The _New York Times_ has a story suggesting that Bill Clinton cozied up to Kazakhstan president Nursultan A. Nazarbayev in order to help out a big donor to the Clinton Foundation.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton. … the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent. … Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
… Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects … monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers …In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev’s government. “I think it’s time for that to happen, it’s an important step, and I’m glad you’re willing to undertake it,” Mr. Clinton said.
Let me begin by saying that the _NYT_ suggestion that this was a tit-for-tat transaction is plausible but unproven; they only have circumstantial evidence. But for me that doesn’t matter. Saying that Nazarbayev would be a suitable head for the OSCE is like saying that John Gotti would make a great Attorney-General. The OSCE is an organization that I’ve done academic research for and that I admire greatly – it has done incredible work in helping to push for proper democratic elections in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union (that it has run into serious opposition from Russia is a testament to how important it has been). Nazarbayev has, as the NYT notes, done his best over the last two decades to squash dissenters and strangle public debate. I hadn’t seen Clinton’s statement before now; regardless of what his underlying motivations were, it’s unforgivable.
{ 44 comments }
Maurice Meilleur 01.31.08 at 2:37 pm
Someone–I forget who exactly, but I think it was one of Josh Marshall’s readers at TPM–once wrote that the biggest problem with Mitt Romney (especially from the point of view of a conservative) was that while he might have very strong beliefs, he has no principles.
I think the same could be said for both Clintons.
Steve LaBonne 01.31.08 at 2:44 pm
Very little that the Clintons are involved with bears close inspection. Also today, ABC had a story about tapes of WalMart board meetings during Hillary’s tenure on the board. It seems there was nary a peep out of her about WalMart’s aggressive union busting.
I’m not much of an Obama fan- he’s just another triangulator. But really, the Clintons have to go. The stakes are too high to give them another chance to drag the party into disaster.
Elijah 01.31.08 at 4:08 pm
But… but.. but Hillary Clinton said she has been vetted…
Shining Raven 01.31.08 at 4:11 pm
I have no other source for this, but according to a diary at DailyKos [please kill the last ” for a working URL, I seem to be unable to get rid of it] the full statement in a press release was
Arguably, with the “important step”, he was referring to the “free, fair, and transparent” presidential election, although the statement is ambiguously worded.
And note that he refers, in 2005, to a bid to of Kazakhstan to lead the OSCE in 2009, and after an upcoming presidential election. So in my opinion this does not imply an endorsement of Nazarbayev, although of course it’s still possible to criticize Clinton for endorsing Kazakhstan as a country to lead the OSCE, as the human rights group cited in the original NY times article does.
So I would read this as a pretty boilerplate statement along the lines that Clinton hopes that they open up, make progress towards democracy, and hopefully (in 4 years?) Kazakhstan might be ready to lead OSCE (as a “prize”).
I agree that the whole story has an unsavory flavor, that Clinton seems to be too cozy with some dictators, and I have no interest at all in defending this.
However, given the past history of the NY Times and the Clintons, I think one would be well advised to take their coverage with some caution. In particular, the statement
seems like a very poor paraphrase of what Clinton actually said.
Again, I do not want to defend the relationship at all, but would like to point out that the actual statement does not necessarily have to be interpreted in this way. In fact, the NY times article cites a spokeman for Clinton, who argues that he was
and at least to me that seems a reasonable interpretation which does not imply a direct endorsement of Nazarbayev himself.
bert 01.31.08 at 4:15 pm
Transcription error. She’d actually been fetid.
Grand Moff Texan 01.31.08 at 4:20 pm
B-b-b-b-but they have such a cool national anthem!
.
christian h. 01.31.08 at 4:38 pm
it has done incredible work in helping to push for proper democratic elections in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
You mean to say it has functioned as an arm of increasing Western hegemony in an area formerly dominated by Russia, by ensuring the “election” of pro-Western factions of the corrupt ruling elites? Like that Stalinist in Georgia?
