Article

2005-05-24 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-24 10:12|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Very well put. Thanks, Mrs. Davis!

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-05-24 10:41|| 2005-05-24 10:41|| Front Page Top

#2 And to the surprise of its critics, is getting results. It would be a mistake, then, not to listen.

I'm waiting to hear if the speaker was promptly lynched at the conclusion of the speech.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2005-05-24 10:51|| 2005-05-24 10:51|| Front Page Top

#3 This description is still too linear. There is a terrible habit of trying to interpret great leadership in the "television show" model. That is, at the beginning of the show, something new and unexpected happens, which the actors then have 50 minutes to resolve. As if somehow the President goes to work each morning, and an important person comes into his office and says "Mr President, we have a situation that you must reach a decision about." In fact, linear events are just a small part of the big picture. History, the credits and debits of government and politics, are always accumulating, nationally and internationally. The game has been played before, is being played right now, and will be played again in the future. All events must regard the past, the present and the future. "Long-term" policy may be until the end of his term for a poor President, or may stretch 100 years for a good President. "Linkages", a favorite of Bush, Sr., are also terribly important. The US does not have one policy with China, for example. It has hundreds, or even thousands, covering a broad assortment of topics. Both the US and China also have hundreds or thousands of policies with respect to and with Taiwan. So any policy action with these countries, positive or negative, will impact far more than just that policy alone; and it well may impact the policies of other countries as well. Understanding these linkages are vital to effective foreign policy. The Mission, as with the military, is the most important thing. That is, finding and holding on to core values. Carefully weighing pragmatism and realism, and unless their benefits are grand, being unwilling to waver from your goals. The great goal of many US Presidents has been the spreading of the democratic revolution around the world. Our greatest Presidents have realized, and Bush, Jr. has stated to effect that there really is no reason not to push for democracy; that the greatest failures of the US was when it was willing to compromise the freedom of others for stability. And the willingness to challenge the status quo, as it might be said in East Asia, "To achieve a greater harmony and balance through creating imbalance". Bush, Jr., has proven himself almost unparalled as 'the boy who bashes the hornets' nest with a baseball bat'. By doing so, he has proactively neutered a potential world war, he has thrown into confusion dozens of dictatorships, he has strongly furthered the democratic revolution in a handful of countries, and has inserted American might smack dab in the center of three major zones of world instability. All the while, and for many years now, he and his subordinates have been planning for not just the next conflict or conflicts, but the ones after that, keeping the continuity from Presidents in the past, and able to hand it off to the Presidents of the future. This is profoundly good leadership.

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-05-24 11:10|| 2005-05-24 11:10|| Front Page Top

#4 Good article and fine critique by 'moose.

Ronald Reagan: "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

Posted by Matt 2005-05-24 11:15|| 2005-05-24 11:15|| Front Page Top

#5 In the midst of our culture's masochistic idiot frenzy, it's nice to hear from a sane and wise historian like Gaddis. For all his shortcomings Bush is without question the most surprising president in US history. Possibly one of the greatest. Bravo to Gaddis for a brilliant and prophetic lecture.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 11:28|| 2005-05-24 11:28|| Front Page Top

#6 importance of words - afaict, since 9/11 the eloquent words that have outlined the WOT have been Tony Blairs.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-24 11:30|| 2005-05-24 11:30|| Front Page Top

#7 I'll take GW's actions over Tony Blairs words anyday.

There are people who value words and people who value action. Show me/tell me.

The liberals always remind me of abused wives who - despite being disappointed again and again and again ...are always willing to believe it when he comes back with lipstick on his collar and says...but baby...you know you are the only one.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 11:46|| 2005-05-24 11:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Yes, Liberalhawk, but the words that made the world change have been Bush's.

Posted by RWV 2005-05-24 11:48|| 2005-05-24 11:48|| Front Page Top

#9 Because Bush has never given a major policy speech with any eloquence or clear statements of purpose?

