Bush, Obama, and Appeasement

Despite all the ink that has been spilled over George W. Bush's remarks in Israel, nothing that I have read so far, captures what I believe happened during Bush's trip to the Knesset. Let me offer my view:

Unlike Dick Cheney, who wears his unpopularity with the American people like a badge of merit, President Bush, despite his game facade, is deeply wounded that seven years into his presidency, he is setting new records for disapproval. A recent CNN poll found that while Bush's 28% approval rating hovers slightly above that of Richard Nixon (24%) and Harry Truman (22%), Bush's disapproval figure of 71% surpasses Truman's all-time high of 67%, qualifying Bush as the most unpopular president since the inception of polling. Worse, our current president is increasingly compared, unfavorably, to his own father, a one-time president who is seen as a "wimp" by many in his own party. Such disapproval has to rankle the president, a gladhanding good-ole-boy known for handing out pet names to members of the press.

It is with this backdrop that Bush traveled to Israel, one of the few countries on the planet where he is still held in high regard. Instead of the usual protests and demonstrations, in Israel Bush was greeted with bouquets. Here is how the International Herald Tribune put it:

Israeli officials have heaped accolades on Bush during his time here, a pattern that continued Thursday when Dalia Itzik, the speaker of the Knesset, said Bush was "a great friend, one of the greatest we've ever had."

Understandably, when he gave his speech to the Knesset, Bush was basking in the warm glow of Israeli support, standing before a community that finally understood him, that realized that he was not stubborn, incompetent, or over his head in foreign affairs, but rather strong, tough-minded and visionary. So enveloped in the bosom of Israeli support was Bush, that he lost all perspective, and had what I call a "Dixie Chick moment," a sudden loss of perspective when one feels so in tune with one's foreign audience, that one forgets how one's remarks will be greeted back home. As the president decided to play historian, here were his fateful comments:

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

In a matter of a few seconds, not only did Bush manage to stir up a hornet's nest in the U.S., he also managed to encapsulate in one paragraph everything that has been wrong with the Bush foreign policy. Let's look not at the politics of his comments, but at the merits:

When Bush refers to "some ingenious argument," he has already veered off track. Diplomacy does not consist of "ingenious arguments" that swiftly and magically win over the opposition. Diplomacy is a long, hard, incremental, adult process that takes place over time and is marked by peaks and valleys, periods of frustration and success. Bush seems to have a digital view of negotiation; it is a one-shot effort that either works or it doesn't. Throughout his two terms, the Bush approach to diplomacy has been marked by a kind of intellectual laziness. His initial conceit was that the Middle East region was going to be so overwhelmed by the "shock and awe" of American victory in Iraq, that democracy and American values would simply spread like wildfire through the region. Small wonder then, that we ignored the Middle East for most of Bush's presidency. Who needs negotiations when we can simply spread democracy through military means? Because of this naive fantasy, we wasted six years that could have been spent trying to improve Israeli-Palestinian relations.

A second problem with Bush-as-historian is his reference to "terrorists and radicals." It has become a standard ploy among politicians to play the "terrorist" card whenever they don't want to deal with a particular group or country. In fact, the use of this term has become an all purpose bogeyman. Was the Soviet Union during the Cold War any less "terrorist" than our adversaries today? Was it not state sponsored terrorism to have gulags in Siberia, to pervert psychiatry to the demands of politics, and to terrorize not only its own people, but those of the entire Eastern Bloc? Yet, in spite of this, we negotiated with the Soviets. Indeed, the whole notion of deterrence was based on such negotiations. Further, as a terrorist and radical, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is small potatoes compared to Mao tse Tung, who Nixon met with in 1972, the beginning of a new and healthier relationship with China. Currently, we've already negotiated with Libya's Khaddafi, formerly an avowed terrorist, causing him to foreswear his nuclear ambitions, and are knee deep in negotiations with Kim Jong Il. Given this, Bush's use of the "don't negotiate with the terrorists" line is preposterous and hypocritical.

The truth is, the entire Bush tenure has been marked by a phobia about diplomacy. Bush and company were dragged kicking and screaming into diplomacy with the North Koreans because of the gravity of Korea's nuclear development. and have recently only reluctantly and grudgingly started making overtures to the Iranians. The prevailing mindset in the Bush administration is that negotiation is for sissies. Real men get what they want by rattling sabers, or worse.

One of the most prominent conservative arguments against negotiating with countries like Iran is that high-level contacts between the two countries will only give the Ahmadinejads of the world more "prestige," making them stronger as adversaries. It is amazing how widespread this viewpoint is. The reality is just the opposite: We greatly enhance our own prestige by reaching out to negotiate with our adversaries.

