This is the type of experience that matters (0.00 / 0)

I'll take Obama's experience any day when it leads to good judgment like he has shown. So many have logged many years in Washington and were duped by Bush's call to war -- its frightening.

Experience is meaningless when it leads to poor judgment, but when the experience of living outside of the states leads to a sense of the world around that isn't just Crawford, Texas or Washington, DC, and leads to good judgement, that's the type of experience we need in a president.

---

by: enarjay @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 15:50:18 PM CDT

greg sergant's comment (0.00 / 0)

on McCain's counter.

http://electioncentr...

So if McCain's suggestion here is that Obama's inexperience in foreign policy means he's less qualified for the gig of President than McCain is, this is a bit like an athlete who'd failed disastrously and committed all manner of pratfalls in a dozen decathlons in a row arguing that his experience in them means he's more likely to win one next time around than a newcomer is.

Ahh priceless.

---

by: enarjay @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 15:53:46 PM CDT

Great post, Chris (4.00 / 2)

Being aware of that difference does in fact strike me as an important element in one's judgment of foreign policy and military matters.

I would add to this: it's not sufficient to simply be aware of other perspectives, but it is clear that Obama values those perspectives.  Perhaps I'm reading to much into this because of the fresh contrast with W., but it strikes me as rather humble to admit that the perspectives of people in countries like Kenya or Afghanistan (which are not exactly world powers) are important to consider, even by somebody like the President of the United States.  And that's a great thing.

(And, FWIW, I'm not an Obama supporter...I'm still waiting to see how the field plays out and getting more info before supporting anyone).

---

by: Oly @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 17:51:10 PM CDT

Biography Is Not Enough (0.00 / 0)

Obama's argument is fine as far as it goes.  More then fine, when it comes to taking a poke at Beltway insularity.  His experience outside of America certainly makes a difference.  But the question quickly becomes, "What difference does that difference make?"  And that's what actually matters.

Now, I know that it takes time to roll out positions in a political campaign.  I know that the not-too-terribly-bright M$M has a hard time handling half an idea at a time.  So I don't expect Obama to be developing things in internet time.  But sooner or later he's going to have to go significantly beyond this--actually show us that superior judgment, rather than simply telling us he's got it--and that's when we will start to get some real answers.  Or not.

For my money, Edwards is still the pace-setter here, by virtue of calling out the "War on Terror" as a marketing slogan.  It remains to be seen if Obama will dare to actually break with the Beltway establishment, or simply act as if he already has.

For now, we can say Obama's got a runner on base.  Whether he advances to scoring position, much less comes home, still remains to be seen.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 17:56:49 PM CDT

Beltway (0.00 / 0)

I, for one am getting kind of sick of "It Came From Outside the Beltway" campaigns. I saw it with Carter. I saw it with Reagan. George H.W. Bush tried to make the case that he was a "regular guy". Clinton did it. And George W. did it. Everybody's got "perspective" from their pre-wash days.

The thing is, you didn't need to be outside the Beltway to know that the Iraq war was the wrong thing to do. Most of the Democrats in Congress -- almost 60% of the combined senators and representatives -- voted against the Iraq AUMF. There weren't enough of them, obviously -- although considering that the Democrats controlled the Senate at the time it would be nice if it wasn't mostly senators running for president -- but most of the Democrats in Washington either didn't think Iraq was a sufficient threat to authorize military force or they didn't trust George W. Bush with that power.

Nearly 150 Democrats in Congress opposed the AUMF (126 representatives, 21 senators). Most of them are still in Congress. Obama hardly stands in Congress alone in his opposition to the war; he's got a lot of company, including people who actually had to make the call themselves.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 18:24:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But Obama Is Saying Something More Than That (0.00 / 0)

It's not, "I'm from Texas and I've gotten drunk in Mexico, so vote for me."

It's, "I've lived abroad and I have some idea how others see us, and how we ought to act differently as a result."

You're right that there's a similarity.  But there's a difference as well.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 20:03:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Than (0.00 / 0)

And my point is that it doesn't take living abroad to do that. Nor does living abroad necessarily broaden your viewpoint (see "British Empire functionaries").

