« More On Prison Rape | Main | What Would The Man In Black Say? »
February 12, 2007
Can't, Stop, Thinking About Obama...
Ben Wallace-Wells, who hired me for my first gig at The Washington Monthly, has a profile of Barack Obama in the latest Rolling Stone, and does a better job getting inside the Senator's head than most anyone I've seen. This particularly gave me some hope:
One of the biggest names to work with Obama is Samantha Power, the scholar and journalist who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. "In 2004, I came out of election night just completely depressed," Power says. "We thought Kerry would win and we'd all get a chance to change the world. But then it was like, 'Nah, same old thing.' " Obama gave her a place to channel her energy. She advised him on the genocide in Darfur, an issue that most politicians at the time were studiously avoiding. "He's a sponge," Power says. "He pushes so hard on policy ideas that fifteen minutes after you've started talking, he's sent you back to the drawing board. He doesn't get weighted down by the limits of American power, but he sees you have to grasp those limits in order to transcend them."
Power is part of a generation of thinkers who, like Obama, came of age after the Cold War. They worry about the problems created by globalization and believe that the most important issues America will confront in the future (terrorism, avian flu, global warming, bioweapons, the disease and nihilism that grow from concentrated poverty) will emanate from neglected and failed states (Afghanistan, the Congo, Sierra Leone). According to Susan Rice, a Brookings Institution scholar who serves as an informal adviser to Obama, their ideas come from the "profound conviction that we are interconnected, that poverty and conflict and health problems and autocracy and environmental degradation in faraway places have the potential to come back and bite us in the behind, and that we ignore such places and such people at our peril."
Over the past two years, Obama has come to adopt this worldview as his own...The foreign-policy initiatives he has fought for and passed have followed this model: He has secured money to fight avian flu, improve security in the Congo and safeguard Russian nuclear weapons. "My comment is not meant to be unkind to mainstream Democrats," says Lugar, "but it seems to me that Barack is studying issues that are very important for the country and for the world."
When I meet with Obama in his office, it becomes clear that his study of foreign policy has only deepened his belief in the potential of American power. "In Africa, you often see that the difference between a village where everybody eats and a village where people starve is government," he tells me. "One has a functioning government, and the other does not. Which is why it bothers me when I hear Grover Norquist or someone say that government is the enemy. They don't understand the fundamental role that government plays."
As I said in an earlier post, I think Obama's foreign policy instincts -- and at this point, it may be more precise to call them "theories" -- are sounder than those of any other Democrat in the race. His choice of advisors backs that up. And so too on domestic policy does he have some innovative and good people advising him -- notably Karen Kornbluh, who's among the most innovative young thinkers in the party. This, for now, is the essential confusion of Obama. If you want to look for evidence of his authenticity and promise, there's plenty to be found. If you're searching for proof of timidity and consensus-driven politics ("He has voted with conservatives on tort reform and industry-friendly provisions in the bankruptcy bill, and the troop-pullout bill he introduced in January was a late and unremarkable entry in the debate over Iraq"), there's plenty of that, as well.
So now, I guess, we wait.
February 12, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
WRT: "Can't stop..."
I like 'tomorrow'-oriented pols. Maybe Obama should pull a fast one on Hillary and adopt Big Dogs song for the campaign trail:
"Can't stop thinking about tomorrow" (Fleetwood Mac)
All the baby boomers (first group) would luv it, and how could Bill object?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Feb 12, 2007 3:01:50 PM
Obama's entry makes this a tough race. I wonder what the odds are that we have a 3-way race next spring and summer. What if no one has more than 40% of the delegates at convention time? This could be fun - or agony.
Posted by: MarvyT | Feb 12, 2007 3:10:08 PM
He didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill. People keep syaing this but it is incorrect. Stop perpetuating this!
