Bush-bama vs. McCain
A few days ago (I’m catching up!), Matt Yglesias wrote a quick post on the divergence between Bush and McCain on foreign policy.
Now, you might be thinking, “Hey, hasn’t Matt forcefully argued that it is sound and appropriate to argue that a vote for McCain is a vote for a third term for Bush?” Well yes, kind of, but Matt has also argued that McCain is a consistent militarist, despite the fact that McCain has had a wide range of opinions on foreign policy issues, including post-invasion Iraq, and that we have good reason to believe that McCain adjusts his views in response to reality. He is, you might say, a reality-based conservative. Bush, in his kinder, gentler foreign policy guise, has not made a break with his past — he is continuing in his non-reality-based vein. And it so happens that he is thus in broad agreement with the Obama campaign as to how to approach Iran and other foreign policy crises. Judging by his Berlin speech, Obama thinks that joining forces with Europe to condemn Iran and jaw-jaw Iran out of acquiring nuclear weapons is a new idea. It’s not, as it happens. It is, very understandably, the same approach Condolleezza Rice has pursued, formally and informally, for some time now.
Just as McCain disagreed with Bush on Iraq strategy before the belated embrace of open-source counterinsurgency, he stubbornly disagrees with the Bush-Obama strategy. Why? Because it has yielded pretty abysmal results so far. Assuming that changes, I suspect McCain will reassess.
All this is to say that Matt has a gift for framing devices — he is a truly impressive guy and a total mensch, and the Center for American Progress, and the left more broadly, is very lucky to have him.
Matt also pointed me to this terrific diavlog between Francis Fukuyama and Robert Kagan. One of my close friends, an editor at Foreign Affairs, once told me that Francis Fukuyama reminded him of me, which I found very flattering — people usually tell me that some miscellaneous rodeo clown or movie monster reminded them of me — so I was inclined to like him. Actually, Fukuyama also wrote me back once when I sent him a mildly critical letter at the age of 16. (I had a lot of time on my hands.) I agreed strongly with Fukuyama on China, and with Kagan on the broader questions surrounding relative decline: how constrained are we, etc. Worth watching! Of course, a friend of mine mocked me mercilessly for watching it. I was like, “Wait, I’ll go, but I need to watch this, um, Bloggingheads episode.” I have no shame. You’re damn right I want to watch it!
“Judging by his Berlin speech, Obama thinks that joining forces with Europe to condemn Iran and jaw-jaw Iran out of acquiring nuclear weapons is a new idea. It’s not, as it happens. It is, very understandably, the same approach Condolleezza Rice has pursued, formally and informally, for some time now.”
There are just appeasers everywhere, huh?
As Matt has addressed directly, repeatedly, and at length, the primary difference between Obama’s policy toward Iran and Bush’s / McCain’s has always been a lower barrier to direct talks. And by lower barrier, Matt means that we don’t demand capitulation before we sit down. Now, you may disagree that this is much of a difference, or you may wish to assert that it’s been overtaken by events, and there certainly is an argument that way. Still, you ought to grapple with the distinction since it is, you know, Matt’s real argument, and the dopey, month-old, Fred Hiatt line you’re pushing in your second paragraph has already been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
— southpaw · Aug 2, 12:32 PM · #
An Obama victory would signal American retreat and defeat. Europe and the Middle East would jump in joy, because they have been praying for American defeat for years. Sensing America’s weakness, Iran would laugh and brazenly build a nuclear bomb. Our Isamofascist enemies in Afghanistan would be emboldened. While we are currently the “jerks” of the world, an Obama victory would transform us into the “losers” of the world.
— Jane · Aug 2, 01:54 PM · #
Jane, that seems nutty to me; Europe doesn’t want Iran to go nuclear either. And when you worry about American ideals being overthrown, well, I worry about a group of people who think that the executive isn’t checked by any other branches of government and isn’t bound by the Fourth Amendment — a good, very conservative friend who worked in the Reagan Admin was telling em Thursday, “I think we came very close to losing the Republic.” I think he’s right. So over-the-top descriptions of what an Obama victory means are almost irrelevant given the kind of things involved.
I have been reading Yglesias since 2004 and have pretty much stopped because he seems to’ve been seduced by his commenters into thinking it’s acceptable to descibe conservatives as, well, just basically evil, and that constitutes an argument: in the process he gets downright nasty in ways I personally find repellent (Reihan makes an excellent contrast) even though my politics are not unlike his. What Southpaw is linking to, shows the problem: no, Yglesias is not arguing at length anything. He’s saying sure, they both are doing the same thing, but Rice is doing it in bad faith and Obama in good faith. Uh…OK. That isn’t exactly weighing, measuring, and finding wanting Reihan’s argument.
What he seems to mean by bad faith, southpaw is telling us above: Bush wants a concession up front and Obama doesn’t. But that’s semantic at best: the fact is if Obama doesn’t convince the Iranians to disarm his talks will be seen as a failure and will go nowhere anyways. So the distinction between Bush’s opening talks with, well, of course, y’all know you’re going to disarm, right? and Obama’s opening them with, well, you know, that I know, that you know. that I know, that this is where these talks better end up, is not particularly thrilling.
— Sanjay · Aug 2, 05:20 PM · #
I should append that the big argument for “Bush-Bama” is still the one John Dickerson made in Slate — I am understandably leery of presidents who assert that their policies only seem more and more right to them as facts on the ground change.
— Sanjay · Aug 2, 05:26 PM · #
I was explaining to my girlfriend, a staunch Republican, how I could vote for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004, and, as it looks like will happen, Obama in 2008.
I told her first, if she’d remember, in 2000 Gore was sane and centrist, and Bush was a folksy unknown with great name cache, some success governing Texas (a very different political climate than DC), and not much else. Voting for Gore was the equivalent of saying, “Let the good times roll.”
In 2004 we were in Iraq, and it looked like it was going to get a lot worse before it got better. In that situation, the choice was between the stubborn, my-political-popularity-be-damned arrogance of Bush (who clearly would double down on Iraq rather than fold), or Kerry, a political Gumby with an anti-military bent who would get out of Iraq if it played well on the Sunday talk-shows. Also influencing my choice was the fact that, since 2000 and 2004, I had immersed myself in military, foreign, and Middle Eastern affairs, and I felt a “whew, that was close” kind of success in Iraq was very possible, given enough time and backbone. So I held my nose and voted for Bush, a man I considered, to borrow David Milch’s description of him, to be a genial, inarticulate boob who means well (with all the necessary “path to hell is paved…” caveats).
But now? I think the last thing we need in Iraq is father-knows-best stubbornness, especially not the calcified kind of self-certainty we see in McCain. What we need now is dexterity, fluidity, elan — not Rocky Marciano but Muhammad Ali. Iraq is no longer crisis to be won (which takes a sometimes irrational kind of resolve); rather, Iraq is now a political issue to be managed.
And, despite his marketing as a liberal savior, Obama is a smart, savvy, self-aware political operator with a healthy interest in his own political survival. In other words, exactly what we need right now.
— Kris Sargent · Aug 2, 05:33 PM · #