Like most such events, the Presidential debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain was pretty much a draw last night. Not really a surprise. With the rare exception of the single exchange between Bernie Shaw and Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in the same election year, these things really don't produce all that much. The much-hyped Gore-sigh was a non-event until a few right-wingers noticed it and made much more of it than it was (for details, see Bob Somerby's many mentions of the invention of the myth of Sighing Al). Equally silly and false, there was the discussion of Pres. Bush looking at his watch during a 1992 appearance with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. The idea that these little tics and asides are noticed and become iconic moments is nothing more or less than the fantasizing of people trying to create drama where none really exists.
Having said that the event was pretty much a draw and non-dramatic, I will say that I think this presents a problem for John McCain. Part of his argument has always been that he is far more experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy matters; that his judgment, especially concerning the war in Iraq, is far superior to Sen. Obama's. Now, anyone considering the actual facts of the matter would question the basis of such a claim, but we'll let that slide for the moment. For our purposes, I would only ask folks to think about this: If McCain has such a great grasp of foreign policy, and if his judgment is far more sound that Obama's, then how could Obama hold his own? How is it possible for Barack Obama to be able to stand on the stage with McCain and not end up with egg on his face, is McCain is the expert?
This is to say that the results of a tie, at least in this case, go to Obama, at least on points.
Having said this, I don't think this matters in the immediate aftermath. Unless someone finds a video clip of Obama sighing while looking at his watch and humming Rage Against the Machine songs while putting his prayer rug down, pointing towards Mecca, I think most people will consider the debate as some kind of hermetically sealed event, cut off from the arguments both campaigns have been making, and from the events of the past couple weeks. Had Jim Lehrer been smart, savvy, or even as tricksey as Bernie Shaw twenty years ago, he might have had a good "gotcha" for each candidate, with McCain's manic weirdness from the past couple days being top of the list. He did not do so, more's the pity.
Over all, this debate didn't really do much more than allow each candidate to repeat his talking points, elaborating a bit. I think a far more interesting debate will be next Thursday's between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. I do so hope that Biden sets aside any thoughts of chivalry and deference. I think it might be funny if one question concerned her understanding of the English language, since - from the various clips circling around from her interview with Katie Couric - it seems clear she can't even construct a sentence.
“This is the beginning of Bradford County,”
4 months ago
9 comments:
I thought Obama did reasonably well in the economics section of the debate, but I was so disappointed in his performance in the foreign policy portion that I couldn't watch all of it.
Again we have a Democratic candidate whose positions on foreign policy are nearly identical with his opponent - they differ on tactics, not strategy. I strongly prefer Obama's tactics (diplomacy rather than bombing), but it is painfully obvious that he cannot articulate a new foreign policy. He can't say that the war on terror is a sham, he can't say that we will never win over Afghanistan or Iraq, he can't say that the Iranian "threat" is greatly exaggerated, he can't say that Georgia was the aggressor not Russia and that the Bush-Clinton NATO expansion is the primary destabilizing force in Eastern Europe. As a result, his arguments are puny.
I can only hope that, as the Republicans believe, Americans are judging the candidates based on personality. McCain acted the mean old grandpa and I can't imagine many undecided voters found that comforting. I would think most people would prefer to have a beer with Obama, so he must have won.
Foreign policy is a difficult subject for either party to discuss because the issues in question usually revolve around what is perceived as our national interest, narrowly defined as our economic and security interests of the immediate moment. I think it was Disreali who said that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests, but he was wrong. Nations actually have ephemeral interests, but should cultivate long-lasting relationships with other nations.
As far as the recent Georgia-Russia war is concerned, I cannot necessarily fault Obama for not differing so much from the conventional response. While awakening from my own dogmatic slumber of the American tendency to favor the underdog, I still am troubled by the reawakening of Russian adventurism in its near-abroad. While I agree it would be fool-hardy, at this late date, to bring Georgia, or Ukraine or the Baltic States for that matter, in to NATO, had it been done a decade ago, or even five or six years ago; and had the US not pissed away its military strength in the fruitless nonsense in Iraq, Georgia might have managed to reacquire South Ossetia and Abkahzia without Russian interference. I am still troubled by the ease with which these provinces of Georgia slipped away, with the general acquiescence of the international community in the face of Russian tanks, because it bodes ill for the territorial integrity of any nation-state facing turmoil. These are issues that need to be addressed far more thoroughly than they have been, and without the knee-jerk anti-Russianism of recent weeks.
Having said that, American interests are not tied in to the territorial integrity of Georgia at this time. They are tied in to seeing Russia revived, if for no other reason than as a balancing force in Asia against China. Bush has managed Russian affairs very badly, and I don't think our current conventional wisdom provides good guidance towards moving forward more constructively (it doesn't help that our current Secretary of State, while seeming to have an understanding of Russia in the Soviet era, acted like a Cold War Secretary, rather than dealing with the situation at hand).
I am of the opinion that any people have a right to choose their own government, even when that choice involves separation from the nation in which they are currently. In the case of the two Georgian provinces, they were added by Stalin, so there's little historic tie to Georgia. There was an agreement in place on shared governance and for Georgia to unilaterally break that agreement by military force was unacceptable, as was Russia's response.
Foreign affairs issues are unfortunately far too complex for most Americans, and they do respond to the concept that America is the great and good democracy and we are only and always helping people gain freedom, etc. Shows a pretty large gap in knowledge of history as well.
