Disneyland Politics [Ben]
Not sure if anyone watched the famed "YouTube" Democratic debate a few days ago, but Obama's and Hillary's responses to the question of how they would treat with foreign leaders currently on Bush's "no talkee" list elicited quite a bit of retarded commentary. A typical excerpt from a letter sent by a Republican to Andrew Sullivan's blog:
What you're witnessing is a Republican attempt to shoehorn this administration's complete lack of diplomatic initiative into some sort of rational framework. It's not enough to simply be the most powerful nation in the world, you must also condescend to a degree commensurate with your status. This is now commonly referred to as seriousness. Politicians such as speaker Pelosi, who conjure the temerity to travel to countries not in our best graces and meet with their leaders, are unserious, dilettantish officials. Unwittingly, they allow foreign leaders to bask in the sheen of our democratic freedoms and principled decorum. Their foolish subjects might even start to believe that we somehow approve of them, even slightly! My dear, how positively incomprehensible that they might assume such airs! This is what they consider propaganda, and so we've assumed the diplomacy of Mr. Darcy.
(Incidentally, these are the same people who argue that we shouldn't worry about the Muslim world's perception of our occupation of Iraq because "they hate us no matter what we do". The cognitive dissonance would be jarring, but after six years it's mostly white noise.)
And so Hillary collects the very grudging accolades of some Republicans, and many of the "moderates" in the press who spend their time propping up whatever the current Administration position is on any given issue, and with whom the veneer of "seriousness" resonates particularly strongly. These accolades are purely a function of Hillary's relative proximity to the current Republican position in relation to the other Democratic candidates, rather than being based on any actual assessment of policy. Neither Hillary or Obama elaborated on what concessions/agreements they might work toward in hypothetical discussions with foreign leaders, which is what actually matters. It seems as though a large portion of the political establishment would like to extend the insubstantial pageantry that passes for presidential campaigning to our diplomatic relations. President Ahmadinejad, do you take your silent glare of disapproval with a side of freedom fries?
Debate background.
A more articulate post by typically astute Matthew Yglesias here.
"Even though I hate to admit it, Hillary consistently wins these debates. My partner and I were watching it last night and I was trying very hard not to like anything Hillary said. But finally, I told my partner, "is it just me or does she seem more...." My partner finished my sentence -- "responsible" [in her answers]. Particularly with question about meeting with our enemies directly. Rather than take the knee-jerk, get-an-applause response by advocating face-to-face meetings with Syria and Iran, she gave a responsible disclaimer that she would make sure these meetings were vetted properly so as not to become a propaganda tool."Ah, where to begin. That people might seriously discuss the prospect of the POTUS meeting with foreign leaders as some sort of propaganda coup is ridiculous in the extreme, and serves to highlight just how superficial the office of President has become under Bush. His extreme incompetence, and general belligerence , coupled with an inability to appear knowledgeable about even the most basic issues, renders him diplomatically useless except for the photo op. Bush is effectively Micky Mouse. Put your arm around him honey, I'll make sure I get the castle in the background.
What you're witnessing is a Republican attempt to shoehorn this administration's complete lack of diplomatic initiative into some sort of rational framework. It's not enough to simply be the most powerful nation in the world, you must also condescend to a degree commensurate with your status. This is now commonly referred to as seriousness. Politicians such as speaker Pelosi, who conjure the temerity to travel to countries not in our best graces and meet with their leaders, are unserious, dilettantish officials. Unwittingly, they allow foreign leaders to bask in the sheen of our democratic freedoms and principled decorum. Their foolish subjects might even start to believe that we somehow approve of them, even slightly! My dear, how positively incomprehensible that they might assume such airs! This is what they consider propaganda, and so we've assumed the diplomacy of Mr. Darcy.
(Incidentally, these are the same people who argue that we shouldn't worry about the Muslim world's perception of our occupation of Iraq because "they hate us no matter what we do". The cognitive dissonance would be jarring, but after six years it's mostly white noise.)
And so Hillary collects the very grudging accolades of some Republicans, and many of the "moderates" in the press who spend their time propping up whatever the current Administration position is on any given issue, and with whom the veneer of "seriousness" resonates particularly strongly. These accolades are purely a function of Hillary's relative proximity to the current Republican position in relation to the other Democratic candidates, rather than being based on any actual assessment of policy. Neither Hillary or Obama elaborated on what concessions/agreements they might work toward in hypothetical discussions with foreign leaders, which is what actually matters. It seems as though a large portion of the political establishment would like to extend the insubstantial pageantry that passes for presidential campaigning to our diplomatic relations. President Ahmadinejad, do you take your silent glare of disapproval with a side of freedom fries?
Debate background.
A more articulate post by typically astute Matthew Yglesias here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home