If you don't have empathy for other people as human beings, you could grow up having spent time on every continent during your youth and still be a bigoted, thoughtless lout. If you do have empathy, you don't have to have been a world traveller to understand how other people might view the US. All you have to do is have an open mind and pay attention.

I don't doubt that Obama's experience of the world is the richer because of his foreign contact, but the argument that it automatically gives him a better viewpoint of the rest of the world is as "illusory" as saying that only people in Washington have insight into foreign policy or that someone with a Harvard MBA is a good businessman. Each of those points might be true, but they're not correlative.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 00:16:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of Course It Doesn't Take Living Abroad (0.00 / 0)

But it helps.  Empirically, the numbers are very clear.

Just as it helped that I had a foreign exchange student--from Iran, no less!--live with my family when I was a teenager.  I was already a lot more curious, open-minded and skeptical of authority than the vast majority of kids my age (I discovered Thoreau when I was 10), but still, it was a whole different thing to be hearing first-hand personal stories from the other side of the world.

And the converse is true for those who are environmentally cut off.  I've been using the term "Versailles" for some time now to refer to the Beltway and its kindred social enclaves in which the insular political elites reside, as far out of touch as Marie Antoinette ever was.  There are exceptions among them.  But they are very exceptional.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 01:41:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clear (0.00 / 0)

Empirically, the numbers are very clear.

Are they? Mitt Romney did his LDS mission in France for two years in his young adulthood. I've known any number of missionaries of various types who have spent time in places as diverse as Switzerland, New Guinea, and Brazil, and haven't found any of them more understanding of other cultures -- even within their own country -- than the average person. A lot of those people spend much of the day talking to locals.

Military personnel stationed overseas in non-combat roles spend less time with the locals, but they, too, should be more in tune with the rest of the world by the same logic. Those people seem to get weeded out in the upper ranks or something, because I just don't see it in practice.

If you're talking about the kind of people who self-select to spend a year abroad or take in an exchange student you're not talking about a random cross-section that would let you chart the effect of foreign education or contact on a general population.

What I don't get from Obama's statement in Chris's post is any sense of what he means when he says his decision on the war was informed by "a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders." How did that make his thought process different than the 147 Congressional Democrats who voted against the Iraq AUMF? Were they unable to "see the world" through the eyes of other people?

Moreover, at least some of them voted against the war because they didn't believe the administration's claims of WMD in Iraq, didn't believe Iraq posed a threat to the US, and didn't believe Bush's claim of a link between Saddam and bin Laden. Wasn't that enough for Obama? Would he have voted for it anyway if he hadn't had the wisdom of the world? I fail to see how it actually factors into the decision, unless what you're talking about is an invasion purely to topple Saddam Hussein. Otherwise it was an invasion based on pure fiction, no matter what you thought the rest of the world thought about it.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 04:27:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Empirical Data--Annecdotal Data Comes In Second (0.00 / 0)

When I say "Empirically, the numbers are very clear," I mean precisely what I say.  Those with more experience seeing the US from outside, listening and learning from other cultures,

For example, Zogby August 15, 2004:

"Voters with active passports prefer Kerry 58% to 35%, while those without a passport are for Bush 48% to 39%.

The data on voters abroad at election time are more difficult to come by, but it's well known that Republicans tried to suppress the non-military overseas vote, which is the best proxy for reliable hard data we're likely to get.

Furthermore, another indicator of how awareness of foreign attitudes translates into a different view of American foreign policy comes from PIPA's polling that showed Bush supporters were far more likely to mistakenly believe that the world supported us in invading Iraq--or at least did not oppose us.  From an April 2004 press release [PDF]:

On the other hand, a factor that did appear to be strikingly influential was perceptions of world public opinion on the war with Iraq. Despite polling showing that the majority of world public opinion is opposed to the US war with Iraq, only 41% were aware that this is the case. A 59% majority was unaware of this, with 21% saying that a majority of world public opinion favored the US having gone to war, and 38% saying "views are evenly balanced."

Among those who knew that world public opinion opposed the US going to war with Iraq, only 25% thought that going to war was the right decision. Among the group that thought world public opinion was about evenly balanced, 70% said going to war was the right decision, and among those who perceived world public opinion as favoring the war, 88% said going to war the right decision....

