In today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman writes:
Unfortunately, there are few Democrats to press my worries on the administration. Most Democrats either opposed the war (a perfectly legitimate position) or supported it and are now trying to disown it. That means the only serious opposition can come from Republicans…
I’ve been puzzling over how a “perfectly legitimate” opposition to the war is not a “serious” opposition. The best I can do is this: he didn’t oppose the war; he’s not now trying to disown it; but he has some worries he wants someone to press on the administration. Anything but Friedman’s own position, although perhaps legitimate, just isn’t serious.
{ 17 comments }
Brian Weatherson 10.23.03 at 5:01 pm
I was puzzled about that too, but I had a slightly more charitable interpretation. (Charitable to Friedman that is, not to the administration.) The administration is only going to listen to people who basically agree with its aims. This might look like a very bad feature of the administration, and I believe it is, but I think it’s broadly speaking true. So the only opposition who can make a difference (which we might, at a pinch, call the serious opposition) are those members of the GOP who support the war but oppose some details of how it’s being run.
Ophelia Benson 10.23.03 at 8:31 pm
“Unfortunately, there are few Democrats to press my worries on the administration.”
The phrasing rather gives him away, doesn’t it. One wonders why he thinks there should be *any* Democrats with nothing better to do than to press Thomas Friedman’s worries on the administration. I know that I, for instance, were I in a position to press some worries on the administration, would, oddly enough, choose to press my own worries on it, rather than those of Thomas Friedman. Eccentric and selfish of me no doubt, but there it is.
Sigivald 10.23.03 at 9:03 pm
What Mr. Weatherson said.
Democrats may well be “serious” in their opposition to the war, in that they’re not frivolously or sillily doing so (I personally believe many of them are opposing it on purely political grounds, which makes them less serious in important ways, in my reckoning, but some, especially those who always opposed the war and voted against it, I’ll grant immunity to that speculation, for sake of argument), but their arguments are still unlikely to be seriously considered.
In that respect, their opposition is not serious, just as a threat, honestly meant by the one threatening, is not a “serious threat” if he is very weak or ineffectual.
The Democrats have no serious chance of effecting change in policy in this regard (especially, as many Democrat or generally-Left sorts in the Blogosphere have noted, since many of their own sympathisers simply can’t take them seriously on national security issues these days), so any serious opposition to war plans, where “serious” means “having a chance of working” does have to come from the Republicans, as things stand now.
CajunCav 10.23.03 at 9:57 pm
The explanation offered by Weatherson and Sigivald (that any opposition offered by those originally opposed to the war won’t be considered by Bush) is exactly what Friedman meant, as is, IMHO, clear from the context of the quoted passage.
Jason McCullough 10.23.03 at 10:18 pm
“My beard is eating my brain. Help!”
Thorley Winston 10.23.03 at 10:32 pm
I agree with Sigivald that there is a real credibility gap with Democrats on national security issues (however there are probably a few Democrats such as Zell Miller who deserve to have their opinions taken seriously and whose advice would not be discounted) and that much of the opposition (especially and including many of those who voted to authorize force and are now saying they would not) is simply political.
However as far as the partisanship of the administration angle goes, I do not necessarily think it is a bad thing. Like it or not Democrats and Republicans have decidedly different interests when it comes to Iraq. For Republicans, their interests are best served with a successful Iraqi operation and as such they are motivated to do whatever they have to do to make it successful. In contrast, Democrats have a primary interest in convincing as many people as possible that Iraq is a “quagmire†or a “disaster†in the hopes of gaining traction in the 2004 elections.
Recognizing that reality, it would make sense for an administration of one party to be more suspicious of any advice or criticism coming from members of the opposition then that of people who have a vested interest in your and the mission’s success.
Jonathan 10.23.03 at 11:42 pm
Democrats do not have an interest in Iraq being a quagmire. Democrats have an interest in revealing it as the quagmire and disaster it is, in order to mitigate the consequences and positively change the outcome. The fact that this would reflect badly on the Administration is proper, since they were the ones driving the boat at the time. Still, Thorley’s assumption that the Dems and Reps are in the same position in regards to the true situation–as if there is no answer available to the question “Is Iraq a disaster?”–is wrong.
Were Iraq a success and not a disaster, Democrats wouldn’t be trying to manufacture and issue out of it, they’d be concentrating on the domestic policies of this Administration, on the situation in Afghanistan, the failures of the war on terrorism, or something else.
Sue 10.24.03 at 1:31 am
Thorley, I am concerned by your statement above. Do you really believe that both Democrats and Republicans have a “primary interest” in smearing the other party, looking ahead to the next election? Both parts of that are appalling; I would have thought it was horribly rude to attribute that view to you, as though you didn’t care about issues.