I’m really somewhat baffled as to why Clinton’s behaviour here would be in the least surprising to anyone. It is certainly not exceptional, nor would a sane person expect anything different from any of the major party candidates for president (or prime minister or whatever they are called wherever you are located.)
bert 01.31.08 at 4:55 pm
Come off it, Christian.
Clinton’s foundation is all about liberal internationalism. A consistent emphasis is governance issues. When he makes an impassioned call for cynical realism, on our-son-of-a-bitch lines, then you can absolve him of hypocrisy.
This story uncomfortably points up his receptiveness to lobbying. There’s a rotten smell to those multi-millions in cash, and if you don’t think this is a problem, take a moment to google Marc Rich.
Maurice Meilleur 01.31.08 at 5:03 pm
I agree that the NYT has a pretty rotten reporting history (to put it mildly) regarding the Clintons; in fact it’s true (as Bob Somerby tirelessly points out) of virtually all Beltway journalists (or ‘the villagers’, ‘the Versailles court’, or whatever your favorite term of opprobrium might be) that they have an ingrained hatred for all things Clinton.
But I don’t know that anyone’s disputing the plain facts of the visit and the statements. And even with those caveats, and even in the context of the fuller quotations, it’s hard to conclude anything from Clinton’s talk but that he is praising Kazakhstan’s leaders with faint damnation.
Brautigan 01.31.08 at 5:36 pm
I’m not much of an Obama fan- he’s just another triangulator.
How so? And please don’t conflate “coalition-building” with “triangulating”.
Steve LaBonne 01.31.08 at 5:49 pm
Among other things, he’s actually made attempts to run to the right of HRC on issues such as Social Security (where for a while he was recycling bogus Republican “crisis” rhetoric) and health care (where he attacked the superior plans of Edwards and HRC). A progressive he isn’t; overall he’s barely distinguishable on nuts-and-bolts policy from HRC. Only the rhetoric is different. That counts for something, but not as much as his more starry-eyed supporters think.
Grand Moff Texan 01.31.08 at 5:58 pm
@Brautigan:
And please don’t conflate “coalition-building†with “triangulatingâ€.
Triangulation is a sort of downsized coalition building. You can get similar results without having to actually, you know, deal with people. It’s great for people who need people, but who don’t actually like people.
@Steve LaBonne:
Only the rhetoric is different. That counts for something, but not as much as his more starry-eyed supporters think.
The differences in personnel and organization, their different attitudes to enfranchisement, etc., these are the reasons I’ve gone sour on Hillary. No starry-eyed Obamabot, I. I just can’t throw my lot in with Penn and McCauliffe, race-baiting like “shuck ‘n jive,” and the low-information voter approach to media pushback.
While it’s Obama by default for me personally, I also think he matches up better than Hillary against McCain (and this is Hillary’s fault). Yes, I’ve seen the national polls on head-to-head and (a) they’re increasingly out of date and (b) we don’t elect presidents that way.
So, I’m thinking Obama is the best choice and the best chance we have. Better ones exist only in hypotheticals.
.
Steve LaBonne 01.31.08 at 6:02 pm
Just for the record, I agree with everything Grand Moff said. Though I’m pissed off enough about the shaft job Edwards got from the media that I may still vote for him in March as a protest.
bert 01.31.08 at 6:09 pm
re: #11
So far so Krugman.
But to talk about triangulation is wrong, Steve.
In fact, that’s where the differences really lie, if you want to look for them. Instead of being in a defensive crouch from day one, looking for minutely poll-tested micro-initiatives designed to appeal to smalll strategic niches, the Obama approach is to get a clear mandate for change by riding a grass-roots wave.
We can differ over whether that’s practical or naive.
What it isn’t is triangulation.
Anyway, aren’t we getting off topic? As you point out in #2, this thread is about Clintosleaze.
Nursultan A. Nazarbayev 01.31.08 at 6:19 pm
…is like saying that John Gotti would make a great Attorney-General.
That’s what you get for being the most liberal, most popular and most pro-western ruler in the region.
Damn, The White Man is hard to please.