Perceptions of world public opinion are also related to voting intentions. Among those who are aware that world public opinion is critical of the war, only 22% said they intended to vote for President Bush's reelection (Kerry: 75%). Among those who thought world public opinion was about evenly balanced, Bush received support from a modest majority--53%, with 40% preferring Kerry. In the group that perceived world public opinion as favoring the war, 71% said they intended to vote for the president and only 25% said they would vote for Kerry.

[PIPA Executive Director] Steven Kull comments, "Here too these correlations do not establish what is causal. However multivariate regression analyses suggest that changes in perceptions of world public opinion could have some impact on voting behavior in the presidential election."

As for what you say about other factors, of course it's true.  I find this whole sub-thread somewhat bewildering since you're arguing against a reductionist expalanation, on the one hand, which I totally agree with, but on the other hand, you go the extreme of arguing that living abroad has no effect, an equally categorical POV.  This is just silly.

As a matter of fact, many 19th Century missionaries went abroad with attitudes just as insular as those you point to today, and yet a significant number of them were transformed by their experiences, and formed a good part of the substratum out of which America's multilateral internationalist tradition was born.

I agree with you that Obama's statement is inchoate.  I have that problem a lot with Obama.  My only point is that it does, in fact, rest on a sound empirical foundation in this respect.  This means that Obama has a potentially sound argument that he can develop.  It has to address the concerns you raise (which I share), but the argument can be made.  It is not without foundation.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:43:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No effect (0.00 / 0)

My argument is not that there is no effect. My argument is that time abroad doesn't give one automatic insight into other cultures. That's what Obama claims he received from his experience -- and he may have done so -- but he doesn't explain what about that experience gave him a better viewpoint into how he "approached the problem" of Iraq differently from anyone else. Was his ability "to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders" somehow different from that of people without his overseas experience who were able to imagine the same thing?

Regarding the passport data, you cannot use statistical data to prove individual cases. Averages can give you information about what an individual is likely to do or think but only an examination of the individual in question can determine which statistical cohort they're a member of. Rupert Murdoch has a US passport. Additionally, the issue of a passport is a mostly self-selecting group. The only people who have them are people who want to travel abroad and can afford to do so. That's going to skew the averages.

Those who have had a chance for four years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance. --Richard Nixon, 9 October 1968

---

by: darrelplant @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 12:16:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

missionaries spend 2 yrs abroad - is it clear (0.00 / 0)

Good point. 

To steal from Al Gore, the missionaries are almost a one way communication with the people they talk to.  They don't especially listen, and if they do, it is all about religion.

Are there even any statistics to back up the claim?

---

by: KC Bill 13 @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 01:50:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blogging is not enough. (4.00 / 1)

There comes a time, especially if one is trying to build a community here, where people should take it upon themselves to do some homework before making a comment, especially if it is a supposed fact-based comment not simply an opinion.  It is not just those with Obama tunnel-vision who know he has laid out  his policy positions on almost every major issue in detail matching, or perhaps exceeding, any other candidate.  They can be found on his website in both the Issues section and the Speeches section.  His Senate website also has extremely detailed sections relating to almost every vote he has made and every bill he has sponsored.  If you don't want to take the time, then at least ask.  But if one wants to comment of who is setting the pace, you would hope they would at least look at all the lanes.

To broaden the discussion, to say that Edwards is showing pace-setting judgement "by virture of calling out the War on Terrorism as a marketing slogan" calls into question what separates judgement from analysis.  In the case of Obama's opposition to the war, he offered an analysis of the situation - the long term effects for the region, the threat Sadaam posed to our nation, the political reasons why our administration was eager to go to War - and that used that analysis to come to come a conclusion, after weighing all the factors, a judgement.  In the Edwards case he is offering analysis - that the Global War on Terror is a marketing tool to instill fear and stop us from looking at the real problems - is an analysis, but toward what end?  What decision is he reaching?  What are the pros and cons he is grappling with which would make that a display of judgement? 

Or perhaps I took it wrong and the statement only meant that he was offering pace-setting analysis.  Is that really the case?  I guess there is an element of breaking with the Beltway, of calling out Bush and his cronies as well as his past statements, of exposing the rhetoric for what it is - a marketing slogan.  Okay.  What's the product?

