 |
|
| |
|
|
|
 Not a Team of Rivals at AllPosted on Dec 4, 2008By Joe Conason When the journalistic pack bites into a tasty cliché, they often refuse to let go, lazily chewing and regurgitating a phrase like “team of rivals” long after the flavor is gone. Derived from the Doris Kearns Goodwin book on Lincoln’s Cabinet, that morsel had scant relevance to the Cabinet being assembled by Barack Obama, as the president-elect bravely tried to explain when he introduced his national security team. But as Obama learned many months ago, our leading media minds tend to be far less interested in real ideas and policies than in a fixed narrative about personalities. So his decision to nominate primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state, with all the friction that would supposedly generate, became the focus of the news. All his other appointees somehow had to be crammed into the same imaginary framework. According to that storyline, Obama will soon find himself in conflict not only with Clinton but also with Robert Gates, the holdover Bush defense secretary, and with James Jones, the retired Marine general chosen as national security adviser. Everyone will feud and fuss over the timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, how to confront or cajole Iran, and whether to spend more money on defense or diplomacy. The clear implication is that the national security apparatus could collapse into chaos within days of the inauguration. Now this distorted perspective on the Obama national security Cabinet may end up serving the new president very well, by setting up an expectation of disaster that he will easily avoid. But it doesn’t reflect what he is actually trying to do—or why he feels comfortable with those he has chosen to advise him. The reason is quite simple: Rather than a discordant group that will spend the next four years arguing over the Iraq war resolution, Obama has chosen people who largely agree with him and each other about how to restore American influence and prestige in the world. That is particularly true of Clinton, Gates and Gen. Jones, who will guide U.S. foreign and military policy in a direction set by the president. Where they all agree is on the pragmatic application of “soft power”—a wonkish term referring to the ideological, cultural and philanthropic aspects of diplomatic relations as opposed to purely economic and military “hard power.” In November 2007, Gates delivered a farsighted speech that called for sharp increases in spending on diplomacy, foreign aid and international communications. He openly complained that al-Qaida is more adept in spreading its message than the United States, and he warned that future conflicts will not be resolved by military power. Both Obama and Clinton emphasized that in their campaign critiques of Bush administration policy, which were more alike than anyone acknowledged at the time. Associates of Gen. Jones have said that he shares the same outlook. Their consensus view is that American policymakers should pursue global security and prosperity by using all the instruments available to them, rather than crudely wielding or threatening force in every circumstance, as the Bush administration tended to do. They will renew our commitment to multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and NATO, for example, rather than denigrating them. It should go without saying that active diplomacy in no way precludes the use of force when absolutely necessary, but it never does. That is why Obama wisely selected figures known for “toughness,” including Clinton, while planning to emphasize negotiation and diplomacy. They insulate him against charges of weakness while proving that he is unafraid of dissent and debate. As the president-elect predicted on Monday, there will be plenty of disagreements among his advisers. Sometimes they will disagree with him, too. But don’t be surprised when he begins to enact the new policies enunciated during the campaign on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Mideast and the United Nations—or when his new team sets out to implement them without undue rivalry. Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Joe the Plumber to Report on Gaza—Seriously
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Anarcissie, December 7, 2008 at 10:03 am #
Folktruther—they began to believe their doctrines. Very dangerous. What if the United States did that?
Incidentally, I found JNagarya’s comments too incoherent to merit useful-purposehood. It is my impression that the media and centrist (i.e. rightist) politicos have not been calling Obama’s direction “progressive” (i.e. weakly leftist) but rather “sound” (rightist). I assume Conason is still shilling rather than analyzing, so it seems to me most everyone is on the same page singing their part with gusto. Many rightists had previously created the Obama-is-Lenin monster out of thin air, and now that it’s blowing away in the wind they sigh with relief, but this is not the working of reason but merely the progress of the weather.
