Washington Post writer David Ignatius drew attention in his column yesterday to a new book by a former CIA officer named Marc Sageman. The book (Leaderless Jihad) apparently argues that the current threat posed by terrorism is being vastly overstated. Based on his experience running spies in Pakistan and as a forensic pschologist who has studied information on over 500 terrorists, Sageman concludes the terrorists we have these days are not your father's terrorists. He argues that the first generation terrorists (like Osama bin Laden) are greatly reduced in number and hiding out. The second generation of terrorists (those who trained in Al Queda camps in the 1990s) have suffered a similar fate. That leaves the third generation who are drawn to terrorism more the way urban youth are drawn to street gangs than the way fanatics are drawn waging Jihad against the west.
Undeniably, it's an intriguing argument. Let's even assume for a moment that Sageman's research is impeccable, that his logic is sound, and that his argument is substantively correct. Even then, you're not going to hear anyone talking about it this campaign.
For obvious reasons, Republican John McCain is not going to come on TV and say that the whole War on Terror is overblown. He's essentially running his campaign on the premise that he's ready to be commander in chief in a dangerous world at war. What good is military background, years of experience on foreign policy issues, and being correct about the surge if there's no war to command? (For an interesting take on the surge, read Michael Kinsley's Slate column from a few days ago.) Undermining the war on terror undermines the rationale for McCain's campaign as it currently stands. So don't look for him to be opening his mouth on the issue.
Likewise, you can't expect either Democrat to say anything about it either. They're already being portrayed as barely one step above white-flag-waving surrender monkeys. What Democrat is going to come up on the stage and say, "You know, I don't think this whole terror thing is that big of a deal after all." The mind boggles at what a Republican campaign would do with that. So don't look for the Democrats to raise the issue either.
What we're stuck with - at least for the time being - is a situation where neither political party can blink on the issue for fear of being called weak, while the essential reality of the threat we're fighting may have changed.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Transactional and Transformational Politics
In the March 10 issue of The Nation New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman has written a very interesting article that's well worth the reading. While you should read it, let me give you the bare bones version here.
The gist of the article is that there are two levels of politics. There's the day to day transactions or the sausage making part of the process. There's also the transformative level that seeks to change the whole nature of the debate. Schneiderman's point is that an effective progressive movement would need to have both. You need the transaction side to get things done and move the agenda. This, in turn, boosts the transformation side by shifting the whole landscape. Think FDR for this. Transactionally, he got all sorts of programs passed through the New Deal using all of the political maneuvering we know and love. Transformationally, he radically altered what we expect our government to do. Had he spent all his time "making sausage" or all his time giving speeches about not fearing fear we wouldn't be hearing much about him today. (William F. Buckley Jr. is another example of a transformational leader whose influence encouraged others to alter their transactional dealings.)
Though Schneiderman doesn't say so, his distinction is exactly the distinction that has framed the Democratic primary race this cycle. On the transactional side we have Hillary Clinton saying that she knows how to work the system and get things done. On the other side, we have Barack Obama saying that he will fundamentally change how things are done in Washington. The problem is that neither alone will work. Whoever the president may be, he or she will have to find a way to tap into both streams in order to be effective.
Ultimately, that's why I support Barack Obama. I think he is the only candidate of the two who has the potential to be a transformative president. Clinton, despite her boasts of transactional know-how, doesn't have that potential. And I think that Obama can learn how to transact business as president. He may not be totally ready on day one, but he'll get there quickly. I think it will be much easier to learn how to make deals than to learn how to inspire people and lead.
The choice for me, then, is between two well-qualified candidates: one who will do well, one who will do well and fundamentally alter how we think of progressive politics and politics in general. That doesn't seem like much of a choice at all.
