  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 A ‘Challenge’ Worth ChallengingPosted on Feb 18, 2008By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—The boilerplate in a candidate’s speeches gets little attention because words used over and over never constitute “news.” But one of John McCain’s favorite lines—his declaration that “the transcendent challenge of the 21st century is radical Islamic extremists,” or, as he sometimes says it, “extremism”—could define the 2008 election. Whether McCain is right or wrong matters to everything the United States will do in the coming years. It’s incumbent upon McCain to explain what he really means by “transcendent challenge.” Presumably, he’s saying that Islamic extremism is more important than everything else—the rise of China and India as global powers, growing resistance to American influence in Europe, the weakening of America’s global economic position, the disorder and poverty in large parts of Africa, the alienation of significant parts of Latin America from the United States. Is it in our national interest for all these issues to take a backseat to terrorism? McCain makes his claim even stronger when he uses the phrase “21st Century.” Does he mean that in the year 2100, Americans will look back and say that everything else that happened in the century paled by comparison with the war against terror? But such a debate won’t happen unless Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton challenge McCain’s assertion directly and offer an alternative vision. There is reason to suspect they might be fearful of doing so. They shouldn’t be. No doubt the Democrats will say that McCain’s openly and frequently confessed lack of interest in economic policy is exactly what the country does not need. For many Americans, the transcendent challenge of 2008 is righting a jittery economy and rolling back extreme inequality. That could well move into a debate about the impact of China on our economy and the structure of global commerce. But for Democrats, that’s the easy part. I worry that every political consultant worth a six-figure payment will tell the Democratic nominee that fighting the election on broad foreign policy questions (as opposed to a limited dialogue built around a simple “Bush Bad, Iraq War Dumb, McCain Backs Both” theme) would be to play to McCain’s strengths. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Bush or the war. But if McCain’s “transcendent challenge” claim falls apart on close examination, the best rationale he has for his election would disappear. Moreover, whether they like it or not, Democrats will have to explain how they would defend U.S. interests in the world. A majority of Americans are now prepared to hear (in a way they weren’t in, say, 2003) an argument that allowing terrorists and terrorism to define American foreign policy is neither in our interest nor particularly useful in fighting terrorism itself. Of course, defeating terrorism is important, and no candidate will say otherwise. But the United States has a lot of work to do in the world. If we’re thinking about the next two decades, not to mention the next 90 years, it’s a mistake to see terrorism as a “transcendent challenge” that makes all our other interests secondary. For conservatives, there is something peculiar about turning Islamic extremism into a mighty ideological force with the power to overrun the world. It’s odd that so many take seriously Osama bin Laden’s lunatic claims that he will build a new Caliphate. (And, by the way, exactly what did the Iraq war contribute to the fight against terrorism?) In his new book on neoconservatism, “They Knew They Were Right,” Jacob Heilbrunn quotes Owen Harries, an early neoconservative whose realist bent has made him skeptical of the latest turn in the thinking of his erstwhile comrades. Harries argues that viewing terrorism as an ideological challenge akin to Nazism or Soviet communism is neither accurate nor prudent. “I think it’s to belittle the historical experiences of World War II,” Harries says, “not to speak of the Cold War, to equate the terrorists of today and the damage they’re capable of with the totalitarian regimes of the previous century.” Underestimating our enemies is a mistake, but so too is endowing them with more power than they have. In this week’s New Yorker, Ryan Lizza argues that McCain has gone from being a Teddy Roosevelt Republican in 2000 to a Dwight Eisenhower Republican in 2008. Eisenhower’s prudent leadership certainly looks attractive as an alternative to recklessness. But the thinking underlying McCain’s approach to the world looks far more like George W. Bush’s than Ike’s. Democrats won’t lay a glove on McCain’s foreign policy unless they’re willing to take what he says seriously and challenge him on where his ideas would lead us. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: The Experience Fight Next item: McCain's Losing Message Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Glen, February 20 at 6:19 pm # I watched John McCain as he was interviewed on GMA earlier this week. He goes on to tell of his great experience as a senator and a person who has faced many perils. But as I listened I noticed that he views everything facing America as a THREAT. Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, etc… I think the democrat who finally opposes McCain must let the American people know that these are challenges, not THREATS, and that a new approach to resolving them will be through diplomacy. Also pledging to undue all of Bush’s signing statements would be nice too.
By hollywood, February 19 at 8:37 pm # Transcendent my assMcCain reminds me of Shelly Duvall’s character’s “transplendent” comment in one of Woody Allen’s films. He’s full of hokum. Get the hook and pull him offstage now.
By jdogg333, February 19 at 5:36 pm # Re:Hi Maani, Actually my post was in regards to the phrase “defending US interests in the world.” That is the language of the PNAC crowd. Hence my reference to Wolfowitz, although I could probably referenced any number of Neo-Cons. “Transcendant Challenge” is most certainly Orwellian. Thanks for pointing out that essay, I’ll be sure to read it ASAP. Good to see you and Cyrena agreeing on something. Peace.
By whyxowl, February 19 at 11:18 am # Armed MadhouseAllen Ginsberg once said, “Man should not die ungodly in an armed madhouse,” but that’s exactly what man, Homo Americanus in particular, is doing. Gee, it only took seven years for a mainstream liberal commentator like E. J. Dionne to gingerly suggest that Bush’s all-encompassing War on Terror is, and always has been, just as phony as phony can be. I’m impressed. At this rate, we may begin withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq by as soon as 2050, or right after we’ve finished draining that star-crossed country of every last drop of its oil—whichever comes first. The greed, ignorance, irresponsibility and outright stupidity of the American ruling class is destroying this country, and there’s absolutely no reason to hope that they won’t take the whole planet down with them. Stupid is, as stupid does.
By S Calhoun, February 19 at 8:14 am # McCain hasn’t spelled out how the transcendent threat is to be defeated, errr, transcendently. He will not because he cannot. In fact, he’s approached the problem cynically in implying that as long as the US can sustain its pressure on the enemy without risking eye-opening casualties, the strategy can be said to “work.” So, his sense is: tax cuts and less-than-total war, foreign countries putting our ‘war-footing’ on the credit cards they’ve issued us. By all means: keep the flag draped coffins and limbless heroes out of view and off the front pages. It’s hard to imagine a more cynical perspective than that of McCain.
By jhm, February 19 at 5:14 am # Transcendent.I too was troubled not only by the use of ‘transcendent,’ but the thought that ‘extremism’ of the kind with which we are supposedly at war is the greatest challenge of the next nine decades (try to imagine what someone living in 1907 [or 1807...] would have considered the most pressing challenge of the upcoming hundred years). I’m troubled not only for the points mentioned in this post (with which I am in broad agreement) underscoring Hon. Sen. McCain’s frightening and simple-minded bellicosity, but the unwitting truths inherent in his rhetoric. If there is a transcendent challenge—on a scale including a hundred, or hundreds of years—concerning the struggle against ‘extremism’ it is surely the battle of rationality against religiosity. For certain, Sen. McCain would not identify religiosity itself as the kernel of the struggle we fight, but I would not only claim that it is, but that we might more effectively fight it abroad, if we also confront anti-rational forces at home.
By weather, February 19 at 2:09 am # Before Israel, Islam was of little concern toIf the souls who died at the trade center could speak, they’d scream arrest Silverstein. Add Your Comment |
|
UN Envoy Heads to Burma with Urgent Relief Message
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article