It implies two things: first, that either party is justified in doing anything – including sabotaging national policies, sending people in the armed forces to their deaths, ruining the economy – if only the result can be turned into a clever sound-bite for the party’s next campaign.
Second, that actual foreign and domestic policies are actually less important than contesting elections. As if you think Republicans and Democrats don’t really disagree on substantive matters – or hold any opinions at all, for that matter – it is all posture and lies. Whether it’s about taxes or abortion or war or guns, none of these people ought to have a belief, much less care if that opinion becomes law of the land; it’s all an act for the next election.
As I said, I would not seriously accuse anyone of being so disengaged from issues, but you say this as if it is a virtue, even a commonly-understood virtue.
Perhaps this is why the Republicans kept investigating Clinton and his cabinet. At the time I thought it was harassment and distraction. Now I wonder if it wasn’t that some Republicans, assuming all others were similarly shallow and free of genuine opinions, could not believe that they weren’t all hiding crony payoffs or other illegal profiteering. Or that there would be anything truly wrong about such backroom deals, except for the negative publicity they generate for those caught.
If you meant something else by your comment, please speak up – I would sleep better tonight knowing that CT’s right-wing interpreter didn’t really think it is fine to commit treason for political gain.
Nicholas Weininger 10.24.03 at 2:22 am
Recognizing that people, or parties, have an interest– even a strong interest– in doing X is not at all the same as either:
(a) saying they likely will do X, or
(b) saying it’s OK for them to do X.
I don’t see how Mr. Winston says either of these things when talking about the Democrats’ and Republicans’ incentives regarding the war and occupation. (I happen to be a strong opponent of both, for whatever that’s worth).
I *do* think that most politicians, of both parties, would change any and all of their public positions on the issues of the day if they thought it would improve their chances of getting and keeping power, and that thus most political position-taking is nothing more than “an act for the next election.” I have no idea whether Mr. Winston shares this view– he’ll have to speak for himself– but I don’t see why it’s so objectionable or cynical. Indeed, given the political history of the last thirty years, I find it difficult to see how any other conclusion is tenable. Neither party has any consistent record of acting as if they really cared about anything other than power for power’s sake.
a different chris 10.24.03 at 3:09 pm
>I agree with Sigivald that there is a real credibility gap with Democrats on national security issues
Their not agreeing with your course of action, which seems to be no more than schoolyard bullying writ large and bloody, does not remove their credibility. Especially when they in general have served their country in uniform and the people you consider credible have in general not.
I recommend you peruse the chickenhawk database for some enlightenment, and then dwell on how the POTUS and VPOTUS could be at all credible on the subject of war and the Middle East when they have *both* managed the sickening two-fer of avoiding military service AND financial entanglement with some of the less savory characters in that region of the world.
Thorley Winston 10.24.03 at 9:16 pm
Jonathan wrote:
If you look back and read what I actually you wrote you’ll note that I said “Democrats have a primary interest in convincing as many people as possible that Iraq is a “quagmire†or a “disaster†in the hopes of gaining traction in the 2004 elections†which is not necessarily the same thing as an having an interest in an actual “quagmire†or “disaster.â€
As far as the notion that Democrats are trying to “mitigate the consequences and positively change the outcome,†the evidence does not seem to support this theory. If someone is interested in improving a policy, they usually try to offer an honest analysis of what is happening, why it is happening, and offer constructive suggestions as to how to improve the situation. For the most part, Democrats have not done these things. The criticism lobbied at the administration over Iraq from the opposition party has been disingenuous to put it mildly usually more about trying to smear via innuendo and implication then any serious suggestions about what could be done to bring Iraq to a more successful conclusion. See below.
Oh there most definitely is an answer to the “Is Iraq a disaster†question and the answer is “too early to tell for sure with metaphysical certitude but most probably not.†Unless of course one wishes to argue that post-war Germany and Japan were “disasters†when it appears that progress in Iraq is relatively further along is many aspects. More importantly though the situation is better than it would probably be under the two most likely alternatives which were to (a) lift the sanctions and let the regime pretty much run amok and reconstitute its WMD programs or (b) continue trying to contain Iraq for the next 50 years (e.g. North Korea, Cuba) and hope for internal regime change either of which would be disastrous compared to the challenges we are facing now. Since no one has come up with a viable fourth alternative, I’d say we made the best choice we could under the circumstances and it’s worked out fairly well, warts and all.