NATO should have been dissolved when the Soviet Union broke up. It exists mainly as a way to sell US armaments and at present, inject US power into Eastern Europe. What exactly is there to gain in pushing NATO into the former Soviet republics other than to antagonize Russia and make it clear to them that we won't tolerate a regional rival? I'm sure the Putin-Chavez summit will be roundly criticized as "dangerous" by the elite pundits and press, and that's a direct result of our incursions into the traditional Russian sphere of influence.
I am not a devotee of Wilsonian national self-determination; it is the source of far too much mischief, not least by both the Nazis and the Soviet Union. Nations have the right to defend their integrity, no matter how artificially it may have been created (indeed, I challenge anyone to prove that nation-states are anything other than artificial creations). Particularly in Eastern and Southern Europe, and of course Africa, it is the source of far too much mischief, instability, and violence. One of the keenest observers of contemporary African politics, Basil Davidson, argues forcefully that much of Africa's contemporary problems lie not in the artificiality of the contemporary national map, but the exploitation of non-national prejudices by First World forces for their own ends. Indeed, while noting the fakery of so many African states, he argues that national feeling needs to be cultivated more in Africa, rather than surrender via Wilsonian idealism to the sundering the current map (such as Eritrea's withdrawal from Ethiopia).
The situation in the Caucuses is indeed complex; I do not believe the specifics of the situation warrant American or western intrusion, especially as the Georgians seemed to be coaxed by the belief that they would come to their aid if the Russians intervened. Yet, I also do not think that secession either through violence or without substantial mutual support (as in Czech Republic and Slovakia, another artificial state, whose previous existence was solely under the protection and recognition of the Axis powers).
The larger issue is how we respond to renewed Russian muscle-flexing in its Near Abroad. The Caucuses are one thing (even though there are issues of international accessibility to petroleum reserves). Even the central Asian Republics can be considered separately from the rest. Specifically the Ukraine and the Baltic States, as well as (in particular) Poland (much of its history was as a province of Russia) and Finland there needs to be more concentration on how much and how far we allow Russia to assert itself, and what our response can and should be depending upon the event and the place of the event.
"Like most such events, the Presidential debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain was pretty much a draw last night. "
I hate to disagree, but are you kidding?
The second Ol' Grampy McChicken walked on stage last night he lost.
I know we all have short memories for these things, but remember when McCain said he wouldn't be at the debate.
And he went anyway.
Obama made McCain his b*tch last night just by forcing him to show up.
I was only speaking of "the debate" portion of the debate. I agree that McCain pretty much lost face by being forced to show up. It was pretty clear he was mad at Obama - I noticed the lack of eye contact early on - and treated him with a certain disdain. Obama didn't let it rattle him; he just kept on making his points.
Considered within the much broader context of the whole Presidential campaign, yeah, McCain was pwned by Obama last night, which is a nice thing to see. On the merits, however, it was pretty much a draw because neither man is really good in this kind of forum. I guess that was my point.
"there needs to be more concentration on how much and how far we allow Russia to assert itself, and what our response can and should be depending upon the event and the place of the event."
Don't you imagine that Russians are thinking the same thing except that it is the US they are concerned about?
We have to find a way out of this entire mindset. What right does the US have to determine how far to "allow Russia to assert itself"? What possible US response could be justifiable beyond diplomacy?
Obviously if a power vacuum exists, some nations will act to fill it but these power grabs are detrimental to the world at large and especially to the people who are trying to live in the disputed area.
McCain wants a "league of democracies" - essentially a UN with membership selected by the US to exclude Russia and China and any nation allied with them. It's hard to imagine that post-Bush many other nations would be eager to join an organization designed to maintain US hegemony.
We must work diligently and quickly to find a truly effective international agreement that includes Russia and China as equal partners with the US and other major nations. The UN is all we have now and it has been rendered virtually useless.
A unilateral US global police force, even if disguised with some European partnerships, is something we cannot afford to maintain, and it will be ineffective as well.
Obviously I believe the Russians are think the same thing about us. That is what nation-states do, especially powerful ones. That is the way it has always been. I do not disagree that it would be wonderful if we could develop the notion of enlightened self-interest enough to move beyond pure power politics, but, except for certain cases and issues, I just don't see it happening.
One thing it is important to remember about the current Russian situation is the character of Vladimir Putin. He seems to be developing a cult of personality, and holding the reins of power even as the state has another President. He is the person with whom we have to deal, and we cannot be lulled in to believing that he might react differently if we do. Part of the "real" in political realism is accepting the way the world really is, rather than how we would like it to be.
Of course, it could be argued that the US has dissipated its power so much over the past eight years that such thoughts no longer carry the weight they once did; yet, we should still be cognizant, perhaps even more so in our weakened diplomatic and military state, of the way Russia acts, and the decisions it makes vis-a-vis its near abroad. To do otherwise out of a misguided belief that to do so would lead to better behavior on the part of other nations would be foolhardy.
As for NATO, sure it should have disappeared. It has not, nor will it because such entities take on a life of their own, regardless of the surrounding situation. Again, we have to deal with what is, rather than what should be, or could be if the world, and nations, were different.
To deal with what is, one has to determine what leverage we have, if any, with the Russians and what they want that we have (or more precisely, what Putin wants). I hardly think it impossible to negotiate a more equitable European order with Putin. As Reagan said, trust and verify.
I am not such an idealist that I think we can make the world a happy and peaceful planet, but I don't buy the "best is the enemy of good" argument either. When you fail to even consider a policy because you believe it doomed to failure, you are doing a disservice to your nation or the world. We cannot achieve the ideal, but if we don't even admit it as a goal, we will never get any closer.
Post a Comment