To be honest, I don't know whether Edwards has taken the bumper sticker slogan beyond a bumper sticker analysis.  I looked on his site and couldn't find anything on the GWOT so perhaps someone can fill me in.  I would love to hear what the Edwards analysis is  beyond simply calling an ad an ad.  What is the reason Edwards gives for the sloganeering? 

I know Obama has.  So I offer this up only to fill in his lane.  Here's what Obama offered as what the Bush government is selling, from the Take Back America conference in 2006:

I don't think this administration is full of stupid people - I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn't that their philosophy isn't working the way it's supposed to - it's that it is. It's that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do.

The reason they don't believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem. That we're better off if we dismantle it - if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand 'em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees...

It's called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it - Social Darwinism - every man or women for him or herself.

It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford - life isn't fair. It allows us to say to the child who didn't have the foresight to choose the right parents or be born in the right suburb - pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It lets us say to the guy who worked twenty or thirty years in the factory and then watched his plant move out to Mexico or China - we're sorry, but you're on your own.

It's a bracing idea. It's a tempting idea. And it's the easiest thing in the world.

But there's just one problem. It doesn't work. It ignores our history. Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we're all in it together and everybody's got a shot at opportunity.

---

by: DD2 @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 00:38:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One More Try! (0.00 / 1)

I thought I made a little progress with you earlier today, about the value of trying to engage in dialogue.

Now, not so much.

But, I'll try again:

It's not enough to be right.

No one cares if you're right if you're so damn arrogant that you don't care if you convince them.

In other words: No one cares if you're right if you only care about being right.  You could say "2+2=4" all day, and you'd be right.  But no one would care, because no one would be listening to you.

You've got to want to communicate--and communicte means listen as well as talk. (That's what campaigns are all about, and it's why position statements on a website are all fine and good, but they don't come close to addressing the argument I was making.)

So far, you don't want to communicate.

You just want to debate.

It's not the same thing at all.  Not even close. Not even close to being close.

A word to the wise:

"Change. You can change."

-- Tears for Fears.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 02:02:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree with DD2 (0.00 / 0)

I believe he was trying to communicate by reaching out to you for further explanation of this statement:

"For my money, Edwards is still the pace-setter here, by virtue of calling out the "War on Terror" as a marketing slogan.  It remains to be seen if Obama will dare to actually break with the Beltway establishment, or simply act as if he already has".

Can you please explain how this particular statement by John Edwards is any more a definite break with the Beltway establishment than the statements of Barack Obama?

I believe that one could rewrite the second sentence, replacing "Obama" with "Edwards" and still have a truthful statement.  Why am I wrong?

You have asked that Obama demonstrate that his life experiences have translated into good judgement, yet do not ask Edwards to do the same. How does his analysis (3 years after the fact) that the Bush Administration used the "War on Terror" as a political ploy demonstrate sound judgement, or a break with the Beltway? 

I hope you can appreciate my attempt to engage you in a discussion.  I'm not lecturing you, nor dismissing you as arrogant.  I simply want you to explain how you came to your conclusion.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 09:04:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bingo! (4.00 / 1)

You are talking to me, not at me.  You get the giant panda!  You may not consciously understand the difference, but you are actually trying to engage me, which is the major point I've been trying to make, over and over and over again.

Can you please explain how this particular statement by John Edwards is any more a definite break with the Beltway establishment than the statements of Barack Obama?

Simple: It rejects the fundamental frame that justifies the Bush Agenda.  Here's what Edwards told Time.  First, Time's account of how Edwards came out against the phrase:

At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."

Then Edwards explains:

"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

Furthermore, Time wrote:

Edwards, previewing the foreign policy he will unveil in coming weeks, made it clear that his objections to Bush's world view are not merely semantic. Indeed, the Edwards foreign policy will be built around a rejection of the Bush doctrine, which puts a primary emphasis on the projection of American military power. "Americans are completely prepared for, and receptive to, an alternative approach," Edwards said. "I don't think they would accept an approach that did not include a component of strength. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it." [Emphasis added]

One final passage from that story:

"What they [The Bush Administration] have proven beyond any doubt is that the exercise of raw power does not make you a leader," Edwards said. He stated he doesn't know why the other top-tier Democrats didn't join him in boycotting GWOT, but added: "My conjecture is that they've used the term so many times themselves that they would be concerned about saying that they reject it now. And they're also concerned about the political implications. I'm going to say the truth, and that's it."