A couple of state-of-the-union speeches come to mind. As does the first speech post-9/11.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-05-24 11:49|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-05-24 11:49|| Front Page Top

#10 because the actions followed directly from the straight forward words. Purty words without actions are nice, but we're done with such.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2005-05-24 11:53|| 2005-05-24 11:53|| Front Page Top

#11 LH, I normally line up with you but you're dead wrong on this one. I'm willing to bet any sum that you cannot find a muslim household, or political meeting hall or newspaper or even blog in which Tony Blair's eloquent words are enshrined. The effects of his rhetoric are entirely domestic. They may give you and me a sense of rightness and hope, even joy, but they have as much influence on the outcome of the struggle overseas as an Edward Said-Daniel Bahrenboim benefit concert had on the peace process.

The main battle here is not ideological. This is not a war of ideas. The fascist enemy has no compelling ideas, only the logic of spectacular force directed at the infidel superpower. Their triumphs - defeating the Soviets in Afgh; 911; kamikaze attacks in Iraq and Israel; headhacker videos - have nothing whatsoever to do with ideology and everything to do with slaughter. As Winsotn Smith learns from his captors in 1984, "the purpose of power is power." The purpose of jihadist slaughter is slaughter.

Against this, the main enemy, words mean little. Osama had it exactly right when he analyzed the average muslim's political calculus thus: "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will side with the strong horse." This is job one. Be a relentlessly, brilliantly truly strong horse-- militarily, politically, every way possible-- and muslim minds will follow.

Consider the main enemy here: it's not western defeatism

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 12:00|| 2005-05-24 12:00|| Front Page Top

#12 Much of Blair's eloquence is in his accent as is the source of much of the derision for Bush's. The real test of their words, aside from their works, will come in 40 years when we see whose are quoted more often.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-24 12:33|| 2005-05-24 12:33|| Front Page Top

#13 What Mrs D said. Oxbridge Englishmen can get away with uttering the most banal slop to an American audience, so long as they speak in long sentences with lots of gerunds and subordinate clauses.

Bar bet: anyone have any Tony Blair quotes committed to memory?

I can recall a dozen Reagan quotes that still resonate with force. But the only line from Tony Blair that I can recall was his banal question, "Does anyone seriously think that if [the 911 hijackers] could have killed 300,000 they would nto have done so?"

LH, can you recall any of Tony's lapidary lines?
(btw, I drink Sierra Nevada. Prefer mine in a bottle ;-)

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 13:20|| 2005-05-24 13:20|| Front Page Top

#14 you are either with us, or you are against us.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 13:22|| 2005-05-24 13:22|| Front Page Top

#15 ....by which I mean the ever deeper mastery of a diminishing number of things.
So the wise professor learns more and more about less and less to the point where he knows abolutely everything about nothing.

Posted by GK 2005-05-24 13:44|| 2005-05-24 13:44|| Front Page Top

#16 gk..lol!

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 13:47|| 2005-05-24 13:47|| Front Page Top

#17 thibaud (aka Lex):

I do not agree with your comment in regards to the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan (although I DO agree with the rest). Say what you will, the muhadine were a brave and resorceful bunch facing a tyranical, superior foe. I am happy they beat the Soviets in spite of what happened afterwards.

Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-24 13:53|| 2005-05-24 13:53|| Front Page Top

#18 lex - bushes words matter because theyre backed up the 13 divisions of the best and bravest and most well equipped soldiers in the world, by a dozen (or so) aircraft carriers, and, yes, by the largest foreign aid budget in the world, the biggest market in the world, etc.

The original post was not about actions - it was attempting to say that there was something in Bushs mind, or style that was superior. I see a President who ignored democracy promotion, nation building, and Islam for the first 9 months in office. Who in the aftermath of of 9/11 mixed some good statements with some hamhanded ones, but who learned, in some degree FROM Blair. But who then, when Iraq came, spoke primarily about WMD's and buried his grand strategy, far more than was required by international niceties (yes you can dig up quotes if you need to respond to a lefty who says that democracy was an after the fact justification - but really, the BULK of the public campaign was NOT about democracy or grand strategy) Again Tony made the case better.