I disagree, I think that the opposition party will almost always try to find the dark lining in the silver cloud no matter how well things are going in the hopes of gaining traction. Some of the more ridiculous charges we’ve heard (either made directly or by implication) have been that we “cannot go it alone†(which never happened since we built a coalition as we’ve done in the past and done the bulk of the heavy lifting as we’ve also done in the past), “did not have a plan for the occupation†(which seems like a silly charge considering how relatively well things have gone particularly compared to the pre-war predictions of millions of refugees and a humanitarian crisis), or the “we’ve seriously underestimated the cost/difficulty/number of troops needed/time needed/whatever†every time we make some sort of adjustment (can someone tell me when the administration provided predictions of how much money, time, people, or other resources they believed it would take in order to determine that they somehow “underestimated†what would be required?).
IMNHO the Democratic criticism is more partisan carping then constructive disagreement, no doubt in the hopes of trying to take Bush down a few pegs before 2004 by making people think the problems are worse then they are and the successes less then they are. It seems to me that if the opposition party were sincere in trying to improve the situation, they would be making more honest criticism (rather then strawman arguments such as the “squandering†of non-existent and/or shallow sympathy) and trying to make an argument for a better policy. That they have either been unwilling or unable to do so seems to bolster their party’s deficit with the public on national security matters.
Thorley Winston 10.24.03 at 9:17 pm
Sue wrote:
Oh I do care about the issue which is why I supported the liberation and the reconstruction (although I have my own criticisms of the policies). What I am doing though is acknowledging that the two parties have divergent interests in the outcome in Iraq. Republicans are interested in its success both for the merits and their own political interests. Democrats are generally interested in trying to convince as many people as possible that it will fail or has been a failure. That is not an endorsement of the latter’s view by any means, but rather an additional explanation as to why the administration might rightfully be skeptical of any advice or criticism coming from the other side.
First of all, I never said such views were “justified†(go back and read my original post and you’ll see that my only use of “justified†was with regards to the supposed “partisanship†of the administration in “justified†in being skeptical of advice and criticism from the opposition).
Second, I think it already goes on to an extent and there are several examples which immediately come to mind:
Proponents of socialized medicine push for unfunded mandates on health insurance (such as mandatory hospital stays, requiring carriers to provide certain benefits regardless of whether or not people are willing to pay for extras voluntarily, etc.) knowing full well that this will lead to higher insurance prices and cause more employers to drop coverage so they can then turn around and say “see, the free market cannot provide health care and we have more uninsured people as PROOF†(of course there is nothing “free market†about said mandates).
Or gun control proponents will push to disarm more law-abiding people and create “gun free†(read: unarmed victims) zones and when the unarmed people are the victims of violence from criminals who prefer easy targets, the gun control zealots turn around and say “see, PROOF that we need more gun control.â€
Or the anti-war protesters who take to the streets knowing that in an open society, their protests will be covered in the media and used as propaganda to bolster the morale of the North Vietnamese or the Iraqi regime (who do not allow people to protest against their government’s policies) which of course leads to the “see they’re fighting harder then ever which is PROOF that the war was a bad idea.â€
So yes, I do not think it unreasonable to recognize that some people root for failure because they see it as advantageous to advancing their cause as in the cases of those who prefer socialized medicine, gun control, or a weakened American foreign policy. Nor for that matter is acknowledging this reality an endorsement of the behavior or the causes it is used to advance but rather an explanation of why an administration might rightfully be skeptical of advice and criticism from the opposition party.
Thorley Winston 10.24.03 at 9:18 pm
Nicholas Weininger wrote:
Good to see, er read you again Mr. Weininger.
I think you characterized my comments accurately however I would like to add a couple of distinctions. It is possible for someone to do a 180 on a particular view they held because of an honest change in opinion or values. Since Jo(e) Citizen might change his or her mind about a particular issue, it does not seem unreasonable on its face that he or she might also change while holding elective office. This is different however then someone such as John Edwards, John Kerry, or a Wesley Clark who were straddling the fence on the issue and looking to see which position would work to their immediate advantage and go from “would or did support the use of force†to “now would not support it†or some derivative. However these tend to be an exception rather than the rule. Most people have probably not changed their position on the war that much.
As far as the records of the respective parties, I think it is important to keep in mind that the parties are not entities unto themselves but rather a rough representation of the views and beliefs (or some imperfect consensus of those views and beliefs) of the members of the party in charge at the time (i.e. the activists, party leadership, and candidates). As the leadership changes (e.g. Bob Dole versus George W Bush) over time and the base expands or contracts so do the views advanced by the party. There are still common themes which carry over or ought to as the leadership changes which is why even though Bush and the Congress are certainly a disappointment with their strategy of trying to take away (relatively) minor issues such as agricultural subsidies and steel tariffs from the Democrats, they are still trying to advance on larger issues such as Social Security reform or market-oriented health care reform (particularly in Medicare and Medicaid). Just something to keep in mind.