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/44/
As for tort reform, I actually think it was a good vote. Only plaintiff's rights attorneys, like this bill but it is actually hinders overall justice. Civil Actions pad the pockets of attorneys but do little for those injured once the money is divided up. I think his vote for tort reform was a good vote.
Posted by: gear | Feb 12, 2007 3:36:07 PM
No one said he voted for the bankruptcy bill -- he vote for certain provisions of it, though.
Posted by: Ezra | Feb 12, 2007 3:43:04 PM
He didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill.
Yes, goddammit! He voted against an amendment which would've pointlessly suspended (superceded) state law (Kerry voted the same way, BTW). This is a smear invented (as far as I know) by David Sirota, and it has spread heedlessly. Nothing like people on your own side (I think) smearing your best candidates. Thanks a lot, David.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Feb 12, 2007 3:50:01 PM
Jim, I had the same thought about the song, even though it's "Don't stop ...."
As I said in an earlier post, I think Obama's foreign policy instincts -- and at this point, it may be more precise to call them "theories" -- are sounder than those of any other Democrat in the race.
That's not saying much, especially from my point of view, from where the whole party seems to be in deep denial about the realities of Iraq.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 12, 2007 3:55:37 PM
sorry to fly off the handle, Ezra. If you know something I don't, please let us know. As far as I know, his votes were fine on that bill. Maybe I'm wrong. But I do know that the meat of some supposedly 'left' crit. of Obama on that bill was baloney. And I'm really offended that certain (left) rigid ideologues have a habit of using Senate votes to spread FUD about Obama. Let's let the Republicans try to do that.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Feb 12, 2007 3:58:52 PM
Here's the Sirota piece.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Feb 12, 2007 4:02:46 PM
That's not saying much, especially from my point of view, from where the whole party seems to be in deep denial about the realities of Iraq.
Oh, Sanpete. We have to leave SOMETIME. That's reality, and sooner better than later.
David Sirota sucks.
Posted by: Korha | Feb 12, 2007 5:28:25 PM
Dudes, read Wallace-Wells again:
He has voted with conservatives on tort reform and industry-friendly provisions in the bankruptcy bill
Provisions, not the entire bill. Which is true.
Posted by: David Weigel | Feb 12, 2007 5:35:31 PM
It seems to me that trade is one big, underrated issue on which Edwards could draw a clear distinction between his position and Obama's, but 'm not sure where Obama stands. I guess I should read the profile. Meantime anyone help me out?
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 12, 2007 5:43:25 PM
We have to leave SOMETIME. That's reality, and sooner better than later.
Sooner is definitely better than later, other things being equal. Anyone who thinks other things are equal really just wants to get out, consequences be damned. It really does concern me that the candidates give such naive explanations of why we should leave. Obama and most others: "If we leave, they'll be forced to deal with their problems and will compromise." That's no more real than the twaddle that got us in there. But they seem to believe it, and for similar reasons: the politics are very moving.
Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 12, 2007 6:01:21 PM
He has voted with conservatives on tort reform and industry-friendly provisions in the bankruptcy bill
Provisions, not the entire bill. Which is true.
True, but possibly meaningless. Voting the same way as conservatives on some provisions doesn't necessarily make you a jellyfish.
Posted by: jonnybutter | Feb 12, 2007 6:28:48 PM
Liberal gullibility is boundless. 50 years ago--only 50 years ago!--a photogenic Mass. senator enchanted the liberal intelligentsia with visions of benevolent power, Alliances for Progress and south Asian TVAs (and jobs in the executive--let's not forget that) and was accordingly deified. But on the day that he died he left in his wake the Bay of Pigs, Rafael Trujillo, CIA assassination campaigns and the first major stage of the Vietnam War.
Inspiring visions of American altruism are seductive, but a quick glance at history (and, let's face it, an ounce of common sense) shows them to be basically unfounded. Even if Obama means what he says--and he probably does, as Kennedy probably did--his actual decision-making will be shaped and determined by the institutional pressures and necessities of a vast bureaucratic-industrial complex, and this instinct for intevention will manifest itself, as it usually does, in egregrious acts of military adventurism.