Report thisBy Folktruther, December 6, 2008 at 10:04 am #
You’re right, Anarcissie, it just kind of fell apart as it underwent a counterrevolution. I sit corrected. But puzzled.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, December 6, 2008 at 8:36 am #
<blockquote>
Folktruther: ’.... No imperialism surrenders power peacefully.’
The Soviet Union did, more or less, for which it should be given a lot of credit. Would that other empires could take themselves off the world stage so expeditiously.
Report thisBy cyrena, December 6, 2008 at 5:03 am #
Typical from Folktruther here:
”...It is therefore useful to have them set out so vigorously, so they are easy to reject. Becasue the JNagarya’s will always be with us, in more subtler and effective forms over historical time, to justify the unjustifiable, to rationalize the irrational, to humanize the inhuman…”
Your arrogance knows no bounds folktruther. We all know by now that the real pox upon society is that people like YOU will always be with us. On the other hand, there are far more JNagarya’s than there are people like you.
You are SOOO toxically full of shit, and your asshole runneth over, reminding us of the dregs of society that we have to somehow stomach, even in the minority, which you thankfully are.
Just out of curiosity folktruther, if we could all pitch in enough money for you to move to say China for the next decade, would you do it? It doesn’t have to be China, as long as it’s someplace that won’t allow you internet access. That way you won’t have to suffer through all of these dire predictions that you have for Obama’s watch. And, you could more effectively utilize all of your hate energy for something else. I mean, what a shame to waste all of that bitterness, anger, resentment and hateful envy.
I once had a dog like you. Somebody gave me the dog, (a doberman pincher) and the thing was so mean I had to keep him chained up to prevent him from trying to attack people. When it got to where I was having to throw his food at him to protect myself, I knew he needed work elsewhere, so I sold him to the Army.
Now that was at least 30 years ago, so I didn’t know exactly what they did with mean ass canines in the military. Now that I know Cheney likes to use them in his torture program, I probably wouldn’t do that again. Still, there’s gotta be SOME use for your inexhaustible supply of hate and bitterness.
Report thisBy Folktruther, December 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm #
The empire is NOT over, dr wu. It is declining but can still do an enormous amount of damage. Particularly if it promotes Zionist imperialism rather than the interests of the American people. Both the US and Israel are nuclear powers that are losing world power historically. No imperialism surrenders power peacefully.
Report thisBy cvd, December 5, 2008 at 11:48 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
thank you for an opening salvo in the war against established Media on this issue - MediaSpeak is not a change we can believe in - but the people have their place in it, and thus their security is assured - hopefully the progressives forces that worked for the election of Obama will seep upwards (rather than trickle down)if only MediaSpeak will allow us - are we allowed? The Obama change is all about identity as is America itself - it’s sad however (though expected) that a windbag like Goodwin must be quoted to establish the first credentials of the new administaration - but in a world where Rice and Rumsfeld have yet to be held accountable the way say a minor misdemeanor would have harmed them - say Rumsfeld or Cheney were caught with (another) DUI - they would have received a stricter penalty for their infraction than they have received for torture and mayehm - as for Rice - she seems to have been created with megabytes from digital media stories which she in turn spins back to their source! “Unrivalled” as of yet!
Report thisBy dr wu, December 5, 2008 at 10:45 am #
Ho-hum, nothing new here—Obama is the good cop to Bush’s bad cop. And sadly, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
But we’re in a new ballgame here: the empire is over!
Our empire is broke, the spirit is lacking, the oil is peaking and the leadership is truly Roman.
Time to sit back and relax and enjoy the aftermath of empire—quiet nights at home, no running off to invade and torture, no more ponzi scheming, alchemisty whiz kids on Wall Street turning toxic mortgages into fool’s gold—now we can go quietly into the night and be like other post empire countries—Spain, Britain and Holland.