It should be noted that this article is by Mike Alen, of The Politico, who is not at all sympathetic to what Edwards is saying.  He ends the article by stating flatly:

But the truth is that the war on terror is destined to outlast a change in the Oval Office - or in vocabulary.

Still, Edwards communicates a different vision, despite the antipathy of the reporter to what he's saying.  And that's what it takes.

Now, just because Edwards took the lead, and Obama is still equivocating, that's not decisive for me.  Obama could come to see the wisdom of what Edwards has done, and he could even go beyond him.  (The positions Edwards has taken on Iraq and domestic security are good, but certainly not perfect.) That's the kind of competition I'd love to see.  But so far, Edwards is the one who has decisively rejected the conceptual framework from which Bush's entire agenda flows.

Obama could change this, but not simply by issuing a press release or putting up a superior position paper on his website.  He needs to make a very public declaration, much as Edwards has done.  I don't mean to demean position papers, but this is not about the fine print.  Campaigns are primarily about the grand narratives they tell.  The fine print is important to give credibility to the grand narrative, but it cannot substitute for the deficiencies of the grand narrative.  (This is why Kerry lost, IMHO, btw.)

I'm not committed to any candidate.  What I'm committed to is devloping policies that actually work, and decisively break with the failed conservative politicies of the past.  This requires going to the root of the problem.  So far, Edwards is doing this better than Obama.

I don't expect that what I've written will satisfy you.  But I hope it can help us focus more on specifics of how we see things differently.

Specifically, you wrote:

You have asked that Obama demonstrate that his life experiences have translated into good judgement, yet do not ask Edwards to do the same. How does his analysis (3 years after the fact) that the Bush Administration used the "War on Terror" as a political ploy demonstrate sound judgement, or a break with the Beltway?

Your statement here contains a presumption that simply because I haven't said something, that I wouldn't say it.  The reason I didn't ask that Edwards "demonstrate that his life experiences have translated into good judgement" is three-fold:  First, it wasn't the topic being discussed.  Second, Edwards has not narratively forwarded his biography ahead of his policy positions to the extent that Obama has, so he hasn't brought the issue to the fore by his own actions. Third, I think that Edwards has demonstrated learning from his mistakes in trusting the Bush Administration.

This three-fold explanation doesn't take the question off the table.  Eveyone should be judged not just by "experience," but what they have done with it.  So far, Edwards comes off pretty well in this regard.  His problem, in my mind, lies elsewhere: I still have reservations because Edwards trusted Bush in the first place.  But no one can doubt that he has learned the lesson of just how mistaken that trust was in a way that goes beyond what the Versailles Conventional Wisdom allows.

Edwards demonstrates a break with the Beltway--a break Obama has not made--by calling for ending the occupation by cutting off funding, the avenue that the Founders specifically designed for this very purpose.  Obama, on the other hand, has reinforced the rightwing frame by rejecting "playing chicken" with troops in the field.

Inadvertantly or not, Obama added to the rightwing noise cloud precisely at the moment when he should have been clearly stating that cutting off funding was the way to support the troops--and the Consitution.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 12:04:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the goal is conversation, not debate (4.00 / 1)

it would be nice if you would limit the amount of things which are so damn debatable.  You talk about how important Grand Narratives are and yet you consistently try to limit discussion by the narrow frames you say are the only ones worthy of discussion and try to stop the natural flow of where the discussion may go.  I think it's kind of interesting that the type of grand narrative you ask for was given by Obama 3 days before that SC debate in his address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where he said

I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth. We just have to show the world why this is so. This President may occupy the White House, but for the last six years the position of leader of the free world has remained open. And it's time to fill that role once more.

I believe that the single most important job of any President is to protect the American people. And I am equally convinced that doing that job effectively in the 21st century will require a new vision of American leadership and a new conception of our national security - a vision that draws from the lessons of the past, but is not bound by outdated thinking.

