Breaking the Lock
My TAP post-election column is how bipartisanship done right could break the neocon lock on Washington by pulling Republican pragmatists into the progressive coalition:
This creates an important opportunity for Obama to co-opt the pragmatic faction of the Republican coalition into his own. Endorsements by Powell and former Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, combined with Sen. Chuck Hagel’s refusal to endorse and the under-noticed absence of Sen. Richard Lugar as a McCain surrogate in Indiana even as the state achieved “swing” status, hint at what might come down the road. And, clearly, talk, widespread in Washington, of keeping Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense is motivated by similar sentiments. The sense is that Gates, co-author of a 2004 task-force report calling for engagement with Iran, knows that a bigger break with neoconservatism than what we’ve seen thus far is necessary.
By the same token, tapping a Hagel or a Leach for secretary of state or U.N. ambassador could serve to illustrate that a multilateral foreign policy isn’t just the preference of cultural liberals from the coasts but reflects a real judgment about American security that the heartland can and should embrace.
But the trick with these bipartisan concepts is to make sure that the credibility is flowing in the right direction. Bill Clinton’s choice of former Sen. Bill Cohen, a Republican, to head the Defense Department mostly seemed to signal the idea that Democrats weren’t up to the job. The new administration needs to do the reverse — build support for progressive policies by showing that it can be supported by a politically diverse group of people. The key to that is combining a bipartisan approach to personnel with a bold approach on substance. Bringing Republicans into the administration to implement a timid agenda would suggest that Obama doesn’t really believe in himself. But bringing Republicans into the administration while acting decisively to fulfill Obama’s campaign pledges on withdrawal from Iraq, diplomacy with Iran and Syria, and steps toward global nuclear disarmament would be just what the doctor ordered. All are good ideas on the merits, all are politically risky, but all have nontrivial levels of support among pragmatic Republican foreign-policy types. Bringing a few Republicans on board to help sell those ideas would provide political cover in the short term and help decisively cleave this bloc of elites from the conservative coalition and bring it into the progressive one.
The key is to resist the temptation to put foreign affairs on the back-burner while working on (admittedly important) domestic issues. Doing everything is a tall order, but these are tough times and the opportunities available to an administration that’s willing to marry boldness to bipartisanship in foreign affairs could be huge.
48 Responses to “Breaking the Lock”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 6th, 2008 at 11:25 am
An important outlet where conservatives can “join” the administration without being in the cabinet is foreign service. Clinton tried to appoint Bill Weld as an ambassador only to be blocked by senile Jesse Helms. Why not come back and push Weld back, along with Leach (IA) and Davis (VA) as high-placed ambassadors? That would keep them out of high-profile cabinet jobs but also clearly signify that they are on board. More importantly, they would be directly involved in foreign policy.
There have been mixed opinions expressed about virtually all cabinet candidates that’ve gone through the rumor mill so far. One of the worst IMO is Larry Summers, who is unsuited either by temperament, by policy preferences or management style to return to the Treasury. He is too close to the neocons (so is Weld, but, as an ambassador, he can’t do much damage on that front).
It would be a mistake to both retain Gates ad DoD and put Hagen in State. Maybe Hagel and/or Powell could do well in NSC or other advisory role, but giving away State is too much. Kerry at State also sounds silly–he certainly has more diplomatic temperament than any cabinet member under Bush, but having had him as a Senator, I just don’t see it. This has nothing to do with 2004–his behavior during the campaign may actually be seen as a plus at State. But there is a reason why even many allies referred to him as “empty suit”. Kerry is a lightweight.
Keeping Gates at DoD for at least a year sounds perfectly sensible, then let him retire on his own schedule.
Every post-Reagan administration kept at least one party cross-over secretary. Even Bush had Norman Mineta in two different cabinet posts. And this is commendable. But there are more productive ways to achieve bipartisanship than giving away key policy posts.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
The greatest present danger is the return of the Clinton Treasury to a position of influence.