The whole world looks to the US for diplomatic leadership, and is deeply disappointed when we drop the ball, as we have during the Bush administration. Further, critics of diplomacy with rogue regimes, ignore one of its most important benefits: When an American president, or high-level diplomat visits one of our adversaries, he is talking not just to the rulers of that country, but to its people as well. It is important to remember that one of our primary goals is to bolster the moderate elements that exist in rogue nations. Visiting a country and having tough, frank, and respectful negotiations with its leaders is a far more effective means of supporting its moderate factions than is standing on the sidelines engaging in name-calling. Here is a lesson for neocons everywhere: Regardless of how much the citizens of a country dislike their own leaders, they are still alienated and offended when outsiders mock, vilify, and demonize those leaders. They take it personally. That is why the Bush propensity for long-distance name-calling has been so counterproductive. That is why idiciocies like John McCain singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran," is so dumb and juvenile. That is why Hillary Clinton gratuitously reminding Iran that we can "obliterate" them, damages rather than furthers our interests.

Many commentators have already pointed out that conservatives have played the "appeasement" card during virtually diplomatic advance since the 1950's, from Eisenhower's first meeting with Khrushchev, to the resolution of the Cuban Missile Crisis, to the SALT Treaties and beyond. Unabashed by how many times they've been wrong, they continue to play this card, despite the obvious fact that talk not only is not appeasement, talk is the centerpiece of a civilized society

Finally, let me offer a few words about John McCain's toxic statement that Barack Obama is the candidate of Hamas. McCain intended his remark as a below-the-belt swipe at Obama's judgment and patriotism. It is the height of foolishness from McCain that American voters should base their decisions on what our adversaries say about our political candidates. If Al Qaeda issued a statement saying that George Bush was their worst enemy, would that mean he deserved a third term? Of course not. Whatever his intention may have been, whatever Osama Bin Laden might say about him, for the last six years Bush has been the greatest recruiting vehicle that Al Qaeda ever had.

Moreover, in trying to tie Obama to Hamas, McCain completely missed the point. Hamas aside, Obama is the favored candidate of the entire international community. If there were a world-wide referendum on our presidency, Obama would trounce McCain. He would win in England, he would win in France, he would win throughout the world, precisely because he has had the same inspirational effect overseas that he has had at home. The international community is looking for diplomatic leadership. It is to Barack Obama's credit that he has had the insight to see through the "appeasement" trap.
- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 7:57 AM

 
Barack Obama and the Problem of Race

I have to admit that at the outset of the Obama campaign I was wrong when I said, "Sure there will always be some whites who would refuse to vote for Obama due to his race, but those folks wouldn't vote for the Democrat anyway." I assumed that over the course of the campaign, within the Democratic Party Obama would receive if not universal support, at least universal respect. I was wrong. Increasingly, we have seen race and racism play a role in the Democratic primary season. An article in today's Washington Post offers disturbing examples of whites--typically from blue-collar districts--who all too readily admit that they will not vote for an African-American for president. As a prime example, the Post article provides a statement published in a local newspaper by none other than the mayor of Tunkhannock Borough, an area in northeast Pennsylvania near Scranton:

Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him. No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office.

How can anyone not be disturbed by the image of a public official perpetuating long discredited internet myths about Obama in a local newspaper? In another example, an Obama worker who was wearing an Obama T-shirt at a polling place near Scranton reports that a Clinton supporter came up to her, pointed at her T-shirt, and said, "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"

Sentiments such as these have been heard by Obama campaign workers all too often in Pennsylvania, in parts of Indiana, and in West Virginia, and embody a kind of of paradox: As Barack Obama has become better known and more successful in his effort to secure the Democratic nomination he has engendered more resentment from certain segments of the electorate. Let us try to understand what is behind this dynamic:

In 1965, after the march on Selma, Alabama, Martin Luther King while standing on the Alabama Capitol steps, uttered these words, in a little remembered but profound speech:

The Southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow... And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than a black man.

The need to feel that however troubled our own lives may be, there is someone or some group that is worse off, is an insidious part of our social and political fabric. Indeed, the tabloid press has built a billion dollar industry by exploiting this dynamic: By chronicling celebrity divorces, by detailing every drug problem of the well-connected, by showing us that acclaimed actresses have cellulite too, the tabloids reassure us that we're not so bad off, and society's luminaries are not so well off as we had thought, which makes us feel better. Conversely, Obama's success has left some people feeling theatened. The white worker in Kokomo, Indiana who has been laid off sees not only Barack Obama as rising to new heights, but the African-American community in general, a thought which may leave him feeling left behind and unsettled, regardless of how much he stands to benefit from Obama's economic reforms.