It was only finally, with the last SOTU, that Bush finally hit stride. That it took so long argues that it was a result of a fortunate shift of advisors, and of a reaction to events on the ground ("the Americans always do the right thing, after trying everything else first") not due to the insights that come naturally from W's personality.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-24 14:06|| 2005-05-24 14:06|| Front Page Top

#19 LH,

I see a President who ignored democracy promotion, nation building, and Islam for the first 9 months in office. Who in the aftermath of of 9/11 mixed some good statements with some hamhanded ones, but who learned, in some degree FROM Blair.

Agree with all of the above.

But who then, when Iraq came, spoke primarily about WMD's and buried his grand strategy, far more than was required by international niceties (yes you can dig up quotes if you need to respond to a lefty who says that democracy was an after the fact justification - but really, the BULK of the public campaign was NOT about democracy or grand strategy)

Disagree. Multiple speeches in which democracy promotion featured prominently prior to the start of the war. Agree that emphasizing WMD above other themes was a mistake, but this flowed from the need to put the case to the UNSC -- especially the foolish decision to help Blair with the completely unnecessary (Holbrooke's view, btw) 2nd resolution in Feb(?)03. .

Again Tony made the case better.

Really? To whom? The UK electorate would disagree most heartily. In fact, there's no better counterargument than the British public's response to the man they call "phoney Tony." I believe you're once again being dazzled by the superior rhetorical quality of UK political debate, which does not impress Britons raised on Question time and verbal swordplay of the sort that's standard on Jeremy Paxman, Hard Time (?) etc.

It was only finally, with the last SOTU, that Bush finally hit stride. That it took so long argues that it was a result of a fortunate shift of advisors, and of a reaction to events on the ground ("the Americans always do the right thing, after trying everything else first") not due to the insights that come naturally from W's personality.

More anglophiliac exaggeration. Maybe it's just me, but I'm convinced that when the number of words, the amount of sheer rhetoric, flying around the ether is expanding by many orders of magnitude, those words mean less and less.

Rhetoric no longer matters the way it did when entire nations would gather around the radio to take direction and emotional comfort from their leaders' words. Even in the pre-internet late Cold War era, words meant far mroe than they do now. Anything uttered by Bush or Blair or Osama or Hitchens or MikeyMaroon or whomever is immediately competing for attention in a sea of noise, blather and spam. Call me a cynic, but I would wager that ten years from now, none of this rhetoric will mean anything.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 14:34|| 2005-05-24 14:34|| Front Page Top

#20 Theres plenty of blather, but only one POTUS. Its a very bully pulpit. And the WOT was an opportunity to use the pulpit such as had not occured since the 1989. It COULD have been used, by a Reagan or a Clinton, to rally the nation (if not the world - thats another question) around a broad strategic vision - that it was not was a lost opportunity. Of course there could have been worse lost opportunities - I agree this is only one issue, but its the one that was raised here.

BTW, on the notion that Blair's oratory is just a product of UK institutions - perhaps i wasnt paying close enough attention, but i dont recall hearing such inspirational things from Major or Thatcher (And Thatcher was certainly a doer, but my sense is was far INFERIOR at communicating to Ronald Reagan) I dont recall well the old Labour hacks who preceded Thatcher, but I dont get the sense they were great orators either.

As for Blair being disliked in UK, hes just managed to win Labour an unprecedented third term, and by a margin in MPs that exceeds most UK govts this century. Dont buy all the BBC spin. They may resent Iraq, but then to be fair Blair has been constrained by US ACTIONS in Iraq, which have had many difficulties (both too masochistic AND too sadistic, if you ask me) and by association with a US prez who would have been unpopular in the UK without regard to Iraq or the WOT.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-24 14:50|| 2005-05-24 14:50|| Front Page Top

#21 Re the bully pulpit, maybe it's just me but I frankly don't pay that much attention to what Bush says. I don't watch much TV, I don't read speech transcripts. I do however devour firsthand accounts from the front lines of the WoT, so it's not battle fatigue. The more info that's out there, the less value I ascribe to rhetorical tropes and ringing phrases. Words words words, as Hamlet said.