Report thisBy Folktruther, December 5, 2008 at 10:21 am #
JNargara serves a useful purpose in calling Obama’s conservative policies progressive, because this has been the standard ploy in the media. Right wing policies, such as globalization, war, destroying unions and welfare, have been initiated and supported by fake Progressives, like Obama, to lead the rank and file to support power structure policies.
It is therefore useful to have them set out so vigorously, so they are easy to reject. Becasue the JNagarya’s will always be with us, in more subtler and effective forms over historical time, to justify the unjustifiable, to rationalize the irrational, to humanize the inhuman.
Report thisBy JNagarya, December 5, 2008 at 8:24 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dead on analysis.
And while those here who substitute name-calling for reason are continuing their pointless and inapplicable name-callings, Conason’s analysis will prove to be the reality.
And it is not only an actual progressive analysis but also a progressive agenda that Obama has established and begun to implement.
Nader is not progressive—and it is impossible to determine whether he is far-left or far-right based upon the confusion he generates.
And the notion of “progressive” which seems to prevail here is: nothing short of far-left fringe revolution is other than far-right Neo-Con[artist]. It’s a view as uninformed and false as that generated by FOX, Limbaugh, and their faction of fruitloops. This, then, is a website truely for the political neophyte thumb-sucking whiners who want it their naive way—and they want it NOW!
And if they don’t get it NOW, they’ll vote for Nader, or some other third-party non-entity who hasn’t a chance in Hell of getting elected to anything, let alone to Heaven.
Report thisBy AS, December 5, 2008 at 7:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have been an ardent Obama’s supporter; I, alongside with millions of other ordinary Americans, have voted for him, and NOT for Senator Clinton!
Whereas some people may have voted for or against any given candidate for trivial reasons (race, gender, age…), I considered Senator Clinton’s support of the Iraq War, her subsequent inability to express any mea culpa-s, her pronouncements that Iran must be “obliterated,” to be incompatible with good judgement, if not with high IQ!
As far as Foreign Policy was concerned, Senator Obama stood at the opposite extreme from his rival; that, alongside his apparently high intelligence, integrity, wisdom, eloquence (MERIT), was what attracted my attention, and ultimately my vote.
Now, we are confronted with an ultimate paradox; this highly intelligent man, who is also blessed with a superb wisdom & judgement, rewards his rival with one of the most important, and most consequential jobs in his Administration!
Did Obama make this decision, or did the so called POWER ELITE do it for him?
I
Mr. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history & international relations at Boston University (also a retired colonel from the US Army), in his new 2008 book, titled “The Limits of Power-The End of American Exceptionalism,” by quoting others (Reinhold Niebuhr and C. Wright Mills), and reviewing the post World War II American history, on pages 81- 89, provides an answer to my question by stating:
“No simple victory of good over evil in history is possible…‘POWER ELITE’ (represented by) an interlocking CORPORATE, POLITICAL, and MILITARY DIRECTORATE - the men, along with a few women, who comprise the self-selecting, self-perpetuating camarilla that since WW II, has shaped -and perverted- national security policy…remains valid today (albeit amended), by insider journalists and policy intellectuals… (who) facilitate functioning of the national security elite…
To say that (this) POWER ELITE directs the affairs of state is not to suggest the existence of some dark conspiracy. It is simply to acknowledge the WAY WASHINGTON ACTUALLY WORKS…on matters related to national security, policy making (is) OLIGARCHIC (not) DEMOCRATIC.
The POLICY MAKING process IS not open but CLOSED, with voices of privileged INSIDERS carrying unimaginably greater weight than those of unwashed masses…(under these circumstances, USA) SENIOR OFFICIALS (including our Military and Civilian Government Leaders), operate on the implicit assumption that they are IMMUNIZED from ACCOUNTABILITY…(Hence), FAILURE does not yield APOLOGY or even acknowledgment of RESPONSIBILITY…
Those (of us) not already educated in the ways of Washington (will) quickly learn that Institutions nominally subordinate to executive authority PURSUE THEIR OWN AGENDAS and will privilege their own purposes over those of WHOEVER HAPPENS TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE.”
