 |
Sounds of the winter too,
Sunshine upon the mountains–many a distant strain
From cheery railroad train–from nearer field, barn, house,
The whispering air–even the mute crops, garner’d apples, corn,
Children’s and women’s tones–rhythm of many a farmer and of flail,
An old man’s garrulous lips among the rest, Think not we give out yet,
Forth from these snowy hairs we keep up yet the lilt.- Walt Whitman
What’s happening?
Well, to answer my own question, I find what the men are talking about right now very interesting. I respect all of these people, so I thought I’d link them up and let you discuss them. First, Matthew Yglesias was talking about Clinton’s foreign policy yesterday. He intoned the word “too hawkish,” but honestly offered that he didn’t like that frame, which is understandable, even though he didn’t get quite far enough in his analysis to put a label on why Clinton seems that way. Frankly, I think he’s more concerned with Richard Holbrooke, and I think he’s wrong about the NPT. I believe Clinton will be inspired to become involved and make her mark for nonproliferation, though we can’t possibly know for sure. But on the “too hawkish,” the obvious issue that he and others analyzing Clinton’s foreign policy do not tackle is the gender side of it. I respect that very much because it’s impossible for a man to weigh in with any force or credibility on it. The simple truth is that any serious woman in the eye of the public storm in this country, especially running for commander in chief, will have to use what I call muscular language, at least at this stage of our foreign policy development. Clinton’s vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard legislation breathed more life into the “too hawkish” identity for her as well. But again, amidst this is the reality of how a woman must speak to be taken seriously in this country where foreign policy is run by men, which could be the unspoken feeling some have, thinking that her gender will cause some natural posturing to counteract the reality. I would say, remember Albright’s now famous question that put General Colin Powell back on his heals:
“What’s the point in having this superb military you are always talking about if we can’t use it?” – Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
Context is everything, so pointing out the Pentagon won’t budge unless a large force presence is launched is not a bad argument coming from Albright to Powell.
Yglesias also doesn’t see Clinton taking any political risks on the Arab-Israeli conflict either. But honestly, all Democrats still tilt their speeches to our special relationship with Israel, especially in front of certain groups, with even handedness in the region still a faint dream, so I don’t know what this comment from him proves at all. But always he comes back to Holbrooke, with any of the other candidates more to his liking than Clinton.
Mark Schmitt at The American Prospect talks about “the theory of change,” making a strong case, but ignoring the female factor, which is the very definition of change, even if we’re talking a Clinton (read as a half snark). Fareed Zakaria talks about identity reality and dealing with the world, and that he knows what it feels like to not be an American, an argument he shares with Obama, which could make all the difference. Again, there is nothing so profoundly altering than putting a woman in charge of the largest military force on planet earth. Dare I say it suggests an awakening in America?
This leads me to what Hillary Mann Leverett and I were talking about on my radio show recently. The “bold strokes” plan versus incremental changes, with Leverett for the former, with me believing that incremental change can open a pathway to bold progress, with less chance of fall backs, but also less danger of defeat through our carnivorous media environment, which is always waiting for an opening to criticize and collapse a good idea on the first fleeting whiff of failure.
This finally brings me to Kevin Drum.
… .. And while Matt’s critique of Hillary is persuasive, here’s the flip side: do you think the world is really likely to be moved by bold strokes? It’s possible that my skepticism on this is due more to our age difference than anything else, but I’d say the odds are slim. The institutional forces at work are huge, and I think they mostly respond to patient pressure, smart and knowledgable diplomacy, well-timed compromise, and a clear sense of how the world really works and where you can successully insert a helpful wedge. People who parachute into gigantic institutions — and this is the biggest institution of them all — thinking that they can cut through all the various Gordian knots with bold initiatives are likely to be disappointed.
Two things on this. First, Clinton knows the institutions well. Secondly, no one knows how a woman will work in this environment, but considering we are adept at taking on challenges, never afraid of confrontations, as well as reconciliation, I’d say there is something at work, a bold stroke intangible that has to do with Clinton being who she is, which when people meet her they will see she isn’t the stereotype that’s been built up. As an aside, it’s why I think her negatives have only one place to go and that’s down, though it’s seldom discussed this way. In addition and as a case in point, when you look at what she’s done in the senate and how she’s turned New Yorkers towards her I’d say the foreshadowing is all positive. One of her lines is a good one, which has to do with standing her ground, then finding common ground when you must. Women face all sorts of challenges differently from men, and we react in crisis situations differently as well, especially once we’ve been tested and humbled through our work life, including experiencing failure, which Clinton surely has.
Of all the men weighing in, Kevin Drum has a start on the most important reality anyone faces once the Bush nightmare ends, because bold strokes won’t mean a thing if the person coming into the presidency isn’t a technically intelligent, detail oriented and passionately direct with a love for breaking down mazes, but also knowing how to rebuild them, which won’t happen in a bold stroke. Government nor the world works on a whim. Additionally, what Bush will leave for the next president is not something you want to hand over to anyone unfamiliar with the spider web of our government, especially since we don’t know half of what Bush has done and undone. Competency and passion for policy will be critical, or the next president could die a media death in six months, to name just one sure wound.
I guess I’m not offering answers as much as spinning thoughts on the Saturday solstice before Christmas. Now it’s your turn.
Comments are closed.