BTW, on the notion that Blair's oratory is just a product of UK institutions - perhaps i wasnt paying close enough attention, but i dont recall hearing such inspirational things from Major or Thatcher

No better evidence of my point than Galloway's performance that completely upstaged Coleman and Levin. Even a fascist blowhard like Georgie can run rings around a US senator, precisely because the UK political system that forces any pol to constantly hone his rhetorical skills in daily verbal combat.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 15:38|| 2005-05-24 15:38|| Front Page Top

#22 Call me a cynic, but I would wager that ten years from now, none of this rhetoric will mean anything.

Always nice to be out cyniced. If this rhetoric means so little, why share so much with us now?

I agree that in 10 years we will still be awash in it. But Bush's will still be closely read because it will be the best indicator of what he really meant. And as a result of what he meant, the world will have been changed into something he did not mean to change it into when he came into office any more than did Osama when he set his assassins on their course. And more than most politicians, Bush seems to have meant what he said and said what he meant.

Perhaps Bush will go down in history as a second rate president like Polk; significant accomplishments with no memorable words, but I doubt it. At least this will remain from when Bush first visited Ground Zero and a fireman shouted to the President: "George, we can't hear you".

"I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-05-24 15:39|| 2005-05-24 15:39|| Front Page Top

#23 Always nice to be out cyniced. If this rhetoric means so little, why share so much with us now?

That rhetoric, not this rhetoric. ;-) Seriously, Reagan was not at war. Bush's father was at war for, what, a month? Bush today is engaged in a great struggle of a kind we haven't faced before. It's against an adversary that offers no ideology, no economic program, no political agenda that anyone can take even remotely seriously. I think Robert Kaplan noted that this struggle is a lot like the wars against the Indian tribes, only played out on a grand scale.

Of course democracy promotion is a crucial part of this, but that's much more complicated than any rhetorical tropes can accomodate, as the support of a crucial ally like the very undemocratic Gen Musharraf indicates. My point is that the US needs to become much more toughminded about the nature of this struggle - again, it's a war to the death with a group of fascist neanderthals - and not continue this shortsighted and very masochistic agonizing about the morality play aspect.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 15:48|| 2005-05-24 15:48|| Front Page Top

#24 lh loves to wallow in it. Don't spoil his fun with talk of rising above for the higher good. It would mean he'd have to turn in his liberal card and not be included in the cool club that makes the class laugh by throwing spit wads at those ucky yucky uncool republicans.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 15:55|| 2005-05-24 15:55|| Front Page Top

#25 To be fair, I used to share LH's views and would send mass emails to friends, family, bloggers etc when I came across rare examples of supreme eloquence in defending the war. Those messages have lost their force. Most people are getting burned out. They've either lost interest in hearing more clarion calls or solidified their views on the war, be they pro or con or neocon, beyond the power of any more speeches or OpEds to alter. Rantburgers are another story - may it ever be thus - but now is the time for smashing victories, not dueling words. I doubt anyone's likely to be persuaded by the latter. I do know that the US public will support victory, and will not long support massive overseas engagements that do not feature a clear path toward eventual victory.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 16:03|| 2005-05-24 16:03|| Front Page Top

#26 I'm @ work so don't have time to provide links, but go to the WH site and look at speeches from 9/20/01 and 9/12/02 as well as his 2nd inagural and 2002, 2003 and 2005 SOU speeches and tell me Bush is incapable of eloquence.

There was also a fall 2003 speech to Heritage you may want to read.

The problem is that the media does not relate actions back to this rhetoric. However, people in other countries do. The guy has walked his talk long enough that it's starting to work.

Posted by JAB 2005-05-24 16:08|| 2005-05-24 16:08|| Front Page Top

#27 the US will not become more tough minded about this war until they understand the nature of the struggle that we face, and they do not. Nor will they as long as it remains in vogue to place all blame on George Bush and the United States, like some kind of blame the tail on the donkey game.

