Ezra Klein: How To Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying

« A True Must-Read | Main | Notes on C-SPAN »

April 16, 2006

How To Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying

by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math

Greg Sargent asks a difficult question—assuming a peacnik "war is not an option" response is unfeasible, what should be the Democratic response on Iran, given that many Democratic Presidential hopefuls will feel the need to be "hawkish"? Sargent's worry is that the hawks will fall into the trap of conditional support for an invasion or even air strikes, giving Bush enough domestic cover to start World War III (and let's be honest, that's what we're talking about). I'm worried about that possibility as well, especially since Iran is in some ways a greater threat than Iraq was in 2002. But other options are available. One effective technique is to make bipartisan support conditional on terms completely unacceptable to one party. Republicans have been playing this game for years, hoping since at least the 1992 campaign that Democrats would support "common ground" in the abortion debate in the form of parental notification and waiting periods. Hillary has recently turned the tables by challenging the pro-life groups to accept contraception education and Emergency Contraception as valid ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But back to Iran. Even the need-to-be-hawkish Dems (Bayh, Biden, HRC, et al.), can demand reasonable steps towards bipartisanship from Bush.. Here are some possible endings to the sentence the sentence "I will consider supporting air strikes against Iran if Bush agrees to ...":

"... fire Donald Rumsfeld and appoint Sam Nunn/Wes Clark/Eric Shinseki/Anthony Zinni as Secretary of Defense. Now."
"... obtain UN or NATO support for any peacekeeping or humanitarian operations for any Iranian civilians displaced by our bombing. We've seen that he can't keep the peace after the initial attack."
"... offer a cease-fire to Iran after we destroy half their nuclear development capabilities. If Iran agrees to abandon its weapons ambitions, we will provide inspectors to monitor their energy plants—the same people who stopped Saddam from acquiring WMD."

So there's no real need to panic ... yet.

April 16, 2006 in Iran | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4673690

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How To Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying:

Comments

The best argument the Democrats have is that we have time. Iran is 5 to 10 (and probably more) years away from a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy with both carrots and stick is the first thing that should be done. Tone down the rhetoric. Someone who messed up the war in Afganistan and Iraq, is not the person to lead the bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran.

Posted by: Judy | Apr 16, 2006 11:24:09 AM

Not being a former U.S. secretary of state or president, I can only assume that one has to be able to chew gum and walk at the same time in those jobs. However, I think there still need to be priorities set based on need. For instance, Israel can take care of itself as far as Iran is concerned. And our troops and ships in the gulf have the ability to protect themselves and retaliate against an Iranian first strike.
The number one threat facing the U.S., as both Bush and Kerry agreed, is nuclear proliferation. And the country with the most loose nukes is Russia, not Iran or North Korea, and it certainly wasn't Iraq.

Posted by: John Stewart | Apr 16, 2006 11:33:41 AM

Nick, you are much more trusting than I [grin].

Bush, even if accepting conditions, would quickly spin the support of Dems for a blanket warrant to do anything and claim conditions can't limit Presidential authority.

But if you insist on conditions, then if the Congress forbid by law pre-emptive US attacks on Iran and required that we rely on containment - including the threat of unlimited nuclear retaliation for any Iran nuclear attacks on the US, the EU or Israel - then I might consider that an acceptable limit. But even then, Bush will say his authority over foreign policy and his authority as Commander in Chief are without limit.

In the end, perhaps only Congress' ability to limit authorizations and appropriations for military use can reign Bush in. And, of course, the threat of impeachment for disregarding the will of Congress as expressed in the laws that the President is bound by oath 'to take care that the laws are faithfully executed'.

This time I advocate that Congress just say no to any preemptive attack in accord with our long traditions and current common sense.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 16, 2006 11:33:50 AM

So there's no real need to panic ... yet.

I don't get it. Isn't our ability not to panic dependent on the Dems figuring this out? If that's that case, then panic is well-warranted. I happen to think that all of this is a foolhardy and reckless way to back the Dems into this exact corner for the midterms so I'm not panicking about WWII starting yet. But I am panicking that the Dems won't know how to avoid the latest trap and end up pushing the whole thing forward ahead of schedule with their shrieking support of Dear Leader.

Posted by: eRobin | Apr 16, 2006 11:48:02 AM

Aren't many of the DefSecs you propose not feasible, because of their too-recent connections with the military?

