So what did we learn from the first debate? There was some good stuff. We learned that McCain is just as fond of repeating jokes as his running mate. We learned that Obama agrees with McCain on a lot of stuff. McCain really, really doesn't like those earmarks, and Obama was really really against invading Iraq. Oh, and have the same taste in bracelets. Great. But the interesting stuff was in the little details. Like Georgia.
McCain used his reaction to the Russian military operations in Georgia as an instance of his greater strength and experience in foreign policy, or rather, in what has come to be his signature style in this campaign, he used it as an attack on Obama’s strength and experience. Certainly the immediate reactions of the two candidates offered a contrast. McCain immediately denounced Russia as aggressors, whereas Obama called for a cessation of hostilities from both sides. McCain sees this as one point to him.
If you're nostalgic for the cold war, McCain's fist-shaking had a comfortable feel to it. He took an immediate tough stand, and if Russia had out of the blue sent troops in Georgia, a little futile knee-jerk blustering might have been warranted. What actually happened in Georgia wasn’t so simple.
Intense fighting between Georgian troops and South Ossetian separatists broke out on 1 August after two roadside bombs injured five Georgian police officers. Russia moved its troops closer to the border and warned that it would intervene in the event of a military conflict. On 6 August the Georgian military began directing sporadic heavy shelling and sniper fire at Tskhinvali, the breakaway republic’s capital. Georgian President Saakashvili announced a day later that he intended to restore Tbilisi's control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia by force, in spite of the carefully crafted 1992 cease-fire and the presence of peacekeeping troops. Heavy shelling resumed after a brief lull, and a full scale Georgian military offensive against Tskhinvali began the following morning (8 August). Russian troops poured into South Ossetia and Georgia proper, and the rest is history.
The conflict in Georgia has roots extending back into Russian imperial history, and its recent history involves many of the same complex questions of ethnicity and national identity, of the right to self-determination, of the desirability and tenability of multi-ethnic democracy that plagued the former Yugoslavia. It is a messy business. So how should a US President respond in the first instance – before all the facts are clear - when he hears that a small ally deliberately violates a cease-fire and is subjected to exactly the sort of asymmetrical response that it knew to expect from the overwhelmingly superior army of its hostile and ruthless neighbor?
He should tell both sides to stand down, let the dust settle, and work behind the scenes in cooperation with our other allies for a just and durable settlement. Georgia was wrong to send its troops into Tskhinvali. Russia was even more wrong to respond with such overwhelming force into the heard of Georgia itself. Both sides needed to be told to hold their fire; and that is precisely what Obama did.
McCain, on the other hand, went with his gut reaction against his old enemy Russia. No caution or nuance here – those Ruskies are trouble, always have been. McCain’s immediate good guy/bad guy posturing sends a dangerous signal to our allies. It says: Go ahead, be reckless, we’ll still take your side and bail you out. It’s a bad enough message when sent to overreaching investment banks, but when applied to foreign policy it demonstrates a naïve willingness to be manipulated, and only encourages troubled regimes to provoke international incidents with our rivals to provoke US involvement. We have a right to expect better of our allies, and a responsibility to react to international crises with a calm sense of authority.
Perhaps this is why the current US President’s response was more in line with that of Obama than that of McCain, calling for “an immediate halt to the violence and a stand-down by all troops.” McCain criticizes Obama’s immediate reaction, but the facts were complex and as yet unclear. Obama’s reaction was responsible and nuanced. McCain’s response was naïve, reckless and, certainly for a man claiming such lofty foreign policy credentials, nothing to crow about.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Repetition and Denial
I’m all for the private sector. It does great stuff. Amazon.com, for example. No government program in international bookselling could get paperbacks to my little farmhouse as quickly as those guys do. Amazing.
But relying on the profit motive has its drawbacks. We’ve seen one this week in the little affair of our nation’s (and the world’s, just wait for it) economic meltdown. Having done legal work in the field of derivatives, I can tell you they’re nifty. And they come with pages of “health warnings” attached. But the bankers don’t worry about fine print, and they don’t worry about the long term health of the economy. That’s not their job.
