of policy — nothing was thought out across the government. The impact of an action of homeland security wasn’t considered in light of energy, for instance. Creeping waste follows. And look at how we’ve paid for it; with the loss of a third of our economic value, crumbling infrastructure, a trashed constitution (how many signing statements?), serious setbacks in scientific research, and two wars.
We are adults, and at least Obama wants to evaluate and address our problems in an adult manner. You should be thanking God, not throwing petty insults. Bush was the President of strutting self-aggrandizement, a cowboy with nothing to offer but cutting shrubs in TX; McCain thought he was owed the job but could not offer a single reason why but cutting taxes.
Shame on you conservatives. You’ve bankrupted the country, and you’re still whining.
Time to grow up and take responsibility for your actions. America isn’t the only nation; recently it’s been among the most destructive of nations. If you keep it up, we’ll be a backwater soon; China has the money; India and Korea will be the innovators, Brazil will the the Western-Hemisphere strength. You can’t just wave a flag and chant USA and have everything be okay. You’ve got to educate kids and make sure they’re healthy (It’s an investment in the future), invest in infrastructure, protect the water air and soil. . .these are the real conservative values. Conserving the future. Not clinging to the past. So grow up yourself, take responsibility for your lack of action, and work to repair the damage you’ve done with your lackluster president.