It is commonly known that Larry Summers (former Clinton Sec/Treas) had a large role in thwarting regulation of the financial industry (and pushing for removal of existing regulations); it is also commonly known that he was a key part of the team that ran up the nation’s budget surplus at the expense of infrastructure spending. The combination of these two policies propelled forward the financialization of the economy. The lower rates encouraged more investment in derivatives — money sought out leveraged money. More money went into financial instruments and more smart graduates went to Wall Street. Conversely, by starving public works working class people had fewer jobs and the social structure became ever more distorted with income increasing concentrated in the upper, upper percentiles.
Summers as Secretary of the Treasury is just too depressing to contemplate.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:38 am
On a related note dealing with WH personnel issues, why in the hell is Obama permitting the “Rahm Emanuel agonizing, maybe will/maybe won’t take the chief of staff job” drama to be played out for all to view? It seems to suggest a bit of confusion and indecision right out the gate. We’ve all read that a good lawyer nevers asks a question without already knowing the answer. Obama didn’t have a way to approach Rahm and feel him out, in private, and get to the root of the matter without it spilling into the media? This episode doesn’t bode well for supposedly internal deliberations Obama conducts.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Matthew as Brits we’re stunned to see what’s happened in the US election with Obama’s victory, but it can’t happen here say our own UK experts – Britain having a black prime minister that is.
One thing I don’t think Barack Obama can do though is ignore Foreign Policy issues, to do some (much needed) housekeeping back at home. ‘Cos one thing you can be sure of – he’s got the eye’s of the world on him now in a way that Kennedy had back in the 60’s and to be honest that’s a strange perspective here in England – so many folks have bashed America for the last 7 years here.
But the fact that we may be light years away from a similar revolution here in UK – now that worries me, but the vote is still going on I suppose.
And even our own Black experts who say that it can’t happen could be wrong couldn’t they?
November 6th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Martin K-
That’s exactly what I was saying here yesterday. And make no mistake, the other front runner, Geithner at the New York Fed, is just as bad. He’s been there since 2003, when Rubin got him the job, and he fairly well demonstrates that the (unfortunate) bipartisanship in the current collapse.
Rubin would be the worst. He was Phil Gramm’s ally in butchering Glass-Steagall and passing the CFMA. I cannot believe that progressives now think he’s some kind of kindred spirit. Writing articles decrying the effects of the policies he pushed for eight fucking years, bookended by his “service” on Wall Street, does not absolve him of his errors.
We can accept his apology and at the same time we ought to keep him away from any position of power. Sadly, he’s got Obama’s ear…
November 6th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Why not Warren Buffet as Treasury Secretary?
November 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
I’m not that worried about Rubin and Summers, even though I lean more towards the Robert Reich, Dean Baker, Jared Bernstein side of the spectrum.
It will be interesting to see if people overreact to Bush’s foreign policy and the US becomes more isolationist than is wise. For instance anti-war people would snarkily point out that Bush installed a pro-Iran regime in Iraq. Well, when we withdraw, who will benefit most? The pro-Iranian elements in Iraq. I’m not that worried about it however, since the Iraqis will work it out and they’re more nationalist than pro-Iran. Which is why I felt the accusation that Bush “installed” a pro-Iranian regime in Iraq was kind of a weak argument. The only anti-Saddam people left were pro-Iran.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Peter K-
You’re right that leaving a pro-Iranian regime is distasteful.
But don’t forget that that regime will probably fall two weeks after we pull out.
The single most powerful group in-country is probably still JAM, and Sadr is a curious figure. On the one hand, he’s absolutely Shia in his outlook, which you would think would put him in the pro-Iranian camp.
On the other, he’s also an Iraqi nationalist, who just wants that nation to be firmly Shia. And, as a result, he actually has little love for Iran, which is, after all, not Arab like Sadr and Iraq south of Kirkuk and Mosul.