In today's globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people.

But let's talk about frames for a moment.  Frames are a hot word among the so-called Progressive community and yet whenever I hear it I think of my neighbor who when he sold his house went out and bought the most expensive frames he could and never changed the pictures which came with them.  It was all about the frames. 

That's my problem with this campaign against the frame of GWOT. It's not the frame around the picture which is important, it's the picture itself, it is Bush's agenda and in this case the frame is not just to constrict the picture but to actually distract us from it.  Which is why I brought up Obama's comments on Social Darwinism which along with the assault on our Civil Liberties is part of the Bush Agenda.  What bothers me about the approach of focusing so much on the frame itself is that it minimizes the discussion of what should be our central focus.  Or as I asked in my post above, okay it's a marketing slogan but what is the product?  It is the product, Bush's agenda, where our focus and our discussion should be.

And often this structuring the world in terms of frames has a way of minimizing what makes up the frame.  Yes, GWOT is a bumper sticker which Bush uses, but the reason so many raised their hands at the debate, and probably why Mike Allen has problems with Edwards, is that Edwards himself is playing a word game here which reduces harsh reality to semantics. That Bush has taken something very serious and created a slogan does not diminish the fact that there actually is a global war - struggle would be a better world - against terrorism.  People out of desperation have turned to terrorism as a means of redress, and in doing so have ensnared countless innocents and subjected them to daily horror, and fear.  This is the reality and I find it wrong-headed to do anything which takes our focus away from that realization. 

This is where your Grand Narrative comes in, which is grander than any frame.  It's where the understanding that the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people comes in, and the realization that Whether it's global terrorism or pandemic disease, dramatic climate change or the proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation, the threats we face at the dawn of the 21st century can no longer be contained by borders and boundaries.

---

by: DD2 @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 14:00:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Discernment (0.00 / 0)

If the goal is conversation, not debate

it would be nice if you would limit the amount of things which are so damn debatable.

Everything is debatable.  It's up to each of us to exercise our discernment in choosing how, when, where and what to debate if we are interested in having a converstation as well.

For example, I could fire back at your cutsie attacks on framing, especially since I reviewed Goerge Lakoff's Moral Politics for the Christian Science Monitor back in 1996, so there's nothing remotely new or trendy in my invocation of Lakoffian terminology.  (Plus, I read my first book by Lakoff well before that, back in 1989.  So I din't even come to him through his work in politics.)

Instead, I'll agree with you 100% about shared security.  (Lakoff has also done some very significant work on framing a cooperative, inter-dependent worldview in political discourse, btw.)

The point is, however, that there is nothing really new about this.  This has been a significant part of the American worldview for a long, long time.  Not always a dominant one, and not always one that is faithfully followed, but it's been there.  It would be very fruitful to discuss what this can mean and how to rearticulate it in a post-post-9/11 world.  But it would not be very fruitful to pretend that Obama has some sort of patent on it.

Now I have to go.  But I'll check back later this evening.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 17:10:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

3 fold answer; 4 fold response + (0.00 / 0)

"Your statement here contains a presumption that simply because I haven't said something, that I wouldn't say it.  The reason I didn't ask that Edwards "demonstrate that his life experiences have translated into good judgement" is three-fold:  First, it wasn't the topic being discussed.  Second, Edwards has not narratively forwarded his biography ahead of his policy positions to the extent that Obama has, so he hasn't brought the issue to the fore by his own actions. Third, I think that Edwards has demonstrated learning from his mistakes in trusting the Bush Administration."

1. I made no presumption about what you might do in the future, or what you had done in the past with regard to John Edwards.  I apologize if I was not clear in my post.

2. I rather think this became a topic of discussion when you introjected Edwards into that discussion.

3. I think you are splitting hairs concerning the issue of the candidates presenting their biographies.  True, in recent days, Obama has been the most vocal in this regard, but don't you think that all the candidates (and rightly so) use their biographies to shape their positions?  Just because Edwards - or any other candidate - does not speak as loudly as another on this topic does not mean it is not relevant to the discussion, does it? 