The gist of the article is that there are two levels of politics. There's the day to day transactions or the sausage making part of the process. There's also the transformative level that seeks to change the whole nature of the debate. Schneiderman's point is that an effective progressive movement would need to have both. You need the transaction side to get things done and move the agenda. This, in turn, boosts the transformation side by shifting the whole landscape. Think FDR for this. Transactionally, he got all sorts of programs passed through the New Deal using all of the political maneuvering we know and love. Transformationally, he radically altered what we expect our government to do. Had he spent all his time "making sausage" or all his time giving speeches about not fearing fear we wouldn't be hearing much about him today. (William F. Buckley Jr. is another example of a transformational leader whose influence encouraged others to alter their transactional dealings.)
Though Schneiderman doesn't say so, his distinction is exactly the distinction that has framed the Democratic primary race this cycle. On the transactional side we have Hillary Clinton saying that she knows how to work the system and get things done. On the other side, we have Barack Obama saying that he will fundamentally change how things are done in Washington. The problem is that neither alone will work. Whoever the president may be, he or she will have to find a way to tap into both streams in order to be effective.
Ultimately, that's why I support Barack Obama. I think he is the only candidate of the two who has the potential to be a transformative president. Clinton, despite her boasts of transactional know-how, doesn't have that potential. And I think that Obama can learn how to transact business as president. He may not be totally ready on day one, but he'll get there quickly. I think it will be much easier to learn how to make deals than to learn how to inspire people and lead.
The choice for me, then, is between two well-qualified candidates: one who will do well, one who will do well and fundamentally alter how we think of progressive politics and politics in general. That doesn't seem like much of a choice at all.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Buckley, R.I.P.
William F. Buckley died today. In a contoversial piece for Esquire Magazine in 1969, Gore Vidal described Buckley as, "not unlike Hitler, but without the charm." While I don't agree with his positions, I do have to admit a certain respect for Buckley. Say what you will about his political ideology or his personal manner, but the fact that conservativism is seen as a valid political ideology today is directly attributable to Buckley. He was a prime example of a transformational leader (more on that tomorrow) who for better or worse has shaped political discourse for several generations. Though he was wrong, that achievement deserves our respect.
Swift Turbans for Truth
Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Even as new polls show Obama taking a pretty good lead nationwide (presumably as Democrats unite around their soon-to-be nominee) another tempest-in-a-teapot-here-today-gone-tomorrow controvery kicks up. This time, it's over a photo published on the Drudge website showing Obama wearing a turban. The photo was apparently taken on a trip to Kenya and it's also apparently common practice for visiting senators to try on the traditional clothing of the countries they visit. The Obama campaign claims (probably correctly) that this is an effort to stoke the fires that Obama is a foreign born radical Muslim (and probably a terrorist too) that flame up from time to time. He took the offensive immediately and shot back at the underhanded tactics that would lead to that photo being released.
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that it's custom for our senators - our duly elected representatives - to go to other countries and play dress up. I'm more interested in looking at the wisdom of the response from the Obama campaign.
Now, we're told over and over again that if we learned nothing else from the Kerry debacle - I mean, campaign - it's that no charge can remain unanswered. The fact that swift boating has entered the lexicon as a verb speaks to the wisdom of the strategy. However, I can't help but feel that the strength and vehemence of Obama's reaction was a mistake.
Whereas the damage from the original swift boat ads came from the words in the ads, the damage from the turban picture comes from the connotations that the picture will raise for people. Words are easy (at least relatively) to combat with words. Pictures are something else entirely. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I'd say it might even take more than that.
I'm reminded of the famous story of Leslie Stahl, then a CBS news reporter, trying to run a critical piece on the Reagan administration. The thrust of the piece was the difference between the president's photo-ops and his actual policies. Stahl ran images of Reagan surrounded by smiling senior citizens while she intoned about his cuts to programs for the elderly. After the piece ran on the news Stahl expected retrubution in some form from the administration. Instead she was thanked. They knew that the power of the images was going to be greater than the power of her words. She's basically just run an extended campaign ad for the president.
