Addendum #2 to Saturday's unburdening
Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 12:24PM First, understand that I am hurting from last Sunday big time. This whole week was depression personified. Until the SB is over, I live in a sad, limbo-like existence, dreaming of Cullen Jenkins' return because the Eagles got too many old-man high-price free agents to re-sign. It's pathetic, but there I am - Jerome stewing beside me.
David Emergy asks for a "hell yes!" on the presidential field versus an my admittedly weak endorsement for Romney and my I-can't-have-her lust for Hillary.
Emblematic of America, I don't have that candidate in hand - which is why I'm still window shopping when it comes to passion.
Yes, the right "wrong" person could warm me up again on Obama. Santorum would do it, as would Paul, as would Gingrich in the end - as much as I admire his imagination. I wouldn't cross the aisle for any of those three.
I would get jacked for Giuliani, and have said that often. My dream ticket remains Rudy and Michael Bloomberg. I like Giuliani's leadership capacity and I love Bloomberg's adventurous technocratic personality. I think he's the most exciting tinkerer out there, and a huge global influence in that role (vastly underappreciated, but most people don't get the coastal mega-city network vibe that's out there, making things happen on globalization). The two of them would be my version of a progressive ticket: fixers with no serious ideological bent. I had hopes for Obama on that score, but the smartest-guy-in-the-room thing got in the way. Rudy's and Mike's egos are accomplishment based, not loved based, and I really love that in leaders.
Frustrated with the field? Let me count the ways. I do agree with Newt: this is an historic and crucial election, and the idea that Obama just glides in with mega-buck spending stikes me as very bad for the country. I think he can win, but only with great negativity, and then I think we have four years of an embattled president whose main outlet of foreign policy is already spoiled with the strategic "pivot" choice. I don't want America to play four more years of the waiting game. I want better. I want progressive movement that regains the only lead worth capturing vis-a-vis the two great risers of the age - China and India: I want America once again being the best provider of sharp new answers that move the ball with purpose. Obama accomplish the basic realignment from Bush that I advocated in "Great Powers," but after that, I've seen litte-to-no strategic purpose or momentum, with the big choice on China being stunningly unimaginative in nature (i.e., he either wants to cover his defense "ass" on spending, which is silly given his vigorous killing program, or he can't stand up to the Pentagon, or he's actually dumb enough to believe this sort of empty posturing is worthwhile - I like none of my choices here).
If my only choices are Mitt and Barack, I choose the former as being more likely to achieve some momentum, but I am unhappy with this choice. Mitt feels too much like Mondale or Dole or McCain - the my-turn candidate, which to me just guarantees a second term to somebody who will do very little of value with the opportunity.
Reader Comments (7)
"Mitt feels too much like Mondale or Dole or McCain - the my-turn candidate, which to me just guarantees a second term to somebody who will do very little of value with the opportunity."
Nicely expressed. Full agreement.
"My dream ticket remains Rudy and Michael Bloomberg."
Perhaps.....if they were running for office in Russia or China. :)
That ticket would be autocracy squared and completely out of touch with most of the American electorate.. No balance to pull back from going waaaaay overboard and Bloomberg has shown a disturbing willingness to appoint totally unqualified ppl to important positions so that he can micromanage. Maybe that is a feasible strategy as Mayor of New York but the POTUS has around 6000 appointments to make and the admin will be a failure without talented subordinates who have room to make decisions and exercise leadership.
I’ve been a big fan of yours since the New Map days, but I just don’t get your criticism of President Obama as of late, and your addendum to Mike’s comments... ugh. Yes, you did not use the term “anti-business”, instead writing that Obama has “an antipithy towards business”. Exactly how is that different? Weak, weak, weak!
Besides, government is not business as they have different priorities and constraints. In my opinion a knowledge of business does not help one become a successful government leader. Look at the last Bush administration: he was an MBA, Cheney was a CEO, as were Paul O’Neill, John Snow, Henry Paulson, and Donald Rumsfield. How did that work out?
I strongly suggest that our current political climate is distinctly different than the opposition faced by Reagan or Clinton in both degree and kind. Never before have appointments to the executive branch positions been held up by secret holds at this rate, the number of filibusters from the Republican minority has skyrocketed, beneficial trade bills obstructed, judicial appointments blocked. These are the political tactics from conservatives since Obama’s inauguration mainly for the sake of obstruction and satisfying the id of the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News/Glenn Beck incited conservative base.
And then there was last year’s debt ceiling crisis, which in years past gave the minority party an opportunity to make political hay out of the event using run of the mill political rhetoric. But last year, when the conservatives held our country’s credit score hostage, they showed a recklessness and lust for political power that suggests they can not be given any real governing responsibility. Eventually the conservative blockade was broken by delegating the issue to a committee, which was destined to fail, leading to “automatic cuts” in domestic and defense programs, which will probably be modified or even reversed by future legislation. So in the end the debt ceiling was raised and large immediate cuts in government spending, which would damage our now fragile recovery, was avoided. This, I believe, demonstrates Obama’s deft political and negotiating skills in the face of total obstruction from conservatives who are either ignorant of or don’t care about the consequences.