4. Sorry, I don't buy it.  And based on your comments later in your post, I'm not sure you buy it either.  Given Edwards rhetoric during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, characterizing it as simply "trusting Bush" is very kind. 

You make a good point about the issue of cutting off funds for the war as a point of differentiation between Edwards and Obama.  But, its a bit like proposing to close the barn door after the cows have escaped - and by someone that helped Bush open that door in the first place, isn't it?

I can't say it plainly enough - that vote in support of the Resolution that gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq are is a key element that undermines any claim to good judgement or breaking from the BeltWay groupthink.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 15:04:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

4 For 4 (0.00 / 0)

1. I made no presumption about what you might do in the future, or what you had done in the past with regard to John Edwards.  I apologize if I was not clear in my post.

I'm the one who should apologize for not being clearer.  My point was about an implicit presumption.  An awful lot of political discourse involves poeple talking past one antoher, based on assumptions they don't even recognize.  So an important step in getting into synch is often to bring those assumptions to light so they can be discussed.

2. I rather think this became a topic of discussion when you introjected Edwards into that discussion.

It's fine to discuss Edwards vs. Obama any way that you want to.  My point is simply that the discussion has to make sense in order to carry much weight with people who aren't already convinced.  The way you challenged me about Edwards seemed arbitrary and ill-considered because of the reasons I laid out. In contrast, there is nothing arbitrary in questioning Edwards voting for the AUMF in the first place.

3. I think you are splitting hairs concerning the issue of the candidates presenting their biographies.

Obama:

"Look, one thing I'm very confident about is my judgment in foreign policy is, I believe, better than anyone else in this race, Republican or Democrat.

"And I don't base that simply on the fact that I was right on the war in Iraq. But if you look at how I approached the problem. What I was drawing on was a set of experiences that come from a life of living overseas, having family overseas, being able to see the world through the eyes of people outside our borders.

That is s direct quote of a direct argument claiming superior judgement based solely on biography.  I challenge you to find anything comparable from Edwards.

4. Sorry, I don't buy it.  And based on your comments later in your post, I'm not sure you buy it either.

Trust me, I buy it.  I have a background in mathematics. I find it very easy to logically separate two different arguments even if they intersect repeatedly.  That's precisely why I bother digging beneath the surface to talk about implicit assumptions.  It's the most efficacious way that I know to disentangle arguments whose logics are quite different, even if they cross the same terrritory.

Given Edwards rhetoric during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, characterizing it as simply "trusting Bush" is very kind.

I don't know how kind it is.  I get the impression you think I'm excusing him.  I'm not.  I recognized Bush as a sociopath from a million miles away.

Edwards, I think, made the mistake of approaching Washington, DC in somewhat the same mindset he had as a lawyer, in which even lawyers who go up against each other repeatedly and heatedly have a shared respect for institutions of the law that establishes a certain floor of trust.  I think he was terribly naive to do so, but I think he's learned his lesson.

You make a good point about the issue of cutting off funds for the war as a point of differentiation between Edwards and Obama.  But, its a bit like proposing to close the barn door after the cows have escaped - and by someone that helped Bush open that door in the first place, isn't it?

Nonetheless, Obama's still shooing the cows out the door even though he says it was a mistake in the first place.

I can't say it plainly enough - that vote in support of the Resolution that gave Bush the green light to invade Iraq are is a key element that undermines any claim to good judgement or breaking from the BeltWay groupthink.

We can certainly debate what supporting the AUMF says about Edwards having had good judgment at the time.  It's important to remember that Bush intentionally lied about it, saying that he needed the AUMF in order to have the authority to credibly threaten Saddam, and thus secure his compliance.  Well, he got Saddam's compliance, but then invaded anyway.  So Edwards was mistaken in judging Bush as an honorable man.  But it doesn't mean he was mistaken in wanting to invade Iraq, because the reasoning he advanced did not lead to the invasion.  It was Bush's subversion of that reasoning that lead to the invasion.

Again, this is about untangling different arguments.  I'm not saying that Edwards had good judgement.  But his bad judgement was not that of the neo-cons.  And that's precisely why, IMHO, Edwards has found it so much easier to cut loose of the conventional wisdom, while Clinton has not.  His bad judgement was of Bush's character, which is not a policy judgement at all. And it's precisely because it wasn't a policy judgment at bottom that explains why he has been able to break with the Versailles consensus.