Posted by: Julian Elson | Apr 16, 2006 12:03:15 PM

1) I am not yet convinced that a war is necessary, although the concessions we would probably have to make to Iran to give up its goal are likely unacceptable or impossible,e.g., Israel giving up its nukes or America stopping all aid to Israel.
2) Thomas Barnett says the important question is not whether Iran gets nuclear capability, but what we get in return. In other words, what concessions can we get from Iran, in exchange for not attacking them and allowing them the Bomb, that would make us, Israel, and the rest of the world feel safer.
3) Bush and Rove will play this in their customary manner. Any discussion of an attack on Iran will be "wild speculation" and not worth commenting on until the bombs start dropping.
4) A possibility, and maybe the only useful one, is to attack Bush from his right. An air campaign will be inadequate, we will require a massive ground invasion, need to renew the draft, raise taxes, etc. When Rummy says "not necessary" say "Iraq". After the inevitable failure, then Bush can be criticized as the cheapskate coward he is. This will not happen.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 16, 2006 12:11:14 PM

I just watched Richardson on Face the Nation do his best, and it was truly awful.

"Well, what's the alternative, what would you do?" are deadly dangerous questions for Democrats on Iraq and Iran. And, Richardson handled them, as many Democrats do, which is to say, badly.

As hard as it is, Democrats need to emphasize their own powerlessness and lack of responsiblity, from the outset. Richardson should have said, "I look at what Bush is doing in horror; it is like watching a car accident happen in slow motion. What would I do differently? I'd like to say, I wouldn't drive so recklessly. But, what's the point? Bush is drunk behind the wheel, and the crash, in Iraq, has already happened. Still drunk, he's staggering around the scene of the accident, and, apparently, about to get behind the wheel again. He thinks he's Richard Petty, but, in fact, he's treating the Mideast less like Daytona than a Demolition Derby."
"Stay or Go, with regard to Iraq, it is still a fatal wreck for thousands. The reconstruction has failed to put Iraq's economy or politics on a stable foundation, and the U.S. Army does not have sufficient boots on the ground to control the future course of events. Whether we stay or go, we no longer have control of developments."

Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Apr 16, 2006 2:02:46 PM

If you can't understand disagreeing vehemently does not allow conceding the point - I can't see a method of making any position hold.
It isn't as if you should have trouble proving the administration couldn't find their ass with both hands.

Posted by: opit | Apr 16, 2006 2:03:59 PM

I would like to see Democrats take a much harder line on Bush and Bush's Iraq policy. I think that the most effective, rhetorical/narrative tack would be to charge Bush with "betrayal".

Too often, Democrats accept the premise that Bush is trying to further American interests, but is making mistakes. Republicans have no problem questioning the loyalty of Democrats. Democrats should return the favor.

Take advantage of the fact that Bush has never, truthfully, told us why he invaded Iraq. Presume that Bush is competent, and infer his goals, from his actions and the results. He wanted and wants a weak Iraq, because a strong Iraq would ask us to leave, ruining his vision of a permanent American presence in the Middle East. He wanted to stop Iraqi oil production, raising oil prices, to benefit his friends in the U.S. oil industry, and to strength the stability of Saudi Arabia, and to benefit his family's friends in Dubai.

This is a line of reasoning, which will have no particular appeal to the Democratic base, though they are unlikely to object. The real target is Bush's base: the gas-guzzlers of Red America need to be told that Bush has betrayed them, to benefit his rich friends.

When asked what they would do differently, Democrats should answer that they would pursue different goals from Bush, that they would protect American interests and not Dubai's interests. Don't get bogged down in tactics. Assume Bush is aiming at different goals, and attack his goals.

Posted by: Bruce Wilder | Apr 16, 2006 2:13:07 PM

What would I do differently? I'd like to say, I wouldn't drive so recklessly. But, what's the point? (deleted needless Bush-bashing)

Everyone will see through that. It's a dodge...it's not answering the question...

An inherently bad idea.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 16, 2006 2:18:39 PM

So the peacenik "war is not an option" response is unfeasible? It's better for liberals/Democrats to stand on principle in this regard.