Tim Worstall 01.31.08 at 6:30 pm
How enormously, enormously amusing. Anyone playing in the Kazakh uranium business is obviously going to get their hands very dirty indeed.
Those assets which ended up with Guistra were, well, stolen is the word I would use, from another Canadian mining company called World Wide Minerals back in 1996 or so. Their side of the story is here (.pdf)
http://www.worldwideminerals.com/investors/kazakhstan.pdf
I wasn’t directly involved but I knew the CEO of World Wide vaguley and some of his intermediaries rather better (the reason being that one of those uranium properties was the only large scale scandium extraction plant globally: my day job is wholesaling that metal.)
The going price at the time for an interview with the Kazakh PM was $50,000. That’s for the interview, not the solution.
Whether as far as Clinton is concerned it was tit for tat I’ve no idea. But that industry, in that place, operates that way.
Grand Moff Texan 01.31.08 at 6:44 pm
@Steve LaBonne, #13:
It seems we agree on that, too.
.
John Emerson 01.31.08 at 6:58 pm
My brother the geologist says that there are two types of geologists: resource geologists (especially oil and uranium) and everyone else. Resource geologists are a semi-criminal subculture.
Jacob Christensen 01.31.08 at 7:19 pm
@shining raven: I still can’t get the links to work but here is the Daily Kos piece:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/72653/2518/670/446828
Perhaps it is a case of “I didn’t say that to that president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.”
Oh, and on this side of the pond, Kazakhstan is of cause most famous for the Astana
medicalcycling team.christian h. 01.31.08 at 7:25 pm
I don’t think that Clinton’s actions here are “not a problem”, far from it. I’m simply amused that this would be seen as something out of the ordinary.
From my point of view, Clinton’s liberal internationalism has never been more than a PR move to fool certain people on the left into supporting his same old policies.
And I don’t believe for a second that Obama would be at all different on this account. And no, that’s not saying there’s no difference in practical terms as far as policies are concerned (we’ll have to wait and see to judge that), only that dealing with shady characters in the interests of business is one of the fundamentals of capitalist foreign policy, no matter who’s in power.
bert 01.31.08 at 7:44 pm
OK, I get it: kind of a plague on all your houses.
You’re not excusing Clinton. You’re damning democratic politics under capitalism.
I misunderstood you, my bad.
I would suggest though that while nobody is completely pure, there are grounds to choose between the available shades of grey.
Colin Danby 01.31.08 at 8:13 pm
Not to pile on, but this
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/two-paths-diverge-on-the-campaign-trail/18245/?page=2
also suggests that former President William Jefferson Clinton’s attitude toward democracy is more instrumental than principled.
Umm 01.31.08 at 9:07 pm
The entire West is too cozy with dictators.
lemuel pitkin 01.31.08 at 9:09 pm
Very little that the Clintons are involved with bears close inspection.
I think this is true, but in the opposite sense from what you meant.
The Clinton Presidency was surely the most investigated, probed, inspected, subpeonaed and and muckracked in American history. A substantial industry was devoted to nothing else, for years, but turning up Clinton-related scandals. Literally hundreds of millions of dolalrs were spent.
And for all that, the actual, docuemtned record of Clinton illegalities is remarkably thin. in fact, based on the available evidence, you’d have to say his was one of the cleanest administrations in American history.
So, yes, this looks bad. But we know with philosophical certainty there are going to be a stream of stories accusing the Clintons of skullduggeries, as surely as there will be rainy days in March. Best not to take this stuff on face value, I think.
Steve LaBonne 01.31.08 at 9:32 pm
Someone once said that the real scandal in Washington isn’t what’s illegal, but what’s legal. The Clintons have always been poster children for that observation.
Clinton’s presidency was all about the greater glory of Clinton, and to hell with progressive principles or the future of the Democratic Party. And nothing has changed in that respect with the Clintons to this day. It is time for them to go, as someone else once said.
bert 01.31.08 at 9:55 pm
Who was it talked about “Saturday night Bill”? Dick Morris possibly. Bill’s foundation is very much a Sunday morning operation, and I think it would be wrong to dismiss entirely this aspect of its work. The problem with Bill is you have to worry once a week what he’ll get up to on Saturday night.