Even Obama's comments in San Francisco about working-class bitterness have been somewhat misunderstood. In trying to explain his difficulties with blue-collar voters, Obama was actually bending over backwards to dispel any notion that race was a factor. His initial discussion was a defense of blue-collar whites against any charges of racism. Here is Obama just before he made the "bitter" comments:

People are misunderstanding the way the demographics in this contest are broken up the way they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to white working class don't want to vote for the black guy. There were intimations of this in an article in the Sunday New York Times today--kind of implies it's sort of a race thing. That's not what it is."

It was only after this comment, that Obama got himself into trouble by trying to find an alternative explanation for his lack of support in the white, blue-collar community. Had he simply said, "Look, people simply need time to familiarize themselves with a black guy named Barack Obama," he would have avoided a lot of trouble, and would have said something true to boot.

Another wrinkle in this campaign however, is that Obama has been very successful as a post-racial candidate. His critical win in Iowa, his showing in New Hampshire, his impressive vote totals in rural Nevada, not to mention his wins in places like Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah, and Minnesota show that in much of America, Obama has managed to transcend race. So what distinguishes the places he's won from the places where he's struggled?

I would submit that in states like Utah and Wyoming that have virtually no black people, there is no sense of competition between whites and blacks, which minimizes the tendency to engage in racial scapegoating. As such, folks tend to see Obama just as he is, as an inspiring politician with a set of progressive proposals. Paradoxcially, in more multi-cultural states, ethnic groups are more likely to compete for money, jobs, and for social status. As a result, resentment and suspicion of Obama is heightened. The divide between blacks and Hispanics in California is another example of this.

In the 1950's it was a rite of passage for black jazz musicians to travel to Europe, particularly France, where they were thrilled to find a people who not only respected their craft, but who respected them as individuals. Jazz great Miles Davis wrote of his joy at being able to go to a restaurant in Paris without having to worry about whether they would seat him. The France of 50's was white, homogenous, and compared to the U.S., relatively color-blind. Since then, however, an influx of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East has transformed France into a multi-cultural entity, and we now watch it going through growing pains, as "Rightist Front" and anti-immigrant groups play upon ethnic divisions. Surely the France of the future will be a better, richer, more diverse and more interesting place; but it now has serious work to do to resolve the tensions of its multi-cultural population.

In a similar way, the Obama campaign has brought to light some of the fault lines of American culture, showing the work that we have yet to do. Having said this, having outlined what I see as the racial problems of the 2008 campaign, I still believe that for Barack Obama, the future is bright. Here's why:

1) In the primary season when both candidates had virtually the same policy agenda, it was easy for the folks in Altoona and Scranton to say, "Heck, they're both for universal health care, they're both against the war, they're both against the Bush tax cuts, they're both promoting 'green jobs,' they're both saying the same thing! I'm gonna vote for the white candidate!" The convergence of views between Clinton and Obama has fed the racial dynamic; when there are few policy differences, matters like character, leadership style, gender, and race, become paramount. Such a choice, however, becomes far more difficult when the voter is confronted with a stark contrast in policies between John McCain and Barack Obama. In the battle between Obama and McCain there will be real issues to sink one's teeth into.

2) In the general election, all of the political leaders--Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia, will be stumping for Obama, making it more likely that their blue-collar supporters will come around. Nor will we have Hillary, stoking racial divisions by implying that Obama can't win the vote of "hardworking... white Americans." Obama having the backing of the entire Democratic establishment with change the atmosphere in these states considerably.

3) Finally, I believe that this will be an election where Obama's vice-presidential choice will matter. His choice will have both practical and symbolic value in terms of muting the racial issue. A Tim Kaine, an Ed Rendell, a Ted Strickland will go a long way toward reassuring blue-collar white voters that "the blacks" are not "taking over." Ironically, however, Obama's most creative option would be to choose Bill Richardson, the hispanic Governor of New Mexico. This would be the equivalent of throwing a thirty yard pass downfield, scrambling the electoral map, and putting the Southwest, Florida and Texas in play like never before.

A black/brown/white progressive coalition? Heck, in this season of hope and surprises, why not?
- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 12:41 PM

 
After Indiana--What Now?

Hillary Clinton's poor showing in both North Carolina and Indiana, virtually sealing the nomination for Obama, may actually have been a blessing not only for Obama and the Democratic Party, but for Hillary herself. Conceding the nomination to Obama sooner rather than later, might save Hillary not only millions of dollars that she will probably never see again from her campaign, but it could also save her reputation within the party. I say that because over the last several weeks the Clinton campaign has taken on a sour and cynical tone that could, if continued, create lasting damage for Hillary. Take, for example, the first Clinton conference call held after Indiana and North Carolina: Spinmasters Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson were reduced to boasting about how well Clinton had done with the "white vote" in those states (We were running even with white voters two weeks ago, but earned a significant win, 24 points"). Their numerous references to white voters, "swing voters," "blue collar voters," and "working class voters," were all designed to send one not-so-subtle message: We're the white candidate, he's black candidate, we can attract blue collar white voters and he can't. It is the toxic and desperate hope of the Clinton campaign at this point that there is enough resistance to a black candidate in the hinterland, that the remaining super delegates will come running toward Hillary. For a Democratic to base a campaign strategy on racism among lower class whites is one of several unseemly subtexts in the Clinton campaign.

