Tag: presidential election

Realism and the irrationality of conventional wisdom

I was critical a week or so ago of Chris Hedges’ call for the antiwar left to consider third-party candidates who are unequivocal on the war, given that a John McCain presidency would likely result if there was a mass revolt.

But then I read stories like this — via Chris Floyd’s Empire Burlesque — and I think that maybe Hedges is right. Here are two quotations from the AP story that raise the hair on the back of my neck and make me wonder if he is pandering or lost on this:

“The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that’s been naive and it’s people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world,” he said.

Foreign policy realism is code for “I’d use force, but I’d be less likely to be a cowboy.” It doesn’t mean he’d be less likely to flex his muscles than McCain or Bush, only that he’d be more careful about creating a coalition — a la, the first President Bush and the 1991 Gulf War, which Obama said relied on a large coalition and had carefully defined objectives.

He then tried to tie current Bush administration policies to Hillary Clinton.

“I do think that Sen. Clinton would understand that George Bush’s policies have failed, but in many ways she has been captive to the same politics that led her to vote for authorizing the war in Iraq,” he said. “Since 9/11 the conventional wisdom has been that you’ve got to look tough on foreign policy by voting and acting like the Republicans, and I disagree with that.”

Instead, he appears to endorse a different kind of conventional wisdom, one still tied to the notion of American exceptionalism and leadership, that still relies on the idea that we have a right and responsibility to reshape the world to our needs — so long as we can cobble together a decent-sized international coalition.

Floyd deconstructs the comments this way:

Obama is also signaling to the real masters of the United States, the military-corporate complex, that he is a “safe pair of hands” — a competent technocrat who won’t upset the imperial applecart but will faithfully follow the 60-year post-war paradigm of leaving “all options on the table” and doing “whatever it takes” to keep the great game of geopolitical dominance going strong.

What other conclusion can you draw from Obama’s reference to these avatars, and his very pointed identification with them? He is saying, quite clearly, that he will practice foreign policy just as they did. And what they do? Committed, instigated, abetted and countenanced a relentless flood of crimes, murders, atrocities, deceptions, corruptions, mass destruction and state terrorism.

This is a difficult pill to swallow, if you’re in anyway looking for a candidate to redirect the United States away from its long-standing imperial ambitions.

This brings me to a piece that ran last week in The Guardian (U.K.) — Tuesday on Alternet — by a couple of journalists from The Nation. In it, Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill say antiwar voters who uncritically back a Democrat are making a “serious strategic mistake.”

There is no question that the Bush administration has proven impervious to public pressure. That’s why it’s time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.

Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: We’ll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices–from MoveOn.org to the magazine we write for, The Nation–have gone this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.

This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway U. S. policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.

And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions–thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.

Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of “unity,” it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point. And our pressure is badly needed.

Klein and Scahill point out that the Democrats have been receiving significant cash from the military-industrial complex with a bottom-line tied to the prolonging the war.

In sharp contrast to this downsized occupation is the unequivocal message coming from hundreds of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq Veterans Against the War, who held the historic “Winter Soldier” hearings in Silver Spring, Md. earlier this month, are not supporting any candidate or party. Instead they are calling for immediate, unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. soldiers and contractors. Coming from peace activists, the “out now” position has been dismissed as naive. It is distinctly harder to ignore coming from hundreds who have served–and continue to serve–on the frontlines.

The candidates know that much of the passion fueling their campaigns flows from the desire among so many rank-and-file Democrats to end this disastrous war. It is this desire for change that has filled stadiums and campaign coffers.

Crucially, the candidates have already shown that they are vulnerable to pressure from the peace camp: When The Nation revealed that neither candidate was supporting legislation that would ban the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, Clinton abruptly changed course. She became the most important U. S. political leader to endorse the ban, scoring a point on Obama, who opposed the invasion from the start.

This is exactly where we want the candidates: outdoing each other to prove how serious they are about ending the war. That kind of issue-based battle has the power to energize voters and break the cynicism that is threatening both campaigns.

Obama’s comments last week, however, along with Clinton’s “pragmatic” vote on the war in 2002, offer me little hope.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

The Bush extension

Glenn Greenwald offers a spot-on take on John McCain’s foreign policy thinking — a dangerous extension of the Bush doctrine that supports the cliches used (“a third Bush term,” etc.). A McCain presidency will mean an extension of the imperial project, the notion that the United States has both the right and obligation to run the world’s affairs.

It is, as I’ve been writing, the height of hubris and connected to the argument that Chris Hedges has been making, that the belief that history moves in a progressive direction (by progressive, I don’t mean liberal, but in a single direction) brings with it a rationalization of violence, a sense that the ends (a better world, the eradication of evil, etc.) justify the means.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Polling Obama

Matt Yglesias reports on a poll — via Andrew Sullivan and Jon Chait — that offers some interesting insight into where Barack Obama’s support comes from or doesn’t, as the case may be. The poll shows, or purports to show, that race and ethnicity play into the decision voters will make about Obama — and possibly about Clinton down the road.

The numbers:

The focus has been on race, but as Yglesias says, the poll can be read differently:

conservative views about race don’t seem to be nearly as big an influence on anti-Obama sentiments as are conservative views about national security — it’s the “fight for U.S. right or wrong” crowd that’s really heavily represented in the anti-Obama coalition. It’s also fascinating to see that Democrats who agree that “men make better leaders” have a net negative view of Obama; apparently that kind of retrograde cultural conservatism sufficiently correlates with anti-Obama sentiments that even running against a woman doesn’t turn those people into Obama fans.

This could be viewed as being bad news for the Democrats, regardless of who gets the nomination, because the chief alternative to Obama is a woman. But, I want to point out that these are probably the kind of voters who self-identify as Democrats but who were not likely to vote Democrat in November.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Can we kill the cliches?

Perhaps, it’s just me, but I’ve grown weary of hearing the candidates enter soundbite mode as they turn to their bag of cliches to describe the world, their qualifications and beliefs and attempt to win those voters over who have yet to make their decision.

Readers like me know the phrases and probably have found themselves shaking thier heads in annoyance, in disgust, in boredom.

Hillary Clinton offered two of my least favorite in a speech today:

“We are competing in a new global economy, but our policies to equip American workers for the 21st century are stuck back in the 20th,” she said. “It’s time for a president who is ready on Day One to be the commander in chief of our economy. Sometimes the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House and it’s an economic crisis.”

Speeches like this are what drives many of us crazy and make her seem like just another politician. Consider the two tired phrases she uses — phrases she has turned into stock claims throughout this campaign:

Ready on day one. Let’s be honest about this: No one is ready. No one can be ready and it is the height of hubris to make the claim. We elect presidents based on a lot of factors, but we need to be honest and admit that when that phone rings at 3 a.m. or 6 p.m. or whenever it comes the person in the White House will be dealing with something he or she has never dealt with before.

The 3 a.m. phone call. First, as I say above, the call can come at any time. But more importantly, we should be focusing on the policies that come before the call, the ones that help lessen the likelihood of the call, or increase its likelihood. Consider this: No one would question Dick Cheney’s credentials or experience; his philosophy is another matter. It is what dictates how he interacts with the rest of the world, what kind of relationships we have with other nations and what his response would be. Or, forget Cheney and consider John McCain: He has the longest and most detailed resume, but does he have the temperment or the mindset you want in the person who will answer the phone — or make the initial call?

Granted, tying the two tropes to economic matters is interesting, but couldn’t she find some other, more interesting way to say it?

I don’t mean to pick on Clinton — she just offered the latest in a long line of cliched speeches. All of the candidates do it. I just wish they’d stop.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick

E-mail me by clicking here.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.