Likewise the media. The job of a journalist is not, as many think, to battle for Truth. Their job is to write and print stories that sell newspapers. That means either fresh, interesting journalism or lurid pandering smut. You don’t build a career or sell a paper by repeating the same stories ad nauseum.
The McCain campaign has understood this well. Under the guidance of Karl Rove’s loyal apprentice Steve Schmidt, the campaign has adopted a strategy of repetition and denial. Thus we are barraged with the same messages on a daily basis: Obama will raise your taxes (not likely unless you make over $250,000), Obama wants to teach your five-year-old how to use condoms (simply not true), Obama used Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines as an advisor on mortgage issues (again, untrue), McCain will clean up the old boys’ network in Washington (?!), Palin said no to that bridge to Russia (or, you know, wherever). The media have challenged the McCain campaign on each of these dubious claims, but the campaign just keeps repeating them. Because they know that the media don’t earn money on old news.
The corollary to producing a snowstorm of favorable, if false, stories is to systematically block information that might dilute the message. So Republicans in Alaska have tried to prevent the bipartisan investigation of Palin’s alleged abuse of power in the “Troopergate” affair from releasing its findings until after November 4. Numerous witnesses in that investigation have refused to testify. McCain has refused to release his medical records. It is an approach to truth and information perfectly in keeping with that of the Bush administration, which has been one of the most secretive (and arguably deceptive) in history. Even the insipid Q&A format agreed on for the Vice Presidential debates is designed, quite openly, to protect Sarah Palin from saying something she shouldn’t. McCain feels that his campaign will profit from the electorate being less informed – that should worry all of us.
There are a few bright lights in all of this for the Obama camp who have, with the recent and regretable exception of a misleading ad about McCain's views on social security, kept the moral high ground. The obstruction of justice in Alaska appears to have failed, and even if Palin is cleared of wrongdoing voters will remember the nervous attempt to obstruct the inquiry. They will wonder what Palin feared would come out about her. Likewise the growing outcry for McCain to release his medical records simply underscores the fears for his health. And preventing the spectacle of a blunt gray-haired Joe Biden beating up on fresh-faced Sarah in the debates may ultimately prove a gift to the Obama campaign.
But the repetition and denial strategy will become acceptable if it is not challenged. Again and again. If we fail to object, if we reward deceit with victory, then we deserve what we get.
But relying on the profit motive has its drawbacks. We’ve seen one this week in the little affair of our nation’s (and the world’s, just wait for it) economic meltdown. Having done legal work in the field of derivatives, I can tell you they’re nifty. And they come with pages of “health warnings” attached. But the bankers don’t worry about fine print, and they don’t worry about the long term health of the economy. That’s not their job.
Likewise the media. The job of a journalist is not, as many think, to battle for Truth. Their job is to write and print stories that sell newspapers. That means either fresh, interesting journalism or lurid pandering smut. You don’t build a career or sell a paper by repeating the same stories ad nauseum.
The McCain campaign has understood this well. Under the guidance of Karl Rove’s loyal apprentice Steve Schmidt, the campaign has adopted a strategy of repetition and denial. Thus we are barraged with the same messages on a daily basis: Obama will raise your taxes (not likely unless you make over $250,000), Obama wants to teach your five-year-old how to use condoms (simply not true), Obama used Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines as an advisor on mortgage issues (again, untrue), McCain will clean up the old boys’ network in Washington (?!), Palin said no to that bridge to Russia (or, you know, wherever). The media have challenged the McCain campaign on each of these dubious claims, but the campaign just keeps repeating them. Because they know that the media don’t earn money on old news.
The corollary to producing a snowstorm of favorable, if false, stories is to systematically block information that might dilute the message. So Republicans in Alaska have tried to prevent the bipartisan investigation of Palin’s alleged abuse of power in the “Troopergate” affair from releasing its findings until after November 4. Numerous witnesses in that investigation have refused to testify. McCain has refused to release his medical records. It is an approach to truth and information perfectly in keeping with that of the Bush administration, which has been one of the most secretive (and arguably deceptive) in history. Even the insipid Q&A format agreed on for the Vice Presidential debates is designed, quite openly, to protect Sarah Palin from saying something she shouldn’t. McCain feels that his campaign will profit from the electorate being less informed – that should worry all of us.