In a more contemporary example, think of all the drug commerical ads where soothing images run while a dry voice explains the variety of unpleasant things that may happen to you if you take the drug. You'll remember the image long after you stop being able to recite the complete list of side effects.
Where I'm going with this is that through his campaign's reaction, Obama gave license for every paper in the country to publish that photo. In New York alone I saw it on the cover of multiple newspapers yesterday. Yes, each photo will be accompanied by an article explaining the broader context. But the campaign is putting a lot of faith in people's willingness to read the article and in the power of words to overpower images. While I'm hardly one to dismiss "just words" I think that's hoping for an awful lot.
Let's set aside for a moment the fact that it's custom for our senators - our duly elected representatives - to go to other countries and play dress up. I'm more interested in looking at the wisdom of the response from the Obama campaign.
Now, we're told over and over again that if we learned nothing else from the Kerry debacle - I mean, campaign - it's that no charge can remain unanswered. The fact that swift boating has entered the lexicon as a verb speaks to the wisdom of the strategy. However, I can't help but feel that the strength and vehemence of Obama's reaction was a mistake.
Whereas the damage from the original swift boat ads came from the words in the ads, the damage from the turban picture comes from the connotations that the picture will raise for people. Words are easy (at least relatively) to combat with words. Pictures are something else entirely. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I'd say it might even take more than that.
I'm reminded of the famous story of Leslie Stahl, then a CBS news reporter, trying to run a critical piece on the Reagan administration. The thrust of the piece was the difference between the president's photo-ops and his actual policies. Stahl ran images of Reagan surrounded by smiling senior citizens while she intoned about his cuts to programs for the elderly. After the piece ran on the news Stahl expected retrubution in some form from the administration. Instead she was thanked. They knew that the power of the images was going to be greater than the power of her words. She's basically just run an extended campaign ad for the president.
In a more contemporary example, think of all the drug commerical ads where soothing images run while a dry voice explains the variety of unpleasant things that may happen to you if you take the drug. You'll remember the image long after you stop being able to recite the complete list of side effects.
Where I'm going with this is that through his campaign's reaction, Obama gave license for every paper in the country to publish that photo. In New York alone I saw it on the cover of multiple newspapers yesterday. Yes, each photo will be accompanied by an article explaining the broader context. But the campaign is putting a lot of faith in people's willingness to read the article and in the power of words to overpower images. While I'm hardly one to dismiss "just words" I think that's hoping for an awful lot.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Finish Her!
The writing certainly seems to be on the wall for the Hillary Clinton campaign. The Associated Press is reporting that in order for Clinton to clinch the nomination, she would need to win 57 percent of the remaining delegates. That would require Obama-like blowout victories in Texas and Ohio next Tuesday and huge victories in Mississippi and Pennsylvania beyond that. This is seeming increasingly unlikely as Real Clear Politics averages show Clinton at under 50 percent in those states with Obama right behind her. The writing is on the wall that the campaign is done, but Clinton persists, leaving the press and other Obama supporters wondering why.
The best analogy I can come up with comes from my days playing the Mortal Kombat video game. If I did well, there would come a point where a voice from the screen would shout out "FINISH HIM!!!!" At this point, if you entered exactly the right combination of buttons your guy would do something pretty awesome to "finish" your opponent. However, I was never able to get those combinations right and so my opponent, after wobbling around a bit while I flailed away at the buttons, would just fall down, presumably from exhaustion and boredom.
Not to oversimplify, but right now the Obama campaign is like me trying to play video games. The opponent is wobbling, waiting for the slightest breeze to blow her down and he's just not doing it. And it certainly isn't for lack of opportunities.
After the surprise win in Iowa, all Obama had to do in order to become president was win New Hampshire. Victory was in his grasp, the polls were in his favor, and the momentum was palpable.
But he didn't win.