I don’t think Sadr would be our best buddy. But he’d definitely kick the shit out of any Iranians who try to push him around, even though he most definitely gets a lot of his arms from them right now.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
PS: I’m a big fan of Reich too. And what annoys me about the article you posted yesterday was that it’s clearly Bernstein’s work with Rubin trying to paint himself as a born again progressive.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Matthew,
I am glad to see that we are in full agreement over this crucial issue…something I have spent a great deal of time pushing on this most excellent of forums.
I think my only criticism is that it has to be a big name. I believe that Gates is out, not because he won’t be asked, but because he won’t embarrass Bush the father (someone who he holds in great regard) by reversing everything that the son has asked Gates to do. That’s how it works in the WASP world, and that’s why Gates is not only successful, but an honorable human being.
So that leaves us with Hagel and potentially Lugar. Personally, I have always believed that Hagel is the right man for the job. His conclusions on Iraq are based upon his experience in Vietnam. He is a man that understands not only the horror of war, but the sometimes inevitable choices that have to be made.
My hope is that Hagel gets the nod. He is an honorable and decent man, and we need more men (and women) like this in our government.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Buck,
Hagel and/or Powell at NSC?
First, you really need to be a bit more realistic about what these men will accept. You don’t offer them something that they’re going to immediately say no to. Powell was Secretary of State for God’s sake.
Second, Kerry does nothing for you besides make you feel good about being in control. Governing (and retaining that power) is all about intelligent choices. The biggest threat to this administration is the neocons grabbing a hold of a crisis and arguing that the democrats have made us weaker. Split a key segment of the Republican party and you can mitigate this.
Matthew is right. If you guys want to stay in power, you need Republican realists to sign off on what looks to be a very pragmatic foreign policy.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Matthew is right. If you guys want to stay in power, you need Republican realists to sign off on what looks to be a very pragmatic foreign policy.
As long as the man making the final decision is Obama, they can put as many realists of the old school at Defense and State as they want.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
There’s going to be a big fight over the Pentagon budget – from what I’ve heard the service chiefs are trying to make a grab for an even larger slice of the pie. And with the current fiscal situation, I really hope an Obama administration will be aiming to cut back defense spending from it’s current bloated $600B+ down to the $300B that was plenty to achieve global military dominance under Clinton in 97-99.
You need a SecDef who’s going to be willing to fight that fight, otherwise defense spending will cripple the budget and the possibilities for more productive stimulus spending on infrastructure and social programs.
While Gates might be the right guy to wind down the Iraq mess,
I very much doubt that he’d push through the necessary spending cuts.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Greg,
Exactly.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Marginalizing the neocons…”I love it when a plan comes together!”
November 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Samantha Power for ambassador to the UN. In Matt’s language, the awesome factor is pretty high.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
How much Congressional cooperation does a relatively dovish president need? If he doesn’t want to start new wars or new offensives, he just doesn’t start them. He doesn’t need to get congressional approval on that.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Not Gates!!! I’ve been hoping beyond hope for a Secretary of Defense Danzig. I’m mean c’mon, who’s going to mess with us when our Secretary of Defense is named Danzig. Don’t mess with my dreams man. Not my dreams.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Danny,
Being more intelligent about how you place the lives of innocent people in the balance doesn’t make one “dovish.” It makes one moral and responsible.
Moreover it’s not about starting new wars or new offensives, it’s preventing them when the nuts in Congress are looking for blood (i.e. Iraq).
Danzig would be a great pick for SECDEF. Well regarded by nearly everyone, he also is an honorable and decent human being.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
But don’t forget that that regime will probably fall two weeks after we pull out.
How much do you want to wager?
Sadr is a fuck. He ran to Iran, because the elected government was going after him. After the US leaves I bet he’s dead or moves to Iran permanently.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jim,
How about Hannibal Navies
November 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Samantha Power for ambassador to the UN. In Matt’s language, the awesome factor is pretty high.
Hell yeah!
November 6th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I wanted John Edwards for Attorney General. Too bad he went all Clintonian on us.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Last post:
Danzig for DoD. Freakin awesome name. Keep Condi on! They’ll need women at top spots.