There are a few bright lights in all of this for the Obama camp who have, with the recent and regretable exception of a misleading ad about McCain's views on social security, kept the moral high ground. The obstruction of justice in Alaska appears to have failed, and even if Palin is cleared of wrongdoing voters will remember the nervous attempt to obstruct the inquiry. They will wonder what Palin feared would come out about her. Likewise the growing outcry for McCain to release his medical records simply underscores the fears for his health. And preventing the spectacle of a blunt gray-haired Joe Biden beating up on fresh-faced Sarah in the debates may ultimately prove a gift to the Obama campaign.
But the repetition and denial strategy will become acceptable if it is not challenged. Again and again. If we fail to object, if we reward deceit with victory, then we deserve what we get.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
So what does it take to be President?
It’s all pretty beguiling, isn’t it? The lipstick controversy, the stunning view of Russia from the Alaska coast, Karl Rove suggesting that there is such a thing as too much lying, it’s all the press can do just to keep up with it. This campaign season has offered us such a bewildering dog-and-pony show that is has become easy to forget what prompted it all.
Apparently it all has something to do with who should become our next President. You’d think in that case that we’d be hearing about why each candidate is qualified and what goals he would aim to achieve while in office. But it’s been slim pickings on that front.
McCain has stressed his long experience in Washington, whereas Obama has stressed his sound judgment and credentials as the bringer of change. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has attacked Obama for not having ever run anything and points to her time as mayor when she had a couple dozen employees under her. As for Obama, he has steadfastly avoided mentioning his Harvard education lest he be called an elitist, and instead gone on the offensive accusing McCain of being unable to type or send an email. It’s all less than edifying.
So before I get drawn into anything so trivial as actually discussing the issues, let’s ask one question: what does it take to be President? What does the guy/gal need to be able to do?
Well, let’s start with what he/she does not need to do. The President does not have to manage his employees and look after the payroll. He does not have to do the accounts. He does not have to type his own memos. We are picking someone who must be able, on a daily basis, to gather information, consider expert advice, balance priorities and then make intelligent, well-informed and considered decisions for the well-being of our country. These candidates are spending millions of dollars campaigning to lead the free world, not to become the manager of the local Denny’s.
We can all agree to disagree on what qualities best serve these ends. Certainly experience helps. So does raw intellect backed by a solid education. Boldness can be an ally to quick decision-making, while subtlety and caution may achieve more consistent and reliable results. But if we pick our next president because he talks more like us, or because he can type, or because he was in the military three decades ago, or because he runs a good smear campaign, we will regret it.
Apparently it all has something to do with who should become our next President. You’d think in that case that we’d be hearing about why each candidate is qualified and what goals he would aim to achieve while in office. But it’s been slim pickings on that front.
McCain has stressed his long experience in Washington, whereas Obama has stressed his sound judgment and credentials as the bringer of change. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has attacked Obama for not having ever run anything and points to her time as mayor when she had a couple dozen employees under her. As for Obama, he has steadfastly avoided mentioning his Harvard education lest he be called an elitist, and instead gone on the offensive accusing McCain of being unable to type or send an email. It’s all less than edifying.
So before I get drawn into anything so trivial as actually discussing the issues, let’s ask one question: what does it take to be President? What does the guy/gal need to be able to do?
Well, let’s start with what he/she does not need to do. The President does not have to manage his employees and look after the payroll. He does not have to do the accounts. He does not have to type his own memos. We are picking someone who must be able, on a daily basis, to gather information, consider expert advice, balance priorities and then make intelligent, well-informed and considered decisions for the well-being of our country. These candidates are spending millions of dollars campaigning to lead the free world, not to become the manager of the local Denny’s.
We can all agree to disagree on what qualities best serve these ends. Certainly experience helps. So does raw intellect backed by a solid education. Boldness can be an ally to quick decision-making, while subtlety and caution may achieve more consistent and reliable results. But if we pick our next president because he talks more like us, or because he can type, or because he was in the military three decades ago, or because he runs a good smear campaign, we will regret it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