Matt Yglesias has been suggesting since last year that the funding of the foundation needed a closer look. The role Bill chose to take in the primary campaign (on this, colin danby’s link is worth following) made that scrutiny inevitable.
And – whaddayaknow – sleaze!
Lemuel, if you’re buying the notion that this is entirely innocuous, I think you may well be a large chunk of a highly exclusive Mark Penn niche market.
PW 01.31.08 at 9:59 pm
Christopher Hayes has written about Obama’s “triangulation” in the Nation. I agree with what he has to say — it’s one of the reasons why this voter, who is more closely aligned to Kucinich’s point of view than that of Obama, nonetheless is a supporter of Obama. Hayes writes:
“Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, “operatives”) and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. …”
I think many Democrats have gotten into the rightwing habit of throwing all of the opposition into the same group — “Here be dragons.” But democracy thrives on the give-and-take of good old ideological opposition. We’d do better to save our hatred and fear for the kind of bad-faith Republicans who have dominated the scene for several decades and make friends with the centrist Republicans who are no less weary of their party’s right than we are. But it takes the leadership of someone principled, not triangulating and self-serving a la Lieberman and Clinton(s).
RedCharlie 01.31.08 at 10:26 pm
@tim worstall
You wholesale scandalum? I thought that’s what the NYT was doing…
christian h. 01.31.08 at 11:12 pm
Bert, come on. I obviously never suggested that it makes no difference who one votes for in a bourgeois dictatorship (a.k.a. democracy). But you should do it with open eyes.
And that entails recognizing that sleaze is an inevitable component of the system. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Obama comes out of Illinois politics. If you think he’s sleaze-free, you’re are setting yourself up for a big disappointment.
The fact is that at this point we’re left with two neo-liberal candidates who don’t challenge the ruling class even rhetorically.
Either is obviously preferable to whoever the Republicans nominate. Both would sell their convictions for a campaign contribution (if you doubt this, you may look into the amazing development Obama’s views on Palestine have undergone.)
I’m happy for you if you can get excited about one of them, but please don’t be offended if I don’t.
bert 02.01.08 at 12:46 am
The worst system, apart from all the others that have been tried from time to time.
I’m not sure we differ that much, you know.
Your cynicism (substitute preferred word here) is more sweeping than mine. And I would need some context to understand what you mean by neo-liberal. They both lurve Reagan?
Tell you what though, they share a desire for a functioning and predominantly private-sector market economy, you’re right about that. Cringing and gutless worms that they are, they follow the preferences of the overwhelming majority of voters.
Mike 02.01.08 at 2:53 am
Score one long-term Central Asian airbase, I guess. Not to mention you get to pocket a sizeable chunk of the world’s uranium. That ought to pack some strategic wallop if Clinton is elected? Not to mention the oil. Although, I guess appointing a semi-despot as head of the OSCE may not be the proper gift, ethically speaking.
Sean R. Roberts 02.01.08 at 9:43 pm
I should note that there is an additional point here that the NY Times missed. The day after Bill Clinton came to Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev announced presidential elections to be held ahead of schedule in three months time. While I do not suggest that Bill knew this was going to happen (although many had heard the rumors), but in the end, Bill provided a meeting and some comments that Nazarbayev was easily able to spin into an endorsement for his re-election bid, which, by the way, he won handedly in typical Kazkahstan fashion, by stopping the opposition from campaigning. To read more, check out my blog:
http://roberts-report.blogspot.com/2008/02/bill-clinton-gets-stranded-in-kazakh.html
pat c 02.02.08 at 1:24 am
Bill Clinton is decrying Ted Kennedy’s involvement in the “No Child Left Behind Act,” but his wife VOTED for it. He says stuff like this while stumping for his wife and relies on the ignorance of the audience; i.e., he assumes that they’re oblivious of the fact that his wife sponsored such a piece of legislature . SOMEBODY CALL HIM OUT ON THIS!