Here's a fun thing to do. Next time you are at a dinner party with the self-proclaimed enlightened, say you support the war and watch the self-superior, smug looks cross their faces. That little half-smile, with a slight shake of the head and pity pat. Of course, half of them can't find Afghanistan on a map ...but THEY KNOW it's all George Bush's fault. They don't know what's going on in any of the 'stans and they don't know really much of anything at all, but they do know one thing...whatever is wrong in the world, it's George Bush's fault. How easy to be so smart by rolling your eyes and saying how stupid others are. How much easier than real discussion about how much force, should we use torture, or how shall we deal with a religion bent on our anhiliation?

No, no, just shut it down. Let's all bash Bush...it's sooooo deeply intellectual to do so.

That's what I don't get about LH and some of the other's who aren't ignorant of the facts. I guess it's just too hard to acknowledge that the liberal ship you've ridden for so long is and always has been the Titanic.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 16:26|| 2005-05-24 16:26|| Front Page Top

#28 the US will not become more tough minded about this war until they understand the nature of the struggle that we face, and they do not

That I can agree with. To the extent Bush's rhetoric helps to educate the ignorant as to the nature and requirements of this war, bring on such rhetoric.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-05-24 16:28|| 2005-05-24 16:28|| Front Page Top

#29 i'm sorry, I'm just tired of it. We are in a war for survival. Those who can't rise above the petty partisan politics need to understand that war is part of the human condition. This period of peace and prosperity that we have lived in has to be protected and preserved. This isn't a game. Every day, people are slaughtered - that's right- slaughtered - because good people didn't stand up to agression in time. If you look the other way and don't support those who do what they think best to stop the brutally ambitious, then you should at least have the decency to be ashamed.

Posted by 2b 2005-05-24 16:41|| 2005-05-24 16:41|| Front Page Top

#30 Hear, hear, 2b!

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2005-05-24 16:49|| 2005-05-24 16:49|| Front Page Top

#31 Sustained eloquence, lex. Thanks for the real effort required to separate the wheat from the chaff and stay on point - and, indeed, the point is worthy.

I admire your honesty - especially regards the movement of POV to keep an accurate perspective on moving "targets", as issues definitely evolve. To my mind it is the hallmark of maturity, honesty, and cognitive ability to abandon once, but no longer, tenable views as new evidence presents itself and demands reassessment. That's hard work, and humbling work. Those who prefer the comfort of their chosen dogma and are unable to evolve accordingly, are not deserving of respect. Intellectual honesty demands it. It demands we accept reality and deal with it as it is, not as we wish it be. Kudos to you, and thanks for the journey. Bookmarked for re-reading.

Posted by .com 2005-05-24 18:59|| 2005-05-24 18:59|| Front Page Top

#32 Back on the subject of grand strategy. I've always felt that it needs to be so simple that is can be summed up in a sentence:

* Defeat Germany first, then Japan.
* Destroy the South's economic basis to fight.
* Never fight a two front war (if you're Kaiser Willie).

Men like Carter, Clinton, Chirac (need I go on) are too nuanced -- see the world as being too complex a place -- to ever understand grand strategy. Was it Aesop who said that the fox knows many things; the hedgehog knows one very important thing? Just my 2 cents.

Posted by 11A5S 2005-05-24 19:50|| 2005-05-24 19:50|| Front Page Top

22:34 DEMOCRAT YES
22:34 VOTE YES
23:52 BH
23:49 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:28 Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead
23:26 trailing wife
23:03 CrazyFool
23:03 DMFD
23:00 Fred
22:50 2b
22:41 mojo
22:40 Minni Mullah
22:35 Mike
22:34 VOTE YES TROLL
22:34 DEMOCRAT YES TROLL
22:31 SC88
22:30 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:28 Fred
22:27 .com
22:24 Destro
22:24 Omotch Sheasing8304
22:23 Minni Mullah