Okay, South Carolina got the campaign back on track along with some other small wins. Now it was Super Tuesday, do or die day in the Clinton campaign. Obama was expected to win most of the smaller, interior states. All he had to do was win one or two of the delegate-rich coastal states and he'd be cruising to victory.
But he didn't.
And so the campaign has kept on. He's run off a string of victories with big margins and once again the press is clamoring for the final blow. The Clintons have even served it up, declaring that if Hillary doesn't win Ohio and Texas she almost certainly won't be the nominee. As Obama closes the gap in the polls in both states Hillary stands wobbling before him. Here's hoping that he can find the right combination of buttons to get the job done this time. Otherwise, it's a long wait for the next chance in Pennsylvania and I don't see her allowing herself to fall of her own accord in the meantime.
The best analogy I can come up with comes from my days playing the Mortal Kombat video game. If I did well, there would come a point where a voice from the screen would shout out "FINISH HIM!!!!" At this point, if you entered exactly the right combination of buttons your guy would do something pretty awesome to "finish" your opponent. However, I was never able to get those combinations right and so my opponent, after wobbling around a bit while I flailed away at the buttons, would just fall down, presumably from exhaustion and boredom.
Not to oversimplify, but right now the Obama campaign is like me trying to play video games. The opponent is wobbling, waiting for the slightest breeze to blow her down and he's just not doing it. And it certainly isn't for lack of opportunities.
After the surprise win in Iowa, all Obama had to do in order to become president was win New Hampshire. Victory was in his grasp, the polls were in his favor, and the momentum was palpable.
But he didn't win.
Okay, South Carolina got the campaign back on track along with some other small wins. Now it was Super Tuesday, do or die day in the Clinton campaign. Obama was expected to win most of the smaller, interior states. All he had to do was win one or two of the delegate-rich coastal states and he'd be cruising to victory.
But he didn't.
And so the campaign has kept on. He's run off a string of victories with big margins and once again the press is clamoring for the final blow. The Clintons have even served it up, declaring that if Hillary doesn't win Ohio and Texas she almost certainly won't be the nominee. As Obama closes the gap in the polls in both states Hillary stands wobbling before him. Here's hoping that he can find the right combination of buttons to get the job done this time. Otherwise, it's a long wait for the next chance in Pennsylvania and I don't see her allowing herself to fall of her own accord in the meantime.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Feeding the Beast
A recent New Yorker article ostensibly focused on whether or not John McCain could reinvent Republicanism also touched on some interesting points regarding the media strategies of the different campaigns. The profile of McCain opens with him engaged in long, frank conversations with members of the press aboard his campaign bus. This is contrasted with the "overly managed" campaigns of Obama and Clinton in which the media is held at arm's length and only fed pre-chewed sound bites and talking points. Obama's campaign in particular is singled out for its similarity to the Bush White House in terms of message discipline and rooting out leaks with "frightening intensity."
If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.
To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.
Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.
At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.
While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.
So what is a president to do?
Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.
McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.
If there's anything that the Bush media team has taught us, it is that hyper-fanaticism in message discipline does not work as a long-term media strategy. It can certainly be effective in the short term (and a campaign may be just the right amount of time), but over the course of a presidency the magic is bound to wear off.
To use a slightly less-than-flattering metaphor, the modern media is a thousand-headed beast with a voracious appetite that has to be fed 24 hours a day (if not more) in order to be kept happy. Faced with this reality, presidents must choose what they are going to do in order to keep the beast calm and well-fed. After all, even thousand-headed beasts will usually refrain from biting the hand that feeds it. What the Reagan White House did so well and the Bush White House tried to take even further was placing such an extreme level of discipline on those who talk to the press that no matter how hungry the beast gets, there is still only one story to cover: the story the White House wants covered. In theory this makes an awful lot of sense. Limit access to the president, everyone else is saying the exact same thing, and there's only one game in town.
