I watched "Bush's War" last night on my DVR and for the first time in a long while it made me pause and reconsider my support for Obama. If you haven't seen it, the show essentially re-lives the internal battles among administration insiders in the run up to the war. It also lays bare the fact that personal politics - as opposed to policy politics - determined our strategy and execution in Iraq. Cheney and Rumsfeld used their experience with personal politics to cut out, subvert and disenfranchise anyone who they felt was an obstacle to their success, regardless of the costs to the country, our soldiers or our security. This seems especially odd, since that during the 2000 election the experience of Bush's advisers- Cheney especially- was widely cited as an asset that would help the relatively inexperienced Governor mitigate his own inexperience. Bush could rely on these men, it was claimed, to help him navigate difficult situations when they arose. In reality these advisers - Cheney especially - used their experience advantage to circumvent policy analysis and discussion that threatened the tactics they supported. And we know how the story goes from there.
So back to Obama. I have never bought the "experience" argument that Clinton has been pushing. To be blunt, I think her 35 years of experience is a) an exaggeration and b) mostly irrelevant. However, one area where she clearly does have more experience than Obama is in this arena of political in-fighting. She has lived through decades of it in both her professional and personal lives. Judging by her current campaign, Clinton has certainly learned these lessons well.
The question is, does this make her less likely to fall prey to the machinations of less-than-altruistic advisers? Or does the fact that Obama is generally better prepared to analyze complex issues than Bush make this a red herring?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I find your commentary insightful, but would like to propose something a little different than your concluding questions suggest. Politics is the art of the possible, and what's possible is not what people want but what they are willing to accept. So the key to transformative leadership is fundamentally changing the expectation of those you serve. JFK, recognizing this, unveiled a "new frontier" in July of 1960 and tapped into the frustrations of his fellow citizens to change what folks were willing to accept. Reagan and Bush have been our two transformative leaders since then and have changed expectations dramatically in the other direction, helping to nurture a cynicism so pronounced that we are now unwilling to believe that positive change is possible. Now that we've accepted that, Obama's task is huge, but if he can convinces that what is possible is greater than we currently believe, our Congress -- the greatest lagging indicator in America -- will have no choice but to go along with his leadership.
Post a Comment