Risk Factor
Peter Beinart writes:
In liberal blogland, reports that Barack Obama will probably choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and retired general James Jones as National Security Adviser and retain Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense have prompted a chorus of groans. “I feel incredibly frustrated,” wrote Chris Bowers on OpenLeft.com “Progressives are being entirely left out.”
A word of advice: cheer up. It’s precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he’s surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home. When George W. Bush wanted to sell the Iraq war, he trotted out Colin Powell–because Powell was nobody’s idea of a hawk. Now Obama may be preparing to do the reverse. To give himself cover for a withdrawal from Iraq and a diplomatic push with Iran, he’s surrounding himself with people like Gates, Clinton and Jones, who can’t be lampooned as doves.
Now of course some might question Beinart’s credibility in telling foreign policy progressives what’s good for us. After all, it was just a few years ago that he was calling for a systematic purge of doves from the progressive coalition. Still, I think the scenario he’s envisioning is very plausible. I wouldn’t be at all shocked — thought I would certainly be pleased — if things turned out that way. At the same time, I wouldn’t be at all shocked — though I would certainly be disappointed — if this proved to be totally wrong. The exigencies of column-writing tend, it seems to me, to push people in the direction of unduly definitive statements on inherently murky situations. If Obama is looking for political cover under which to undertake a dramatically new foreign policy, then he would have to avoid signaling clearly that that’s what he wants to do. But he might just be acting cautious because he intends to implement a cautious strategy. I wrote about this for The National in the spirit of offering an argument about what should happen rather than what will happen:
Still, there is a clear pattern to these differences, one that becomes more dramatic when considered alongside the positions Clinton and Obama took back in 2002 on the merits of invading Iraq. Clinton is not only more hawkish than Obama – she’s also more politically risk-averse: disinclined to tackle entrenched interest groups or challenge conventional wisdom. Clinton represents a segment of the Democratic party that spent the years after September 11 fretting intensely over whether Democrats seemed sufficiently “tough” – worried about a replay of the 1970s, when Democratic anti-war sentiment scared off the public. [...]
What is unclear at this point is whether Clinton joining the Obama team means that Clinton has gained faith in Obama’s approach, or that Obama has lost faith in his own. The very fact of Obama’s election would seem to tilt things in his direction: there was a consistent trajectory to their disagreements, and Obama was on the right side – a judgment vindicated by his victories over both Clinton and McCain. It’s not merely that he won, but that winning demonstrates his supposedly “risky” positions were not so risky after all.
Obama not only won the presidency while bucking the demands of the hardliners in the Cuban-American community, he won the very state of Florida, whose pursuit allegedly demands obeisance to decades of an idiotic embargo. He took 77 per cent of the Jewish vote – more than John Kerry. He was attacked by his Republican opponent as weak, naive and dangerous – and he prevailed. To be sure, he had a powerful assist from the economy and John McCain’s inept approach to the financial crisis. But if voters really believed that Obama was insufficiently “tough” to secure their personal safety, surely that would have trumped other considerations.
In other words, the strategy ought to be full speed ahead. But will it be? I don’t know.
43 Responses to “Risk Factor”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Seems to me Obama is mostly operating from the same playbook on domestic matters, as well.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Now of course some might question Beinart’s credibility in telling foreign policy progressives what’s good for us.
Indeed. I, for example, knew that Beinart was full of shit as soon as I read
December 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Peter Beinart? We are so fucked.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
This is a very, very kind and discrete way of describing people like Beinart’s specialty.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Beinart-bashing aside (but not too far aside. I still want to be able to stop in on the way home), this seems about right. Obama needs credibility in DC.
The other factor that prevents me from fretting about these picks to much is that there is such broad agreement, from the center-right all the way to the left, about our foreign policy over the next two years. We need to disengage from Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan, engage with Iran, and rebuild our anti-terror coaltion that existed after 9/11. There is little dispute about these things, which are big enough deals that they are going to account for almost all of our military and diplomatic efforts. You could replace Bob Gates with Ted Kennedy, but for the next couple of years at least, you wouldn’t see much of a difference.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“Now of course some might question Beinart’s credibility in telling foreign policy progressives what’s good for us.”
Now, of course, some of us might question Iraq war-hawk Matt Yglesias’ credibility in telling progressives anything whatsoever about foreign policy.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I repeat, your article in The National is filled with erroneous statements. You wrote another one:
“Obama not only won the presidency while bucking the demands of the hardliners in the Cuban-American community, he won the very state of Florida, whose pursuit allegedly demands obeisance to decades of an idiotic embargo.”