Except that's where the problem arises. While there's only one White House and one president, there will never only be one game in a town like Washington. If the press beast isn't being fed at the White House it will lumber elsewhere at which point the White House loses control over the story. Suddenly, the White House isn't dictating the agenda anymore and isn't in front of the news cycle. This is what we've seen over the course of the Bush years.
At first, the press was happy to take what was offered and coverage was generally good. As time passed, the beast began to grow restless. The Bush communications team didn't recognize their changing situation (no surprise there) and continued to insist on one line a day, one story, one morsel. When the press insisted on more and they didn't get it from the White House, they turned elsewhere. Coverage has only gotten steadily worse from there.
While an Obama team (or Clinton team) might be able to improve upon the Bush structure, the system itself is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to satiate the beast entirely with pre-selected soundbites.
So what is a president to do?
Interestingly, John McCain might already be on the right track. (He is also following in the footsteps of Franklin Roosevelt more than he would like to admit as he tries to solidify his standing among conseratives.) What Roosevelt, and now McCain, did so effectively was coopt the press by giving them a steady stream of information that they wanted, but with his spin on it. FDR engaged in long conversations with members of the press answering virtually whatever questions they asked. In doing so, he was able to give them the White House version of facts first, before they had to go out and learn about it on the street. By getting the first word in, FDR was able to shape the coverage he received. By engaging in frank discussions of the issues the press wanted covered, he was able to maintain his advantage of getting the first word in.
McCain seems like he is doing that now and it should serve him well. Hopefully the Democrats figure it out too. After all, even a thousand-headed beast with a voracious 24-hour appetite will think twice before biting the hand that feeds it.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
He's Baaaack
CNN and others are reporting that Ralph Nader is once again entering the race for president prompting millions around the country to slap their foreheads and say, "WHY?!?"
Let me first say, that on the whole, Ralph Nader's career has been a force of good for the country. His many crusades have actually done quite a bit to improve the way we are able to live. However, I have a hard time trying to figure out what he really hopes to accomplish with this latest run.
He is quoted as telling Meet the Press that "dissent is the mother of ascent." Let's assume for a moment that makes sense. There is no question that Nader is a reliably dissenting voice on most issues. There is even less question that Nader's chance to ascent to the White House is slightly less than a snowball's chance in a globally-warmed hell. Clearly, winning the presidency is not a realistic goal. So then what's the point?
Most long-shot, not-a-chance candidates say that they're running to influence the debate. But do we really think that Ralph Nader is going to have much impact on the debate this year? Never mind the whole 2000 Florida debacle, the guy has now run in each of the last four (maybe five depending on your source) elections. There eventually comes a point of diminishing returns for this kind of thing. By running yet another hopeless campaign with little chance of success, Nader is putting himself into the realm of men like Lyndon LaRouche who act as sideshows to the actual campaigns. He knows he won't win and more and more, he's making it hard to take his ideas seriously.
Let me first say, that on the whole, Ralph Nader's career has been a force of good for the country. His many crusades have actually done quite a bit to improve the way we are able to live. However, I have a hard time trying to figure out what he really hopes to accomplish with this latest run.
He is quoted as telling Meet the Press that "dissent is the mother of ascent." Let's assume for a moment that makes sense. There is no question that Nader is a reliably dissenting voice on most issues. There is even less question that Nader's chance to ascent to the White House is slightly less than a snowball's chance in a globally-warmed hell. Clearly, winning the presidency is not a realistic goal. So then what's the point?
Most long-shot, not-a-chance candidates say that they're running to influence the debate. But do we really think that Ralph Nader is going to have much impact on the debate this year? Never mind the whole 2000 Florida debacle, the guy has now run in each of the last four (maybe five depending on your source) elections. There eventually comes a point of diminishing returns for this kind of thing. By running yet another hopeless campaign with little chance of success, Nader is putting himself into the realm of men like Lyndon LaRouche who act as sideshows to the actual campaigns. He knows he won't win and more and more, he's making it hard to take his ideas seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)