Thorley Winston 10.24.03 at 9:19 pm
A Different Chris wrote:
I’m sorry but are you actually trying to advance the “chicken hawk†smear as a form of argument? I thought that went out of style when the people advancing it had to deal with the uncomfortable reality that the over-whelming majority of people serving in uniform vote for the “chick hawk†over the Democrat regardless of whether or not the Democrat ever wore a uniform.
This is largely IMNHO because the Republicans are seen as more likely to be willing to support the use of military force to protect the United States whereas Democrats are seen as (a) more willing to subordinate American interests to institutions and governments who are arguably adversarial to the interests of the United States, (b) more willing to use force only in situations where it cannot possibly advance America’s national security, and (c) hostile to the military as an institution (even though there are admittedly more than a few veterans in the Democratic camp). It does not help their credibility problem either when they have to cater to a base of party activists who are still acting as if they are protesting the Vietnam War.
Besides which, serving in the military or not has never been an accurate barometer of a person’s foreign policy views. Clark may have served honorably in Vietnam but what of it? The guy was wrong about Iraq and has offered virtually nothing to show a better comprehension on advancing America’s foreign policy interests (the going to the UN to call for a criminal trial was particularly silly and dangerous). Likewise for Kerry whose his rank opportunism on his Vietnam service has made him into a caricature.
If Democrats want to overcome their credibility problem, they need to do some serious internal reshuffling. As nice as it would be to see Lieberman or Gephardt pimp-slap Kuchinich for proposing the creation of a federal “Department of Peace,†the problems within the Democratic Party run far deeper than the nutters who compete in their presidential primary. Until they drive out the Moon Bat wing and begin taking some serious positions on foreign policy again, it would suicidal IMNHO to vote for any Democratic candidate for any office.
Jeff Weintraub 10.25.03 at 3:38 pm
You said: “I’ve been puzzling over how a ‘perfectly legitimate’ opposition to the war is not a ‘serious’ opposition.” The answer is simple. The war happened already. What Friedman would like to see is a “serious opposition” the the way the Bush administration is managing (and mismanaging) the AFTERMATH of the war NOW. He’d like to see a “serious” debate about the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.
Even if someone opposed the war before it happened, that need not rule out trying to make constructive suggestions about the best ways to manage the post-war & post-Saddam reconstruction of Iraq. In practice, unfortunately, many people who opposed the war don’t seem to feel any responsibility for doing this. That’s what Friedman was saying. Wasn’t it obvious?
Cheers,
Jeff Weintraub
Jon 10.26.03 at 2:17 am
Brian’s more charitable interpretation is a good one. The problem, as I see it, is that it suggests that if only there were some Democrats who shared the basic aims of the administration, and then pressed Friedman’s criticisms, the adminstration would listen to them. Only then would they count as “serious”. But I find it difficult to believe that they would ever listen to such criticisms from Democrats. Of course, Frieman may not agree with that, so perhaps that is what he was thinking.
No, Jeff, it wasn’t obvious. You say that someone who opposed the war before it happened might still make constructive criticisms now. I agree. But that’s not what Friedman says. He says that most Democrats either opposed the war or are now disowning it. In either case, he says, that’s enough to disqualify them from being serious.
ken 10.27.03 at 7:12 am
I think what “serious” democrats should do, is work for the defeat of George Bush.
It’s almost certainly true that Bush and his minions won’t listen to any Democrats — not even Joe Biden who STILL hasn’t “disowned” Iraq. I mean he’s still out there trying to tell Bush how to sell this whole insane enterprise to the public.
Anyway, whoever said that the sole or main interests of the Democrats vis-a-vis Iraq is in convincing enough people that Iraq is a “quagmire” for the sake of purely political gain has it backwards. What Democrats need to do is to offer a way to “redeem” this misguided misadventure. The reconstruction of Iraq needs to be seriously internationalized and that only as a first step to reconstructing the international institutions that the Bushies have run so roughshod over.
I think the clearest path toward a “multipolar” order in which Europe tries to be a counterweight to the US is the path down which the Bushies are blindly leading us.
I think the Democrats should try to focus on the WISDOM as well as STRENGTH in foreign policy. The Bushies think that foreign policy is about wielding a big stick. But they lack wisdom. They are reckless radicals trashing what had the makings of a developing order of global coopearation in the name of some insane vision of a pax americana. I mean these idiots thought that they could in some short order remake Iraq as a sort of American client by snuffing out Hussein and instantly installing Chalabi as their chosen puppet. At least they’ve retreated from that delusion. But they still act as if Iraq is some sort of prize to be jealously guarded from the international community.
Comments on this entry are closed.