Hence, even though we, the “unwashed masses,” of America, have elected Mr. Obama, the POWER ELITE of Washington is, and will continue making most, if not all, of the other decisions!
Needles to say, this book must be devoured by all of those who would like to better understand the reality of the world that we live in!
Report thisBy Mayponce, December 4, 2008 at 2:49 pm #
I agree with Allan Gurfinkle’s assessment. Conason’s article is absurd to say the least.
Report thisBy michael roloff, December 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Conason I guess is right in his assessment that there will actually be not much conflict among all these retreads, if Obama had wanted a really conflictual p.o.v. he would have given the Hoootchie Koootchie man a post!
Incidentally, Gates is a man with an even longer “past”, longer “record” than Iran/Contra. It goes back as far as the destabilization of Afghanistan under Brezinsky/ Carter creation of the Mujahadeem, Casey/ Reagan.
That sheep is not going to change it’s color but being an adaptable sort merges in, and he and Obama will come a cropper in A’stan!
Report thisBy Folktruther, December 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm #
Conason is one of the fake mainstream Progressives that strive to lure rank and file progressives to support conservative policies. He is an Obama apologist like the others, pretending that conservative appointments lead to progressive poliicies. These truthers must be identified and weeded out of the progressive truth consensus if the population is to mobilized in a progressive direction.
Report thisBy RdV, December 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm #
While condemning the media for sticking to the same script, notice the author’s use of buzzword, “pragmatic”.
Report thisThe US has become a joke—parading any kind of force around—calling it soft power is still buying into that American exceptionalism framework-long past it’s heyday. If you travel at all, you would know that Europe surpassed our standard of living long ago.
Propping up this WW2 version of a strong America is as pathetic as funneling the peoples resources into Wall St to improve the spiralling wealth of the country. It is all constructed of air.
By mill, December 4, 2008 at 11:26 am #
Exactly so, Mr. Conason
Report thisBy DuPageDem, December 4, 2008 at 10:31 am #
Sure, Gates believes in talking to our enemies. He was in on trading arms for Iraninan hostages back in 1980, remember? This demonstrates exactly why we need to prosecute the current crop of traitors in our government. If you don’t put them in jail, they just keep coming back like villans in bad horror movies.
Report thisBy Louis Proyect, December 4, 2008 at 6:47 am #
Conason:
According to that storyline, Obama will soon find himself in conflict not only with Clinton but also with Robert Gates, the holdover Bush defense secretary, and with James Jones, the retired Marine general chosen as national security adviser.
Reply:
Report thisWell, that storyline is obviously misguided. Obama has always had lousy DLC type politics as proved by his support for Joe Lieberman’s Senatorial candidacy last go-round. It is only the myth of his progressive politics that has suckered so many liberals, including those like Conason who is a bit more of a yellow dog Democrat than a true liberal.
By Allan Gurfinkle, December 4, 2008 at 6:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Conason writes “Gates delivered a farsighted speech ...... He openly complained that Al Qaeda is more adept in spreading its message than the United States,”
I don’t think there is any connection between this statement and reality. Al Qaeda, a bunch of nomads hiding out in Afghanistan, is supposedly more adept in spreading its message than the globe spanning US with its personnel all over the world, complete control of the media and its 24/7 news outlets. This statement is not true or false, it is absurd. We are conditioned to accept the absurd as reasonable and factual. This is all part of the charade. Conason writes about the fantasy world that the US establishment has created, with the innocent and naive US the hapless victim of the fanatical and wily terrorists. Conason goes further, implying that the ‘terrorists’ are only motivated by a better advertising campaign than the US can muster. This is mind numbing propaganda, yet ‘Truthdig’, presumably representative of the ‘left’ in the US, repeatedly features Conason and this perspective.
Report this