Sortition 02.02.08 at 6:40 am
bert:
I honestly have no idea what changes in policy are going to fall within the mandate for change – do you? How soon are we going to be out of Iraq? When will he close Guantanamo and the black sites? Will he make a clear and firm stand on torture? How will he act to reverse the widening economic inequalities? And on and on.
The only thing that seems clearly within the mandate is changing the “style in Washington”, which seems to boil down to cozying up to the Republicans a-la Obama’s Reagan comments. Pure triangulation.
And that’s just one thing that is wrong with him.
bert 02.02.08 at 2:25 pm
You make a good point: when you take the various positions worked up for a primary campaign and put them side by side, does that give you a clear idea of how, say, the first hundred days of an administration are going to feel? What the priorities are going to be? You’ll notice I was careful to talk about the mandate being clear rather than anything else.
But beyond that you seem to be saying two other things. You suspect that when full clarity comes it’s going to be a disappointment because the available evidence points to Obama being a gutless, rudderless centrist. And you say that ‘triangulation’ is an accurate label for Obama’s appeal to Republicans. I disagree on both points.
Obama’s Reagan comments are actually useful in explaining why. For Obama, Reagan took a popular mood of disillusion and frustration, and presented himself as the solution. He did this persuasively enough to attract large numbers of Democrats into his winning coalition. What does Obama see when he looks at Reagan? A successful presidency. A lot of people choke on admitting this, but Reagan won two terms, the second in a 49-state landslide, and handed over to an anointed successor. He got his agenda through, and changed the country. What Obama doesn’t see is an ideological model, which is why the “party of ideas” ad that Hillary ran in Nevada is so deceitful.
The contrast Obama explicitly drew between Reagan and Clinton in terms of changing the country is true and fair. After 1992 there was an early period of incoherent idealism, tempered by compromise (Bob Woodward’s The Agenda is an interesting read, and points towards why Robert Reich is pro-Obama). This was dissipated by the botch Hillary made out of healthcare, and was swept away by the ’94 midterms. After which, the Clintons embraced the Dick Morris model. Beset by opposition on all sides, beleaguered by crisis, dominated by agendas hatched elsewhere, they maneuvred tactically to split the difference between opposing forces. That is what triangulation is. It’s where the word comes from: the split difference is the third point on a triangle.
How does the Obama approach compare? Summarized brutally: take a broadly shared popular mood, channel this into a political movement expressed at the ballot box, and use the resulting majority to push through your reforms. This is the antithesis of triangulation.
Looking at your list of desired specifics, torture stood out because I did recall a statement – here it is. At the time it contrasted with both Bill and Hillary, who had each put the case for torture, using the ticking bomb argument. I understand they’ve since adjusted their views.
So there are some specifics out there.
Another example is healthcare. Krugman has tied his knickers in a knot about this, Steve above reckons it’s an example of running to the right, but Obama’s plan is very similar to Bradley’s, which Al Gore used in their primaries to paint Bradley as a head-in-the-clouds liberal fantasist. And it seems to me that Obama’s process arguments about the workings of Washington are in fact very relevant in attempting to judge at this distance the sort of outcome we’ll see on healthcare, and strengthen rather than weaken his credibility on this issue.
Specifics aside, Obama is pushing for a big majority – something approaching a double digit margin in the general. He believes, I think rightly, that Bush has made this possible. His campaign will by necessity be broad and inclusive. I can understand the frustration of those who believe he should be casting his net more narrowly over their own specific stretch of water. What I can’t accept is the slippage of meaning involved in using ‘triangulation’ as a term of abuse for someone trying to build a working coalition that extends beyond their party base.
bert 02.02.08 at 2:30 pm
No paragraph breaks, sorry.
This is
morereadable:You make a good point: when you take the various positions worked up for a primary campaign and put them side by side, does that give you a clear idea of how, say, the first hundred days of an administration are going to feel? What the priorities are going to be? You’ll notice I was careful to talk about the mandate being clear rather than anything else.