For all those Congressional Democrats who voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in 2002, the truthful and reasonable argument would be that such an action was taken under the extreme duress of having administration officials falsely relay to them that their very lives were in danger if they didn't go to war. That's a pretty convincing position that very much paints Dick Cheney and Condolezza Rice in a negative light since they were on the front lines implying that no action on Iraq was the equivalent to having a mushroom cloud suddenly appear over Washington, D.C., or New York City.

I mean, alarmist much? And even alarmist to the point of convincing anti-war liberals to approve something they wouldn't normally approve of under other circumstances? That's pretty low, and sadly, it's the truth.

If the liberals/Democrats can proclaim that side of the story, they can also open up a line of questioning which goes like this: "Mr. President and hawkish supporters, if you overreacted and misjudged the threat from Iraq, how can we trust you now to understand the threat from Iran? Isn't it enough that we tried it your way once with questionable results at best? Let's try it our way now."

Posted by: Joshua | Apr 16, 2006 2:51:54 PM

"I will consider supporting air strikes against Iran if Bush agrees to ..."

...offer, today, his and Cheney's resignations, to be effective the day after the winners of the 2006 Congressional elections are inaugurated, thereby elevating the Speaker of the House, whoever that may be, to the presidency.

The Administration has zero credibility to report any threat regarding the WMD capabilities of middle Eastern countries. The only sane response to anything they have to say on the subject is to laugh in their face and say "quit fucking lying."

Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Apr 16, 2006 5:49:49 PM

"I will consider supporting air strikes against Iran if Bush agrees to ..."

This is a terrible strategy. If Democrats need to be hawkish, they can't afford to leave room for the possibility for George Bush to launch a war with Iran under any circumstances. They need to stress that:

1. We have plenty of time - five to ten years before Iran will have a nuke by the most accurate assessment
2. George Bush can't to be trusted on Iran any more than he could be trusted on Iraq
3. Any talk about Iran coming from the White House before the midterms is about the midterms as much as it is about anything else

Bush has lost a ton of credibility on Iraq. It shouldn't be too difficult to transfer that lack of credibility to Iran. Democrats should focus on that and not on setting up conditions under which they'll allow for making an even bigger train wreck of American foreign policy.

Posted by: Iron Lungfish | Apr 16, 2006 6:39:58 PM

Just wanted to point out the most salient fact in the Iran 'crisis'. Ahmedinejad is the presidetn of Iran. This is like being governor of Texas: he has very little power when all is said and done, and he has none over the military. This is why the reformists were never able to do much in their time in power. It simply doesn't matter how assholish Ahmedinejad is, he can't start a war since the military is under the command of the Guardian Council. And there is literally no reason to think that Khamenei et al. are interested in war. What they are interested in is using the crisis to shore up their domestic support, and in defeating any US invasion/bombing run. Bush's bluffing (if he's bluffing) won't induce them to back down: they'd look weak as hell when they need to appear strong. If Bush isn't bluffing, then backing down wouldn't accomplish anything anyway: if Bush is planning an attack, then he wants war for it's own sake. This is abundantly clear from Iraq: Saddam actually offered to allow the US military to conduct inspections in Iraq, and that did nothing to prevent war. Bush wanted war for reasons having nothing to do with Saddam's actions. From our perspective, we're presented with two possibilities: either Bush is bluffing, and he gets called on it, and then back's down resulting in a massive loss for the US in prestige and power; OR, Bush isn't bluffing, and we're about to launch a major offensive that is doomed to failure against a country that has the wherewithal to defend itself without any international support. There is no crisis: the argument for the war is that Ahmedinejad is insane, and so we can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But we have a decade before that happens, and by then Ahmedinejad is out of office. And it wouldn't matter anyway since he has no control over them. For God's sake, we just went through this 3 years ago! Are we really going to let Bush destroy our military just so we can look tough?

Posted by: Padraig | Apr 16, 2006 9:17:06 PM

"I would consider supporting air strikes if, after the impeachment and conviction of George Bush and Richard Cheney for the high crimes and misdemeanors involved in falsely send thousands of American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq, the new president (and former democratic speaker of the house) made a full and honest case that that was the only way we safeguard the United States."

The thing to keep hammering is that in addition to being criminals and incompetent leaders, the top echelon of this administration has no credibility whatsoever. Put it out front: "As soon as someone with a record of telling the truth on these issues -- no, not you either, Colin -- comes out to explain why we have an urgent problem, we'll talk."