If liberals truly wished to prevent catastrophes like Iraq from ever occuring again they would cease splurting out the perfect nonsense ("He doesn't get weighted down by the limits of American power, but he sees you have to grasp those limits in order to transcend them." [????]) of which propaganda is made and actually challenge the interventionist premises that underlie our elite foreign policy discourse. And the first step, it seems to me, is developing a healthy skepticism towards platitudes about "the potential of American power" emenating from presidential candidates and their star-struck advisors.
Posted by: Mark | Feb 12, 2007 6:38:47 PM
"And the first step, it seems to me, is developing a healthy skepticism towards platitudes about "the potential of American power" emenating from presidential candidates and their star-struck advisors."
An elegant rant, although you'll have to search far and wide to find a viable, or semi-viable, candidate who rejects American imperialism. Whatever the difference among the leading candidates, it's clear that they all belong to the neo-liberal school. My (lofty) hope for Edwards is that the logic of his domestic economic beliefs will push his foreign policy in a leftward direction. After all, American-domimated globalization is part and parcel of Empire.
Posted by: david mizner | Feb 12, 2007 7:06:49 PM
Things were different in Kennedy's time, though. Mostly notably I mean the Cold War, and all its attendent political ramifications.
Whoever the next President is, he/she is going to enter office fundamentally constrained in terms of foreign policy: by the aftermath of the war in Iraq, by virulent anti-American sentiment, by the necessity to rebuild the army, and by a whole host of other inhibitors on aggressive action. So let's not blow this out of proportion. Nobody is going to start another Vietnam War anytime soon, not after the last one.
And American hegemony is ending, anyway, thanks to the rise of the East. "American-dominated globalization"? LOL. What the hell happened to the U.S. manufacturing base then? How come Chinese bankers hold a bajillion dollars of our debt? I mean, please. Iraq could very potentially be the last and dying gasp of the Mighty American Empire.
Posted by: Korha | Feb 12, 2007 10:06:00 PM
"you'll have to search far and wide to find a viable, or semi-viable, candidate who rejects American imperialism."
That's true. And I wouldn't advise anyone to punish the Dems by casting a protest vote--the presidency is simply too dangerous an office for that. But I do think it's appropriate to demand of liberal intellectuals that they stop feeding the prevailing intellectual culture out of which catastrophes such as Iraq spring and start asking hard questions about the systematic nature of American intervention. Or, at the very least, they should resist getting weak in the knees every time Barak Obama mentions the Peace Corps.
Posted by: Mark | Feb 12, 2007 10:21:55 PM
Except, if you look at the voting on the bankruptcy bill, Obama voted against it.
Posted by: vwcat | Feb 12, 2007 11:36:07 PM
Mark, maybe you overstate the case? Those programs don't strike me as very "imperial." Seem more about being a good/wise neighbor. If you have reasons to believe that that addressing and acting on "terrorism, avian flu, global warming, bioweapons, the disease and nihilism that grow from concentrated poverty" will be bad for the world and US, I would love to hear them.
Posted by: a-train | Feb 13, 2007 12:24:55 AM
Well, I hope Obama is not listening too much to the Rice, Powers, Wallace-Wells apostles of the new order. They only see half the picture, and are dangerously reminiscent of the enthusiastic western triumphalists of a century ago.
I have had several dispiriting discussions with people who seem to regard themselves as part of this "new generation of thinkers", and who sometimes strike one as amazingly naive about human nature and human history. They seem to be under the impression that the end of the Cold War in some way outlawed or affixed an epochal End-of-History period to great power conflict, and ushered in a new, magical world of globalistic, holistic, humanistic interconnection and interdependency. In this world of open bordered, free-trading, eminently civilized competition, the advanced peoples never resort to the use of military tools to outcompete their rivals for the world's goodies; they never use the liberation of trade as an opening to buy up big portions of the world outside their borders; they never rely on brute force and barbarian threat to deter their rivals from buying up these portions of the world; and they never kill people just for the sport of it. They have transcended the vanity and xenophobia and the lust to control and dominate others that motivated their troglodytic ancestors of just a few decades ago, and their equanimous secularism doesn't permit rude fanaticism or wars on behalf of their secular, civilizing gods.
