...The chance that this group of aging white men, plus Vernon Jordan and Sandra Day O'Connor, will come up with something original is not enormous. It's a nutty and not very attractive idea to turn an urgent issue of war and peace over to a commission. Commissions have usually been trotted out for long-run social problems: immigration, debt, health care. Going to war is something that ought to be decided by the people we elect. Congress, in recent decades, has virtually abandoned its duty under the Constitution to make the decisions about when American soldiers are sent to kill and die.We know that's right. Those of us who spend a wee bit of time thinking about things like the nature of democracy have usually thought that Bush's version - whether in the US or, titter, in Iraq - risked being so weak it would blow away in the slightest breeze. So, what's up here with the "commission"? Among other activities unique to Washington's political self-image and sense of others' images of itself, having to do with the same sets of concerns and tribulations you went through in high school - popularity and unpopularity (polls), bullying (invasions, occupations), self-importance (The Decider), the search for identity ("legacy"), and masturbation (Tom Selleck),... two things:Presidents have foolishly claimed that authority. And now, inevitably, we have a president who is stuck with a war that he insisted on and a citizenry that has no interest in it.
If we had wanted our country to be run by James Baker, we had our chance. He was interested in running for president in 1996 but discovered that his interest in a James Baker presidency was not widely shared...Being a Washington Wise Man does not require much wisdom. Baker has a "conviction," said a Baker colleague quoted in The Post on Sunday, "that Iraq is the central foreign policy issue confronting the United States." Wow. Now there's an insight. Actually, it is a nice small insight into the Baker mentality that he apparently can imagine a war that is killing large numbers of young Americans every month but that is not our central foreign policy issue. Baker also believes that "the only way to address that issue successfully is to first build a bipartisan consensus." Now, that is a conviction you can sink your teeth into. People like Baker always favor a bipartisan consensus.
They don't really believe in politics, which is to say they don't really believe in democracy.
1) the forthcoming "unpalatable solution" could very well be a strongman leader in Iraq with the difference that he'll be Shiite, thus further handing victory to Iran. They just can't find the right guy. But if someone's going to find him, it'll be Baker. He knows an authoritarian when he sees one.
2) Authority ain't in the White House. This is an inverse nanny state. Not only in the sense that 43 has had to call in 41's cronies (and not for the first time) for hand-holding (indeed, America, call in your Iraq War suggestions today! 43 is standing by.), but in the sense that an emotionally confused presidency needs direction in finding its identity and, really, getting itself out of trouble. It has made mistakes, serious mistakes. The baseball through the living room window is a little more troubling when it has killed hundreds of thousands of people. And it didn't know what it was doing when it did it (and while it continues to do it). But this is the kind nanny always on your side, "oh, he meant no harm. In fact, I'm just as responsible, having encouraged his creative energy."... Either the inverse nanny state or juvie.
2 comments:
I thought Kinsley's article was seriously wrongheaded (not the first such).
Those who are elected cannot be experts in everything, and cannot even spend all their time over a period of months contemplating, say, the Iraq war. A commission can.
I'm not entirely pleased with the male whitebread makeup of this commission, but they've got some good people. They've had as a sort of staff forty or so real Iraq and Middle Eastern experts.
We can hope that their report will outline possible actions and the limitations of those actions. Then the political class can decide, as is their role.
The bigger problem here is that when you start out making bad decisions, ignoring the expert advice that is available, then you eventually (sometimes quickly) get into a world where no good decisions are available. That's where we are now; one could argue that advice from such a commission (or the duly appointed government agencies, can we say CIA or State Department?) is long overdue. Or listening to it, for which there is no guarantee this time around either.
Seems to me that all this also argues for carefully examining a presidential candidate's resume (rebelling against father, 100% record of failure in managing businesses) and against the easy name recognition of progeny, which contaminates many fields of endeavor. But that's another rant.
CKR
Well, I worry about the notion of the "expert" in the first place for a variety of reasons. But I also don't see how James Baker et al. can really tell us anything about Iraq that we don't already know. After all, they're not experts on Iraq - which is what is needed - but experts on the politics of foreign affairs. I think Kinsley's right in the sense that the commission is too little too late and plays more of a political role than anything else.
About Bush, you know I agree.
Post a Comment