Also, yesterday, Lisa Caputo, Hillary's former press secretary, was suggesting that Hillary might want to keep the nomination fight alive, just to see if "the other shoe drops," in other words, if they can find something damaging about Obama between June and August. The notion that Hillary would contemplate spending the summer rooting against Obama, in the hope that she might be able to ambush and sabotage the presumptive Democratic nominee, tells you everything you need to know about the Clinton campaign. It's far more about Hillary than it is the Democratic Party.

It is likely, however, that the elder statesmen in the party like George Mcgovern, who yesterday shifted his allegiance from Hillary to Obama, may bring this agonizing campaign to a conclusion. When even devoted Hillary supporters like Sen. Diane Feinstein speak out ("I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party. I think we need to prevent that as much as we can"), it would seem that the end of the campaign is near. Once the nomination fight does conclude, the Democratic party, which has been holding its breath for the last two months, will be able to exhale, and will experience a tremendous burst of energy. For example, the choice of Obama's running mate will itself be exhilarating event. It will be Obama's first major decision, and will be important both in practical terms, and in terms of symbolically unifying the party. Let's look at some of Obama's options:

1. Hillary. Obviously, there's already much speculation about the prospect of an Obama/Hillary ticket. I believe such a ticket would be a mistake for several reasons. First, I think that after such a bruising, exhausting nomination battle. Obama owes himself the kindness of picking a running whom he actually likes. After all, potentially he will have to work in close quarters with this person for eight years. There are many other players who would bring much to the ticket for whom Obama has far greater regard than Hillary. Yes, it would serve as an olive branch to Hillary's many supporters, but I've always believed that those polls suggesting that 30% of Hillary's voters would defect from Obama were completely bogus. Polls taken in May, in the heat of a primary battle, say nothing about the general election, in which an entirely different atmosphere will prevail. Also, by putting Hillary on the ticket, you may wind up with the worst of all worlds: You further unify the Republicans, and still have to worry about "friendly fire" from the Clintonistas. I would steer well clear of Hillary, who proved during the campaign that she is the true embodiment of the old politics.

2. Tim Kaine, governor of Virginia. There are many things to recommend Tim Kaine as Obama's running mate. Kaine is a southern governor, but grew up in the Midwest, having roots in Missouri, another important swing state. Virginia embodies the shifting demographics of the south, is a state that is solidly in play for the Democrats in 2008, and is a state that showed Obama much love during the primary season. Kaine is Catholic having done a brief stint as a Jesuit missionary in Honduras during his college years, and like Obama, is a graduate of Harvard Law School. Is it striking that he was the first politician to endorse Obama outside the state of Illinois, and on the stump, Kaine has shown himself to be an effective surrogate for Obama. Kaine's unique set of attributes--Midwesterner, southern governor, Catholic, progressive, embodiment of the "new south"--fit Obama like a glove.

3. Ed Rendell, governor of Pennsylvania. One of the reasons that I strongly believe that the atmosphere in the general election will differ markedly from that of the primaries, is that figures like Ed Rendell will be backing Obama, rather than opposing him. Rendell, a staunch Clinton supporter during the primaries, always showed Obama great respect even while fighting against him, and stated numerous times during the heat of battle that if Obama won, he'd work his butt off for Obama in the general election. Rendell is the popular governor of a big state, he's Jewish, a demographic that Obama needs to shore up, and he has a military background. Picking Rendell would be a wiser way of extending an olive branch to Hillary supporters than picking Hillary herself.

In providing this short list of veep prospects, I have left out the politician who I have found to be the most compelling during the primary season, because the politician I have in mind is too new to the scene and is not the obligatory white male. But in an ideal world, I would like to see Claire McKaskill, senator of Missouri as Obama's veep. Mckaskill has perhaps been Obama's most visible, and most winning surrogate over the campaign, consistently making the case for him with great intelligence and geniality. Also, on Super Tuesday, McKaskill may have saved Obama's nomination by delivering Missouri to him in a cliffhanger. Just as Super Tuesday was starting to trend Hillary's way, the squeaker victory in Missouri gave Obama a tie in the battle of perceptions, that set the stage for the tremendous winning streak that followed Super Tuesday. A hearty tip of the cap to Claire McKaskill.

Are there obvious (or even "sleeper") veep prospects I have left out? Let me know.
- posted by jeffrowan111 @ 8:55 AM