As it stands, Obama has frittered away his initial position of superiority, and that shows an ongoing and much more serious problem of judgment in my mind.

We may never concvince one another.  But at least we should be able to understand one another.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 16:51:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

Thomas Friedman (yes, that Thomas Friedman) essentially made this same argument in his NYT column a couple of months ago, that Obama's life experience made him the best candidate to repair America's broken relationship with the world:

I believe that what has propelled [Obama's] candidacy up to now is that many Americans have projected onto him their hunger for community, their hunger for a president with the voices, instincts and moral authority to make it so much harder for foreigners to be anti-American,  or for Americans to be anti-one another.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

---

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 18:17:27 PM CDT

That's Okay, Jenifer, I Won't Hold It Against Obama (0.00 / 0)

Ordinarily anyting or anyone Thomas Friedman praises should be shunned like the plague.

When he praises chocolate, it's because of the slave labor involved. When he comes out in praise of kittens, you can make book that a terrible feline virus is about to hit, which easily passes from kittens to children, with a 90% mortality rate.

But, to answer the Dirty Harry Question, "Yes, I'm feeling lucky."  It could be one of those 10% days.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 20:09:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama - Iraq (0.00 / 0)

I would have preferred that Obama resisted voting for all of the Iraq war
appropriations. I would have preferred that he supported Lamont when
no one thought he had a chance to wrest the democratic nomination for
Senator from Lieberman. Instead, he went to Connecticut and supported
Lieberman. How passionate could he be against the war to lend his support
to Lieberman - as recently as 2006? He spoke also about the assault on our
civil liberties posed by the Patriot Act - and then voted for it. So, I remain
unconvinced about where he stands on these important issues.

---

by: lentinel @ Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 20:20:08 PM CDT

Obama & judgement (4.00 / 1)

I am an expat from Kansas City who happens to have lived in Melbourne, Australia for the past 21 years.  I vote, and I stay in touch with our political situation, (much easier with todays internet).  I take your point about Obama's experience living overseas being of help to him.  And I want to echo that living outside of the USA does help put a different perspective on things than living inside the beltway.

But I question his judgement, and political experience when he continues to enable Lieberman (traitor), and to continue to "turn the other cheek" to people who are deliberately working at destroying our constitution. 

I spent 4 years in the US Air Force from 1972-1976.  I volunteered.  I care deeply about my country, habeous corpus, and the rule of law.  I actually like Obama, but have yet to be convinced he has the right stuff to represent me as president.

I think whoever wins the Dem ticket gets my vote, but Obama needs to show me he is willing to stand up for the constitution if he wants my vote. I have had a enough of one way so called bi-partisanship.

---

by: KC Bill 13 @ Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 05:28:49 AM CDT

Thanks for the discussion (0.00 / 0)

Believe me - I have no intention of speaking past people.  I appreciate your efforts to clarify your points.

I can see the logic in most of what you are saying, and you are right - I did think you were excusing Edwards and holding Obama to a different standard.  Now, I see that I was wrong.

I know I have a bee in my bonnet about the AUMF issue, but it was a very, very sad moment in US history - especially post WW2.  I was so thrilled to see 100's of thousands of people across the country and around the world get out in the streets to protest a war - BEFORE it began.  I truly thought we would be able to actually STOP the rush to war, I thought that the Democrats in Congress might actually make an effort to do their Constutional duty and begin a debate to declare war - BEFORE Bush committed troops to battle.  We did our part and the Congress abandoned us - in droves.

To me, the whole "Bush lied to me" argument is specious.  Bush lied to ME, TOO - yet, even without access to any top-secret, classified documents, no ability to talk to any head of any intelligence or military organization, and no congressional staff to do research - I could see through the lies.

Apparently, you did too.

As an aside:  You cite your background in mathematics as the means to allow you to separate entangled arguments.  I find that an interesting contrast.  My background (and current work) are based in biochemistry and the study of physiology - so I have a tendency to see how things interrelate and influence each other - more about defining the "entanglements", rather than trying to sort them out. 

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 09:35:21 AM CDT