November 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I dunno, I don’t see why Sadr is worse than the guys in charge. At least he’s not a Badr Brigade fuck. And he doesn’t hate Israel the way the current guys do.
November 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I dunno, I don’t see why Sadr is worse than the guys in charge.
Sadr’s boys were doing a lot of ethnic cleaning. You like ethnic cleansing? Or just dislike Sunnis?
Like I said, after the US leaves, the guys in charge will kill him or, more likely, he’ll scamper off to Iran to hide again.
November 6th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Sadr’s boys were doing a lot of ethnic cleaning. You like ethnic cleansing? Or just dislike Sunnis?
Like I said, after the US leaves, the guys in charge will kill him or, more likely, he’ll scamper off to Iran to hide again.
Jesus,
A. Everyone in the entire country’s been doing ethnic cleansing, from the mountains by the Turkish border down to the swamps by Kuwait. Sunni, Shia, Arab, Kurd, EVERYFUCKINGONE.
B. Sadr kicked the bloody SHIT out of his opponents when the government tried to take him out – AGAINST OUR ADVICE – and the only thing that prevented a complete collapse of the Iraqi Army was that we stepped in to pound on him.
Despite the fact that we have pounded on him four times at least now, he is still there, the JAM is still there, and it’s the most popular group in Iraq. And he’s up there with Sistani in popularity.
If we leave, he’s the most likely candidate to come out on top.
I guarantee you that Maliki will be living in London within six months of our withdrawal.
November 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Leaving Gates at Defense gives Obama the option to replace him when the timing is better. Almost no one is up to the job, so why replace the one person everyone agrees is up to it? If he replaces Gates and then needs to get rid of the replacement in 6 months, he looks like a clown and the military will be demoralized.
Hagel at State would be by far the best choice for the country. It would be sad if other considerations got in the way of that.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:37 am
In p.r. terms, the appointment of Hagel would be widely seen, and could be politically peddled, as a Big Example of Bipartisanship. The policy reality is that for years there hasn’t been an iota of daylight between Hagel’s foreign policy approach and that of Lugar, Biden and Kerry. It’s a narrow D.C./NYC subculture these guys belong to, and to think that it would be a big deal ideologically for Hagel to serve in a Democratic administration in a foreign policy capacity is to display ignorance of the herd mentality that already dominates among the foreign policy establishment.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:44 am
hope that you keep reporting and following up on this issue. I signed the petition because I can’t think of anything that is more important to the long-term health of our country, our environment, and our economy than a smart transportation policy, and especially
November 7th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Man you are full of shit, Greg.
Jesus,
A. Everyone in the entire country’s been doing ethnic cleansing, from the mountains by the Turkish border down to the swamps by Kuwait. Sunni, Shia, Arab, Kurd, EVERYFUCKINGONE.
Sadr’s Shia did the majority of it. They killed a leading peaceble cleric which really go the ball rolling.
B. Sadr kicked the bloody SHIT out of his opponents when the government tried to take him out – AGAINST OUR ADVICE – and the only thing that prevented a complete collapse of the Iraqi Army was that we stepped in to pound on him.
Baloney, he ran to Iran. The only reason he’s alive is because of our advice. Maliki wants us to leave so he can take Sadr among others.
Despite the fact that we have pounded on him four times at least now, he is still there, the JAM is still there, and it’s the most popular group in Iraq. And he’s up there with Sistani in popularity.
If we leave, he’s the most likely candidate to come out on top.
I guarantee you that Maliki will be living in London within six months of our withdrawal.
He will be dead and the elected government will still be there. Looks like we’ll be staying until 2011 though.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 am
Some of you probably remember Jesse Camp as the squeaky-voiced, spiky-haired street urchin who somehow won 1998’s
January 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
laptop battery
February 9th, 2009 at 3:04 am
laptop battery
March 13th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:57 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:34 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
April 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job!
viagra