Barack Obama gave another soaring speech last night in claiming the Democratic nomination, as we have come to expect. Whatever you think of him, I think he’s proven that his prepared speeches are must-see TV. I actually didn’t watch John McCain’s speech; I did see Senator Clinton’s. But I digress. Indeed, after the “shock and awe” of an Obama speech, after the emotion fades, several questions are going to be asked and criticisms leveled. Such as those articulated by Karl Rove, asking whether Obama had the ability to “make” oil companies use their profits in the way he wants (to say nothing of the morality/constitutionality of such a move), and whether it was possible to provide healthcare to every American. (And there remains that same moral/constitutional question, which deserves an excursus)
[Sidebar: The means of arriving at a desired good, and the opportunity costs of the various means, are exactly at issue in politics. Obama ought not expect that his opponents simply lack in compassion or imagination in opposing his plans. Somewhat disturbingly, he seems to believe this, or at least he fails to educate his audiences about this. One actually conducts useful disputation in politics by acknowledging the merits, or at least the appeal, of opposing ideas, and then explaining the superiority of one’s own ideas. It is not enough to acknowledge the personhood of one’s opponent; even the most closed-minded individuals can squeeze out a gracious remark or two. Instead, one must teach people. I realize this is almost impossible in American politics today, and it’s never actually happened, but we ought to demand this.]
And when that grumpy neocon Fred Barnes is right, he’s right. He pointed out that the whole Obama speech was “liberal boilerplate” that we’ve heard before. One wonders if these newly motivated participants we often hear about are so new that they fail to notice how old Obama’s ideas and promises are! In Obama’s defense, he has hinted at possible deviations from liberal orthodoxy in education, such as merit pay for teachers and school choice, but has retreated at other times. An argument could be made that Obama need not speak these heresies in front of staunch supporters, but I disagree. That’s the perfect time to educate the audience, both in person and those watching at home. For example, as Obama said, “meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower but the power of our diplomacy” and “tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands, and what we stand for,” I wonder: Are we to believe President Bush has never thought of this? No negotiation has been conducted? He invokes the litany of Democratic presidential heroes as an example, apparently unaware or willfully ignorant of the fact that every single one of them started a war, and was unashamedly in favor of American victory. Surely what makes them well-respected by all quarters was their willingness to use force when they felt “where we stand” required it. I agree with Obama that negotiation with staunch enemies is not surrender necessarily, but suppose our “preconditions” were the safety of our people, and innocent people in other lands. There is a point where discussion is fruitless, and Obama must tell us where he determines that point to lie with say, Iran. Is a nuclear Iran something he considers a threat? Why or why not? If it is a problem, what might Obama say that would be substantially different from George W. Bush, or Secretary Rice, or Hadley? If Iran or any other nation wished to take actions we considered threats irrespective of our diplomatic overtures, what would he do? Despite the Democratic claims of preference for multilateralism, the issue is not multilateralism vs. unilateralism, or even soft vs. hard power; rather, the issue is how to address the failure of multinational alliances (the UN) in the face of its unaccountable bureaucracy, and rank anti-Americanism. And that is especially relevant, given that the UN is often posited as a better alternative to unilateral action, and the deployment of American power. If the widespread use of American power (neoconservatism) is not the best option for the threats of the 21st century, then critics must spend less time personally attacking its advocates (Bush) and more time developing coherent alternatives that answer these questions.
On a more personal level, I do not value John McCain’s (alleged) independence from his party. I like his party, and almost all the ideas that animate it. In fact, if McCain “stood with George Bush 95% of the time” it likely means he was too out of step with conservatism anyway! But this is to be expected when one party is drunk with power, and the other hasn’t had a new idea or a diverse ideological makeup since 1896 (when they dismissed Cleveland). And lest this become a simplistic “pox on both your houses!” statement, let me add that constant calls for ‘unity’ and an ‘end to the bickering’ these days amount to nothing more than a plea for ignorance, an intellectual vapidity that is only exceeded by the shallowness of our debates. We are debate-averse and stupid, and that is a horrible place for the nation to remain.
[Sidebar: The means of arriving at a desired good, and the opportunity costs of the various means, are exactly at issue in politics. Obama ought not expect that his opponents simply lack in compassion or imagination in opposing his plans. Somewhat disturbingly, he seems to believe this, or at least he fails to educate his audiences about this. One actually conducts useful disputation in politics by acknowledging the merits, or at least the appeal, of opposing ideas, and then explaining the superiority of one’s own ideas. It is not enough to acknowledge the personhood of one’s opponent; even the most closed-minded individuals can squeeze out a gracious remark or two. Instead, one must teach people. I realize this is almost impossible in American politics today, and it’s never actually happened, but we ought to demand this.]
And when that grumpy neocon Fred Barnes is right, he’s right. He pointed out that the whole Obama speech was “liberal boilerplate” that we’ve heard before. One wonders if these newly motivated participants we often hear about are so new that they fail to notice how old Obama’s ideas and promises are! In Obama’s defense, he has hinted at possible deviations from liberal orthodoxy in education, such as merit pay for teachers and school choice, but has retreated at other times. An argument could be made that Obama need not speak these heresies in front of staunch supporters, but I disagree. That’s the perfect time to educate the audience, both in person and those watching at home. For example, as Obama said, “meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower but the power of our diplomacy” and “tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands, and what we stand for,” I wonder: Are we to believe President Bush has never thought of this? No negotiation has been conducted? He invokes the litany of Democratic presidential heroes as an example, apparently unaware or willfully ignorant of the fact that every single one of them started a war, and was unashamedly in favor of American victory. Surely what makes them well-respected by all quarters was their willingness to use force when they felt “where we stand” required it. I agree with Obama that negotiation with staunch enemies is not surrender necessarily, but suppose our “preconditions” were the safety of our people, and innocent people in other lands. There is a point where discussion is fruitless, and Obama must tell us where he determines that point to lie with say, Iran. Is a nuclear Iran something he considers a threat? Why or why not? If it is a problem, what might Obama say that would be substantially different from George W. Bush, or Secretary Rice, or Hadley? If Iran or any other nation wished to take actions we considered threats irrespective of our diplomatic overtures, what would he do? Despite the Democratic claims of preference for multilateralism, the issue is not multilateralism vs. unilateralism, or even soft vs. hard power; rather, the issue is how to address the failure of multinational alliances (the UN) in the face of its unaccountable bureaucracy, and rank anti-Americanism. And that is especially relevant, given that the UN is often posited as a better alternative to unilateral action, and the deployment of American power. If the widespread use of American power (neoconservatism) is not the best option for the threats of the 21st century, then critics must spend less time personally attacking its advocates (Bush) and more time developing coherent alternatives that answer these questions.
On a more personal level, I do not value John McCain’s (alleged) independence from his party. I like his party, and almost all the ideas that animate it. In fact, if McCain “stood with George Bush 95% of the time” it likely means he was too out of step with conservatism anyway! But this is to be expected when one party is drunk with power, and the other hasn’t had a new idea or a diverse ideological makeup since 1896 (when they dismissed Cleveland). And lest this become a simplistic “pox on both your houses!” statement, let me add that constant calls for ‘unity’ and an ‘end to the bickering’ these days amount to nothing more than a plea for ignorance, an intellectual vapidity that is only exceeded by the shallowness of our debates. We are debate-averse and stupid, and that is a horrible place for the nation to remain.
Comments