In their view, we've almost got the whole thing solved. The only remaining problems are those that fester in the unenlightened and benighted slums of the poor, and among the global criminal element: statelessness; failed statiness; physical diseases; moral and social diseases like "nihilism"; ganglords; warlords; and various unenlightened ideas of government and religion. All that is left for us is to beautify these wretched slums, and bring the wretches into ranks of the perfected.
Well, look around. We appear to be poised on the edge of a new era of intense great power competition. A new Cold War is brewing, but it not surprisingly looks a lot like the prewar power conflicts of old. It is driven by some of the same things that drove great power competition in the past: need, greed, the quest for control of strategically vital resources and regions, folly, national chauvinism, transnationalist moral supremacism, technological arrogance, superstitious faiths in the invisible legerdemain of the market, stupidity, the excitement of spectacular violence, the vengefulness of offended pride, vanity and exceptionalism, mindless cruelty, the sheer pleasure in superior status, the delights of brinkmanship, intolerance, and the lurking, surging impulse to simply "exterminate the brutes" and clean up that oh-so-unenlightened and unglobalized mess they make.
The developed and rapidly developing portions of the world today are, relatively speaking, no more globalized and interdependent now than the corresponding states of a century ago. And yet those charmingly civilized and interdependent liberals of that vanished century, who had convinced themselves that modern men and women in their modern interdependent states would never again do something so economically irrational and undignified as go to war with each other, soon drove themselves off a civilizational cliff and slaughtered a good part of two generations of the world's interconnected and advanced masses.
Over the next quarter century, if some of us find ourselves wiped out by a mass early death, it may come from a rogue nuke delivered by some poor, nihilitic suicide bomber. It may come from a foul, stinking disease gestated in one of the "bad neighborhoods" of the world. But it is more likely to come in a barrage of nuclear weapons delivered by a regular old advanced, unfailed state during a pitch of tension born of a conflict over a gas field or oil pipelines or control of some capital assets.
The wretched have no monolpoly on nihilism. How can anyone who has witnessed the recent spectacle of a large and modern nation, comfortable in their globalized affluence, sitting on the edges of their couches panting and drooling and vicariously reveling in the magnificent shock and awe display of their beloved militarily, claim that it is only in those destitute and teeming failed state warrens that people suffer from a nihilistic lust for destruction?
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Feb 13, 2007 12:31:31 AM
One thing that made me say WTF? Power is part of a generation of thinkers who, like Obama, came of age after the Cold War.
Um, the Cold war didn't end till 1989, Obama's 45, So in 1989 he'd be about 27. He hadn't "come of age" yet at 27?
Posted by: Don | Feb 13, 2007 3:53:25 AM
I remember people had hope because Bush had his own expert, Condoleezza Rice. How's that working out?
Seriously, Obama has set up an awesome hype machine if he can hire an expert on a subject, and pundits slobber over themselves while ignoring a man who actually led the negotiations of a peace deal there. Great, Obama has someone new on the payroll -- but the Sudan still won't let him in the country.
To claim that somebody who is new to Washington DC has better foreign policy instincts than Bill Richardson's resume is fatuous.
Posted by: Sabutai | Feb 13, 2007 7:23:54 AM
Ezra....
This guy then, is a 'systems' thinker.
Sara ('Orcinus' via Amanda) Robinson first to put me on to that as a world-view....
Works,probably and good way to be, I presume.
Posted by: has_te | Feb 13, 2007 12:53:23 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Sep 26, 2007 10:35:58 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.