Posted by: paul | Apr 16, 2006 9:56:51 PM

1. Iran may seek a nuclear capability as any other nation would because they want to part of the power club. But they also want the capability as defense against the threat from the USA. Stem that threat and you may take away some of their drive. Better yet, let the pundit channel speak to that while the front-line echoes with "Bush and Rummy can not be trusted to do this better than they did Iraq" and "We cannot afford to wait three years to force the administration to tell the truth on Iran." We can keep a stern face with lines like "We have to stop Iran," but that needs to be done judiciously.

2. In real terms, we may have to strike Iran. That more than anything else is the Bush foreign policy legacy. His crusade has left little credibility and plenty of room for the Muslim warrior class to agitate for things like nukes. This attitude will not change appreciably when Bush is gone (presuming he does go). It is far too valuable a tool for the agitators, to expect that they will not try to use the Bush legacy to our disadvantage is folly.

3. When faced with an undesirable path (war), and assuming we are in control when the necessity to act is upon us, It would be best to have already made it clear that we will be tough on Iran, and to have already made it clear that we will not make Bush league mistakes... we'll do it right the first time. In this case, the back channel is nearly the only hope for avoiding the ugly ways of war.

4. The war on tera must be brought to a close, or pursued with a veracity not yet seen. This is key to regaining some credibility. If we fight it, we must define it succinctly. Right and left wing violence must be fought with equal veracity or we must take our ball and go home. Trying to ride it out in the middle is the fool’s way.

Just my opinion.

Posted by: Fr33d0m | Apr 16, 2006 10:02:17 PM

The whole Iran problem is, I think more complex then most people give it credit for. The consequences near and far in this struggle could be quite serious.

1. It may be true that Iran would be 8-10 years from making a nuke. If we have accurately assesed the count of their centrifuges, and if noone else has provided them with useable material from somewhere else. Both items that we cant be assured of. Even if we are right, how long do we wait for a serious effort, 8.5 years? 5?

2. This isnt like a TV show. GW has said he doesnt want them 'having the knowledge' to produce nukes, along with the ability. Bombing them does not take care of that instance. Plans could exist elsewhere, and the expertise would still exist inside the physicists and machinists themselves. The further along we get those 8-10 years the more expertise is built up. The only counter to this is a prolonged presence, and through that monitoring their infrastructure so no organization large enough to produce nukes is possible.

3. As far as a political solution goes, we seemingly have no power to hold over them. They dont import an appreciable amount of their goods or vice versa. The important players in trade are the EU, China, and Russia. The only meaninful trade sanction we could use is to refuse to purchase their oil, which would only shoot our own economy in the foot. The only role we could use to convince them is to convince others to act.

4. If we do go for the military option again.. then we risk our own economy and future well being. If we dont have chinese and Russian support which we likely wont get, we may open ourself up strategically to others who dont have our interests in mind. As we work with a budge this year some $700+ billion beyond our means, all it takes is a canny set of international banks to call our loans and the dollar will fold. We act as if we have no capable enemies in the world, but Russia and the Chinese could conceivably take advantage of the situation if we overextend our military and economic strength.

..another option you alluded to earlier was Israel making the 1st strike. That may be the best option in the end? ..why? we dont take the heat, or have to explain our motivations for invading yet another country. Israel reasserts its dominance and desire to remain the only nuclear power in the middle east. They open themselves up to a tide of anger from the muslim world. However we can easy back them up militarily without losing face, and its unlikely that any middle eastern country would step into the ring. They could even a limited nuclear strike (god forbid) without risking WWIII nearly as much as we would in doing it ourselves.

..well its a long note, and Im sure there are more complications that I havent even touched on. But theres some points that noone seems to have even thought of in all this.

Posted by: david b | Apr 17, 2006 4:36:08 AM

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2

xoomer.xxxvideos2 xoomer.xxxvideos2

Posted by: JEROGatch | Oct 28, 2006 12:53:29 AM

Posted by: qwer | Dec 6, 2006 10:02:56 AM

Capitalist Corner

Wish List

April 16, 2006

How To Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying

TrackBack

Comments

Post a comment

About

Published Pieces

Recent Entries

Blogroll

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Search

Contact

Link Blog: