creators.com opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Joe Conason
Joe Conason
24 May 2012
Where's the ‘Beef'? Clinton's Answer to Romney Snark

For Mitt Romney, the president's greatest vulnerability seems to be that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton … Read More.

17 May 2012
The Only True Way to Save Marriage From Obama

For honoring his conscience on the issue of marriage equality, President Obama earned angry rebukes from all … Read More.

10 May 2012
What the China Crisis (and His Gay Crisis) Revealed About Mitt

Just as aspiring judges ought to possess the quality known as "judicial temperament," a would-be … Read More.

Not a Team of Rivals At All

Share Comment

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 General 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 Qaeda 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 General 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 (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;...The Journalist pack can be forgiven for their focus on personalities... Essentially the only choice we have over our government is over what personality will lead us... It is not democracy, and it is ruinous... The people clearly understand that the society is not working as it should... No one would have voted for this depression...No one would have voted for free trade or the export of our capital and production overseas... No one would vote for outrageous pay packages for executives who earn their keep squeezing wealth and working conditions out of their employees... No one would vote for wide spread poverty, or endless wars with undefeatable enemies on the end of the earth... If we are treated as nameless, brainless, and unnecessary to the process it is just because personalities can be so easily built up and presented to us, and our choice comes down, always, to between two people we do not know and who don't know us...The most democratic part of our national government was frozen, and quit being reflective of the will of the people...Districts are designed to cut out the maximum number of voters from representation, and still ensure a certain candidate from a certain party will be elected... The greatest threat to any representative is from his own party radicals in the primaries, which inevitably pushes politics to extremes. ..I don't know my representative... I am a face in the crowd... That is all he is to me; a face, and a personality... Representative democracies are not more successful or wise than they are representative... Nothing beats the genius of the people because they know best their own needs and abilities... Without direct democracy the best we could expect is democratic representation as was provided for in the constitution, and that has been perverted...The pain we have before us like the pain we have behind us flows out of our lack of choice... This is not democracy...Watch this government ask us for sacrifice... Watch this government blame the people... Watch us blame each other... What a farce.. What a tragedy...Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Dec 4, 2008 7:44 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Joe Conason
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Tom Rosshirt
Tom RosshirtUpdated 26 May 2012
David Sirota
David SirotaUpdated 25 May 2012

7 Oct 2010 The Ideologies Behind the Ideologues

4 Nov 2010 The Tea Party and the Midterms

2 Oct 2008 Making the Bailout Less Toxic