But beyond that you seem to be saying two other things. You suspect that when full clarity comes it’s going to be a disappointment because the available evidence points to Obama being a gutless, rudderless centrist. And you say that ‘triangulation’ is an accurate label for Obama’s appeal to Republicans. I disagree on both points.
Obama’s Reagan comments are actually useful in explaining why. For Obama, Reagan took a popular mood of disillusion and frustration, and presented himself as the solution. He did this persuasively enough to attract large numbers of Democrats into his winning coalition. What does Obama see when he looks at Reagan? A successful presidency. A lot of people choke on admitting this, but Reagan won two terms, the second in a 49-state landslide, and handed over to an anointed successor. He got his agenda through, and changed the country. What Obama doesn’t see is an ideological model, which is why the “party of ideas” ad that Hillary ran in Nevada is so deceitful.
The contrast Obama explicitly drew between Reagan and Clinton in terms of changing the country is true and fair. After 1992 there was an early period of incoherent idealism, tempered by compromise (Bob Woodward’s The Agenda is an interesting read, and points towards why Robert Reich is pro-Obama). This was dissipated by the botch Hillary made out of healthcare, and was swept away by the ’94 midterms. After which, the Clintons embraced the Dick Morris model. Beset by opposition on all sides, beleaguered by crisis, dominated by agendas hatched elsewhere, they maneuvred tactically to split the difference between opposing forces. That is what triangulation is. It’s where the word comes from: the split difference is the third point on a triangle.
How does the Obama approach compare? Summarized brutally: take a broadly shared popular mood, channel this into a political movement expressed at the ballot box, and use the resulting majority to push through your reforms. This is the antithesis of triangulation.
Looking at your list of desired specifics, torture stood out because I did recall a statement – here it is. At the time it contrasted with both Bill and Hillary, who had each put the case for torture, using the ticking bomb argument. I understand they’ve since adjusted their views.
So there are some specifics out there.
Another example is healthcare. Krugman has tied his knickers in a knot about this, Steve above reckons it’s an example of running to the right, but Obama’s plan is very similar to Bradley’s, which Al Gore used in their primaries to paint Bradley as a head-in-the-clouds liberal fantasist. And it seems to me that Obama’s process arguments about the workings of Washington are in fact very relevant in attempting to judge at this distance the sort of outcome we’ll see on healthcare, and strengthen rather than weaken his credibility on this issue.
Specifics aside, Obama is pushing for a big majority – something approaching a double digit margin in the general. He believes, I think rightly, that Bush has made this possible. His campaign will by necessity be broad and inclusive. I can understand the frustration of those who believe he should be casting his net more narrowly over their own specific stretch of water. What I can’t accept is the slippage of meaning involved in using ‘triangulation’ as a term of abuse for someone trying to build a working coalition that extends beyond their party base.
Sortition 02.02.08 at 10:27 pm
bert,
Exactly. What does a progressive see when he looks at Reagan? A total failure for the American people. Speaking of Reagan in positive terms (“dynamism”, “accountability”), and of the “excesses of the 60’s and 70’s” does not bode well. Being able to apologetically parse Obama’s words or explain his actions may very well become a useful skill for his supporters if he becomes president.
This is typical Obama – high rhetoric with little of substance. Yes – we all hate torture, including Bush. Bush simply claims that waterboarding is not torture. It seems that Obama disagrees and would opt for different techniques – maybe he prefers stress positions, cold rooms and sleep deprivation. Even that is not clear, since Obama puts the emphasis on the matter of secrecy. It seems that if waterboarding is authorized officially rather than in secret, then he would not have much trouble with it.
Also note how the argument is cast in the usual terms of self-interest – even torture is rejected primarily not on the grounds that it is evil but on the grounds that it doesn’t pay for the U.S..
Making your principles and policy plans clear is considered “casting the net narrowly”? To me, it is a matter of being honest with the voters.
Triangulation means adopting elements from the traditional positions of both parties. This is exactly Obama’s strategy, so I don’t see why you reject the term.
