Michael Goldfarb
There’s been a lot of criticism of my friend Michael Goldfarb, who has just been hired by the McCain campaign to serve as deputy communications director. Some very smart people, including Radley Balko, have suggested that that McCain personally vets all of his hires to be confident that there is no distance between their views and his own. I find this a little naive, not least because the McCain campaign, like all campaigns, is stretched pretty thin. There are many high-level McCain staffers who are, for example, adamantly pro-choice. There are a number of Democrats on his foreign policy staff. Perhaps he is willing to brook dissent on, say, social issues from a foreign policy staffer, but not on foreign policy issues from a foreign policy staffer. That makes sense, except McCain does have foreign policy staffers who have different views on specific strategic questions, e.g., the kind of presence we should have in Iraq 5-10 years hence, or whether a League of Democracies is a good idea.
My assumption is that Goldfarb was hired by the communications staff because he is adept at communications strategy, and he is someone who knows the web very well. He’s also — and this doesn’t come across in his web writing, where he wields a flamethrower — one of the most disarming, charming, and sincere people I’ve ever met. (This is the point where I, if I were a Goldfarb detractor, would write, “Charming! Do you think Goebbels was charming, you Bushitler apologist swine!!!) He’s also very knowledgeable about national security. I know this in part because I’ve been on the wrong side of an argument with him, and let’s just say I’ve been “schooled.” And he once allowed someone to Tase him, which I imagine was more unpleasant than being the object of intemperate blogging.
I haven’t always agreed with Goldfarb. He’s a lot more pugnacious than I am, he has more confidence in the national security establishment, he is less of a Schneierian than I am, and, most importantly, he doesn’t give a damn about what anyone else thinks of him. He does, however, prefer not being Tased to being Tased. But then again, don’t we all?
Before we make any sweeping claims about what Goldfarb says about McCain — claims that invariably reflect what we already think or want to think about McCain — consider the possibility that the campaign has just hired an effective communicator.
It occurs to me that I’m friendly with many people who are profoundly antagonistic towards each other. I suppose this ought to reflect poorly on me, but I like to think I’ve managed to maintain my integrity. Of course, I suppose I’ve maintained my integrity as a kook.
I guess I don’t understand your criticism. Was it “intemperate” of me to note that a guy who communicates for a living and was hired by McCain to communicate, has communicated some ideas I find disagreeable (for example, that the founders intended the president to behave like dictator on foreign policy)?
And we can draw some conclusions about the way McCain might govern by the opinions of the people he hires to craft his message, can’t we? Are their opinions completely irrelevant? Goldfarb writes regularly on national security. McCain is running with national security featured prominently in his platform. Surely Goldfarb wouldn’t have been hired on if his views were diametrically opposed to McCain’s on these matters, would he?
Goldfarb linked to Federalist 70 in that post. That’s neoconservative shorthand for a belief in an enormously powerful presidency (it’s also a faulty and dishonest interpretation of Federalist 70).
I mean, if McCain had hired someone from, say, The American Prospect to be his deputy communications director, of someone like Justin Logan from Cato, wouldn’t we be drawing some inferences in the other direction?
— Radley Balko · Jun 4, 09:02 PM · #
Oh, but I appreciate the “very smart” part!
— Radley Balko · Jun 4, 09:09 PM · #
It’s fair to suppose that Mr. Goldfarb’s hiring says something about what McCain wishes to communicate. They’re not hiring him to make sure the copiers have plenty of paper.
So what should we make of Goldfarb quotes about “Obama’s friends in Tehran” or claiming that the NY Times is “committed to fighting no wars at all”? Mindless hyperbole is the most charitable interpretation. If taken literally they are the words of a fool, or the words of someone who wants to fool the gullible with lies about the opposition.
The problem with this for McCain is that this is exactly Bush’s approach – use a lot of stupid slogans to demonize the opposition, and rule from the extreme – and McCain’s appeal to independents depends on seeming to be different than Bush.
But I applaud your wide circle of friends, and I’d also be happy to sit down with Mr. Goldfarb over a beer and discuss it in person.
— Peter · Jun 5, 12:28 AM · #
Peter is touching on an interesting point—for both Obama and McCain, honesty and civility in communication is something they’re always talking about. Perhaps an issue could be made not over what Goldfarb communicates but how he communicates it.
— Consumatopia · Jun 5, 01:18 AM · #
I guess I don’t understand either. McCain isn’t hiring someone disarming, charming and sincere to privately sip brandy with. He’s hiring someone to do his campaign communications. Who? A professional neoconservative communicator who wields a flamethrower online.
That suggests McCain wants a communications shop that is not sober, not civil and very hawkish on foreign policy. The private qualities of Michael Goldfarb don’t enter into it; his professional qualities do.
— southpaw · Jun 5, 02:59 AM · #
And, look, it would be the easiest thing in the world for John McCain to say “there may be a number of people on my staff who used to work for the sociopathic Bill Kristol and who seem to share his views, but I don’t share those views — I’m just someone who likes to hire deranged warmongers, I’m not a deranged warmonger himself.” But it seems to me that McCain likes to hire deranged warmongers because he finds their views admirable.
— Matthew Yglesias · Jun 5, 04:35 AM · #
Being friends with people who are mutually antagonistic is a natural outgrowth of seeing that there’s almost never reason for people to dislike each other, and realizing that you can’t just say “a pox on both of you.”
— Justin · Jun 5, 05:13 AM · #
It seems pretty clear the whole purpose of this post was to make Mr. Yglesias’s eyes bug out. Seems to have worked.
— Peter Suderman · Jun 5, 12:57 PM · #
The one time I paid attention to Goldfarb, I came away unimpressed on the merits. Goldfarb jumped down Obama’s throat for an anecodate Obama told during a debate about a conversation with a soldier, which, after Jake Tapper chased it down turned about to be substantially true. But Goldfard had already “deduced” based on his alleged knowledge that what Obama related couldnt possibly be true. He spent numerous follow ups explaining away, and explaining away etc, and then the Reverand Wright stuff broke.
To me Goldfarb seemed like a “academic” who let his head knowledge get in the way of actual reporting, who wanted to impress us with how much he new about the military, and who couldn’t admit that he was wrong.
— PaulC · Jun 5, 05:51 PM · #
Reihan:
How do you characterize Goldfarb as adept at comms strategy? Is he a former staffer with comms experience? Does he have a degree? A Crackerjack prize?
How would you compare Goldfarb to Amanda Marcotte, as far as “skill” related to the resume?
— Baltimoron · Jun 6, 12:50 PM · #