What demands did Obama buck exactly? Certainly not the idiotic embargo (I completely agree it is idiotic.)
It is ironic that you take Beinart to task for wishful thinking on what the future might bring when you engage in wishful thinking on what has ALREADY OCCURRED.
December 1st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
All of this might – might – be a plausible explanation for why Obama might want to include SOME center righters or Republicans. But that Obama should include ONLY center righers and Republicans is, to use Obama’s own vocabulary, “surprising.”
Nobody has provided an adequate explanation of how to respond should any of these “center righers” become insubordinate or drag their feet in pursing Obamas’ assertedly “progressive” ( although always poorly defined ) agenda.
All of this is curious indeed.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
How do you get an assignment to write a piece for an Abu Dhabi publication? Seriously, I’m sincerely curious.
December 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
If Obama is looking for political cover under which to undertake a dramatically new foreign policy, then he would have to avoid signaling clearly that that’s what he wants to do. But he might just be acting cautious because he intends to implement a cautious strategy.
These mental gymnastics are becoming increasingly absurd. People really need to reflect on how utterly ridiculous they sound when they seriously defend the theory that Obama has chosen an entire centrist foreign policy team simply as some kind of elaborate right flank cover for a cleverly disguised “progressive” plan. And who is going to execute that sly ruse while the official team is using their vaunted credibility to cover the right flank? A midnight crew of White House gnomes?
It is also very awkward to suggest, as has frequently been the case over the past several days, that it doesn’t matter much who Obama appointed because he’s El Jefe, and his appointees will simply execute whatever the boss commands them to execute. Such talk reflects an utterly naive conception of how our government works. Clinton, Jones, and Gates are powerful, experienced and self-assured professionals and leaders. They are not a gang of callow deck-hands. They each bring much of their own thinking to the table and will have an ample influence on the administration’s policies. Yes Obama will get the last word. But only after much debate taking his team’s positions into account.
The hysterical denial and faith-based thinking on display are sad. It is far more probable than not that Obama has chosen a team of mainstream, centrist foreign policy practitioners because he is going to pursue a centrist foreign policy. Get used to it. The sooner we stop dreaming of secret lefty plans and disguised agendas the better.
And could we please stop using dumbed-down and imprecise language like “progressive”? There are any number of foreign policy approaches that could with equal justice be classified as “progressive”. Hell, even Bob Gates is now credited as having progressive ideas because he is willing to cut bad, wasteful programs out of the defense acquisitions budget. That’s good; that’s smart. But there is nothing particularly progressive about it. It’s just sound, tough and competent management of the kind that could be exercised by any administration, of any ideological persuasion, that is determined to govern with intelligence and a strategic plan rather mere cronyism, corruption and greed.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
The idea that Obama should needlessly piss off a large percentage of the counrty just to appease open left seems rather silly to me. Despite the claims of the whiners, Obama has mastered the practice of pushing progressive politics masked by “non/bi-partisan” rhetoric, labels, and behavior. Maybe the need to present political ideas in nonthreatening context may have had some resonance to the first black president in American history. Perhaps?
Wrong.
Wrong.
December 1st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
The idea that Obama should needlessly piss off a large percentage of the counrty just to appease open left seems rather silly to me.
Let me get this straight. Apparently you think it is necessary for Obama to appoint an entirely center right with no representatives from the “open left” ( whatever that means) whatsoever, lest “a large percentage of the counrty” be pissed off.
Apparently you think he could never appoint anyone from the “open left” to any position lest this “large percentage” be pissed off?
Apparently the risk that the “open left” likewise be “pissed off” is irrelevant? They are not as worthy or important ss this “large percentage”?
December 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
“Apparently…”
No. Also, open left is a blog, whatever that means.
Obama has appointed progressives to various positions–you can even check out archives of matt’s blog for verification–but however many he has appointed, it wasn’t enough for some people. Which is fine, since it wasn’t enough for me and pretty much anyone who is really a progressive. But just appointing progressives to important positions is essentially meaningless; what matters is getting universal healthcare, withdrawing from iraq, saving the economy, etc.–big stuff that will require obama saves his policical capital for stuff that matters: not samantha powers as sec state or repealing dadt. If he can do those things, great, but you can never get hwatever you want and its rather juvinille to have a temper tantrum because you can’t personally pick every member of team obama.
Also, I’m not really sure about this but i’m pretty sure obama is the first black president in our nation’s history. I’m not 100% sure but i think it would be a pretty big deal given our nation’s history on race. Maybe somebody could cofirm this rumor? It could have implications for his policical stragegy iirc.