The bottom line is this: Obama may be an insincere, trying to lure anti-progressive voters to vote for a progressive candidate by pretending that his isn’t; or he may be sincere, trying to lure progressives to vote for an anti-progressive candidate by campaigning mostly on style and soft-selling his anti-progressive policy plans. You think it is the former. My fear is that he is sincere.
bert 02.02.08 at 11:19 pm
If you stretch words too much they sag, and sense falls out of them. I’ll piss you off by suggesting that’s the problem with Jonah Goldberg’s recent Very Important Book.
I have to say I don’t hear the anti-progressive pitch you’re telling me Obama’s making. Are you absolutely sure these dog whistles you’re hearing aren’t just a sinus problem?
At least there’s a candidate for you on Tuesday who’s attempting to counter Obama’s appeal to independents by turning out the base. But I’m guessing you hate her too, which means you’re screwed. You have my sympathy, but I’m also guessing you’d tell me where to stick it. Seems like your only hope is for Nader to get in.
Run, Ralph, run!
Sortition 02.03.08 at 12:19 am
I thought my definition was the standard one. How would you define triangulation?
I agree with Glen Ford’s take on this matter: FAIR, Democracy Now!, Black Agenda Report.
As for who to give my vote to, I don’t put much thought into the matter: elections are just an oligarchic ploy anyway.
Sortition 02.03.08 at 12:24 am
bert,
My reply has 4 links in it and so was caught in moderation.
Among other things, I was asking: if you are unhappy with my definition of triangulation, how would you define it?
bert 02.03.08 at 1:12 am
4 links … I don’t see it.
Did you strip the links out, or did it get lost in moderation? If you still have the same tab open, you can find your previous posts if you hit “back”. They’ll be there in the comment box.
Hope that helps :)
I prefer a much narrower defintion than you do. I think #36 covers it pretty well, but basically I think the term gets much of its descriptive, pejorative power from its origins with a sleazebag like Morris and its close association with the dispiriting Clinton/Gingrich period. To broaden it out to include anything that doesn’t map precisely onto party divisions robs it of meaning.
bert 02.03.08 at 1:15 am
Ah, I see it now.
I’ll follow the links, and reply.
bert 02.03.08 at 3:29 am
Well, unsurprisingly Glen Ford leaves me utterly cold. The comments thread under the Black Agenda Report post has some good back and forth, though – I’m with Abu Momoh.
Ford’s case against Obama on Iraq rests on two indictments. First, the 2002 speech wasn’t on Obama’s website in June 2003. Not something I’d defend, or want to. The response Ford quotes from Obama certainly smells of weasel; how badly this dents the halo is a judgement call. Second, his comments in 2004. In the middle of an election campaign, both of the names on the Democratic ticket had voted for the war. Obama chose not to say they’d got it wrong. Instead he said that he’d called it differently from them with the information he had, but that they’d had a different picture sitting where they were. In short, he had the back of his party’s candidates. The fact that Bill Clinton later used that against him smells worse than weasel. Kerry, note, endorses Obama. So by all means insert those two correctives into the campaign’s airbrushed timeline – I’d say Obama still comes out looking pretty good.
By far the most interesting link though is your post on sortition. I’m with you on the drawbacks of representative democracy, which is why I trotted out that hoary Churchill quote earlier in the thread. My one concern is that your functioning example – Athens – was a small city state run by an elite of citizens, underpinned by a disenfranchised mass of women and slaves. How you’d take the principles of sortition and make them work in today’s world strikes me as difficult.
It seems the closest we have nowadays is Frank effing Luntz. Which means you still have a long long row to hoe, and I wish you luck.
Sortition 02.03.08 at 3:46 pm
Ok, we will have to agree to disagree on Obama – let me summarize by just saying that I really don’t see what there is to like about him, and I see quite a few reasons not to like him. (His only good policy call ever, as far as I am aware, was on Iraq, but now he is with the establishment on that matter as well.) Ted Kennedy’s designation of Obama as the heir to JFK is all too appropriate.
My proposal at this point is quite simple: use random selection instead of elections to appoint the members of congress (initially one chamber).
Comments on this entry are closed.