If Romney, or any Republican, were to win the White House then it is very likely that Republicans would also win control of the Senate and maintain control of the House. This would not result in a strong administration giving momentum to our foreign or domestic policies but rather Romney would just be the guy in the White House who signs all of the bills coming out of Boehner’s House and McConnell’s Senate.
As for the our military posture and deployment in the Pacific, it isn’t really about China, but to provide a counter weight so all of the other countries in Asia and the pacific don’t feel dominated by China. This allows Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, the Philippenes, and others to feel free, safe and propserous without resorting to an arms race with China. If China feels put upon by this, all I can say to them is to grow up. If they want to play with the big boys they are going to have to deal with counter moves like this. That is what it takes to be a great power.
Yes, I get it, the Packers lost (I’m still hurting from the Steelers losing to Denver, DENVER!!! Arrrrgh!), but please get a grip.
Mr. Barnett,
I 've been an avid follower of your material since I first read The Pentagon's New Map (and viewed the brilliant presentation of it) while taking a National Defense and Security course at Western Illinois University. I am finishing up your Great Powers and am looking forward to your next book.
My question is this: In your Jan 21 post you said you may be voting for a GOP candidate for the first time in your life. I am curious: What is it about the Democratic Party that makes you choose them as leaders over the Republican Party? It just seems (particularly in matters of foreign policy and now domestic i.e. the "anti" - business/socialistic policies) that the Democratic party is the exact ideological opposite, the antithesis of every word in each of your three books. You reference Democrats of the past in your books, but there are hardly any Democratic politicians out there that I see interested in closing "The Gap."
Thank you,
Respectfully,
Dylan Massey
I am curious: What is it about the Democratic Party that makes you choose them as leaders over the Republican Party?
When it comes to President, I sure hope people are voting for the individual and not the party! The question at hand is between Barak Obama as the Democratic candidate and 'your-pick-here' from the Republican party. We're not at the point (at least not this year) where a 3rd party has a prayer of being elected. (Teddy Roosevelt had probably the best chance, and remember he was running as a prior President with a clearly established track record.)
Right now I find Neither Party's political base positions to be attractive; the problem has been for a long time that the extremes drive the primaries and each party tends to nominate a candidate from its base that has a problem winning over moderates/independents.
I almost voted for Al Gore over George W Bush, which would have been the first time I voted for a Democrat for President (I often voted for people from both parties and even some independents/3rd party candidates in local or regional elections including House of Reps.) It wasn't about the party, it was about who I thought would do a better job running the country/county/city/etc. What Al Gore showed me during that election was a willingness to cater (or pander, if you prefer) to the Democratic base, in ways that I found both unacceptable and a change from the "Al Gore" of previous years. And I'm not convinced by Al Gore's behavior afterwards that I made a wrong choice, although I know in many/most circles that would be considered as heresy! But there was no way I could have voted for John Kerry against George W Bush's re-election (as much as I wanted an alternative.) (Don't ask me to pick between Kerry and Hilary, that might cause me to move to Canada.)
Last election, I followed the underlying trope of much of the Obama campaign and voted my 'ethnic/political group', namely "white male veterans with anger management problems" :-)
My disappointment with Obama in many respects mirrors Tom's. I think he has been a poor Chief Executive. His hands-off approach with Congress (particularly the previous Congress when the Democrats controlled both Houses) is an absolute point of failure. This new approach of generating class warfare reflects the -absence- of any real considered fiscal policy. A recent article said Obama's much more decisive than Bill Clinton; too bad he can't seem to do the follow-through (the 'control' part of Command and Control) to get stuff actually implemented.
It is a sad state of affairs when someone as intelligent and knowledgeable as you is still window shopping for a candidate for the President of the United States. But, unfortunately I believe you are not alone. There is just no one out there that is groomed for this position for the right reasons.
I agree with your observations but wish you had more answers.
As for your football depression, both of my daughters were at the game which made for unhappy texting. Packers, Steelers and Saints (in that order) have totally wiped me out this year. Still reading and enjoying the "Emily Updates". Happy Superbowl? Sylvia O"Malley
This is very much worth reading, it captures at least my concerns with the execution/direction of the Obama presidency: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/01/22/david-frum-strikes-back-at-andrew-sullivan-on-barack-obama.html
And it's worth noting that Mr Obama himself has basically zero experience working within the private sector.
Tom, if you lived here in NYC during the Rudy years and followed his administration and appointments, I guarantee you'd feel differently about him. You'd understand why we were heartily sick of him during his second term and could not wait to see his back. It was only his clearly appropriate performance on September 11 that burnished his image. Had he gotten to a vote in his Presidential bid, he would not have won New York. Trust us on this one.