The one nom I was really upset about was hill, who beside being evil. corrupt, and incompetent, is also very bad on national security and fp. But it seems she was chosen for the right reason. I wish obama et al good luck against the military industrial complex, but this is the type of thing that if you attempt you need to be successful at. This seems to be just what the whiners were asking for, but I doubt they will be satisfied.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:00 pm
But just appointing progressives to important positions is essentially meaningless; what matters is getting universal healthcare, withdrawing from iraq, saving the economy, etc.–big stuff that will require obama saves his policical capital for stuff that matters: not samantha powers as sec state or repealing dadt. If he can do those things, great, but you can never get hwatever you want and its rather juvinille to have a temper tantrum because you can’t personally pick every member of team obama.
OK. I get it. When I am displeased, it is a “temper tantrum” which must be ignored but Obama must appoint Republicans lest other “important segments” be “pissed off.”
And Democrats must start bargaining against themselves from the getgo lest they dare waste “politcal capital” by resorting to the completely ordinary position of appointing their own people to the new cabinet.
And whoever gets appointed Secretary of Defense or State is “essentially meaningless.” So hypothetically we could have David Duke appointed and that would not matter, right?
BTW: if you think who holds offices to be so irrelevant, then how do you explain why Bush has been so busy lately moving his personnel from appointed to civil service positions.
Also, BTW, I never mentioned Samantha Powers or repealing dadt. These are straw men.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The role of liberals and leftists is to humbly apologize for being right and having backed policies which would improve the country greatly as opposed to improving it slightly or doing more damage. How dare those arrogant sh*ts think they should be rewarded just because their analysis and ideas would be measurably better? Jerks.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Obama ran his general election campaign as a center-left candidate. He rejected litmus tests, progressive or otherwise. He rejected old style politics and promoted reconcilliation, think Lieberman. He doesn’t refer to Republicans as the enemy. He seeks common ground. He listens and speaks to those who vehemently disagree with him.
It looks like he intends to use all the levers of power at his disposal to push through the best agenda he can. He will not worry about how “progressive” his agenda might be or that he hits every progressive bullet point. Look at his staff and cabinet. I wish him the best.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
With Pete Beinart, Andy Sullivan and MattY leading the way the new progressive era of mainstream centrism is just around the corner.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 am
It was just over a year ago that Beinart was telling us that Obama had a big problem because nobody cared about Hillary Clinton’s 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 am
I don’t know.
How dare you! How dare you not know! You write! Therefore, you know!
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
What about the exigencies of blogging, Matt? Do they not, even more so than column-writing, “push people in the direction of unduly definitive statements on inherently murky situations”?
I’ve always been impressed with Matt’s ability to crank out at least a half-dozen posts and probably 1,000 words a day. But when that much opinion is offered with that degree of velocity and certitude, seems to be an important amount of reflection and perspective gets checked at the door. To say nothing of the typos.
As to the substantive issues raised by this post, the Beinart hypothesis does seem a little too cute by half. I’m prepared to give Obama enormous benefit of the doubt, but as a liberal I’m concerned (if not in the braying, bellyaching manner of a Chris Bowers). Question is: When does intellectual inclusiveness and magnanimity become concern trolling?
Problem of course is that you need “experience” to be tapped as a presidential national security principal. And because, when it comes to war-and peace decisions, Democrats have been crouched defensively (with their Heads in the Sand) for a generation, most everyone who has rejected the old hawkishness-equals-strength frame doesn’t have the experience to be Secretary of State.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Beinart is an idiot. Who cares what he thinks? he has no idea whether or not he is right anyway, which is his typical M.O.
Now, re something Matt said: “Clinton represents a segment of the Democratic party that spent the years after September 11 fretting intensely over whether Democrats seemed sufficiently “tough”
The problem with that segment was not so much that they worried about whether they seemed tough. That indeed was and is a huge problem for the Democrats. The problem is that their idea of looking tough involved acting like a bunch of cowards and letting the Republicans railroad them with obvious bullshit. The problem was thinking that saying “me too” makes you look tough when in fact it just made them all look like a bunch of punks.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 am
Or you could read Philip Giraldi, who’s a bit more pessimistic than Beinart:
Get Out Now,or Get Out Later
by Philip Giraldi
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=13840
Obama choice dims hopes in Middle East for change
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=472437
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
“Obama is only a “peace” candidate in relative terms, having committed himself to negotiating before he bombs.”
This statement is, well, stupid.
If you honestly believe that any of the recent major Dem candidates for president would have declared war on Iraq using 9/11 as cover for a big oil grab, you’re smoking crack.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:28 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:17 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Great site, Good info viagra