The Mitchell Report

Summer Reading Recommendations

 

I'm late, I'm late for a very important date 
No time to say "Hello", "Goodbye" 
I'm late, I'm late, I'm late, I'm late
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Lewis Carroll

Dear Friends,

Alice's pal, the White Rabbit, has just the right message for this year's summer reading recommendations, so if you'll forgive the delays and follow us down the rabbit hole, we promise some wonderful reading recommendations - books we've read, and a few that we'll be reading.

Books We've Read

Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama, Marvin Kalb and Deborah Kalb, Brookings Press.

I can almost hear the unspoken thoughts as you read this recommendation - “I don't need another book about Vietnam;” “I'm tired of war;” “Give me something new to think about” And that's just exactly what you'll get in this just-published, highly insightful book from one of America's most distinguished television journalists - Marvin Kalb - and his conspicuously talented daughter, Deborah Kalb. 

It's not a book about the Vietnam War; it isn't even a book about war, per se; but it is, perhaps, the first serious piece of scholarship to document the ways in which the experience of that pivotal moment in modern American history has influenced eight presidents:

“The story of Vietnam, the war and its aftermath, runs like a bleeding wound through recent American history, affecting every president from Gerald Ford to Barack Obama and raising profound questions about their prerogatives and powers.

“That war still casts an unforgiving shadow over Oval Office deliberations. Unwanted, uninvited, but inescapable, Vietnam refuses to be forgotten.”

Kalb and Kalb have constructed a meticulous, eminently readable, and thoughtful analysis of how each president has dealt with the specter of Vietnam - from Gerald Ford and the Mayaguez incident through to Barack Obama's decision to increase U. S. troop strength in Afghanistan, and in between a nasty patch of “Swiftboating” that marred and muddied the presidential campaign of 2004.

In the closing chapter, “Good Enough,” the authors make their final pitch:

“He [Obama] fancied himself post-Vietnam, but the war that was lost so many years before he assumed office still hovered over his presidency like Banquo's ghost - unwelcome, but unwilling to release its grip. With Obama or any of the other presidents from Ford on, Vietnam was rarely the only reason for a presidential decision about war or peace, but it was always there whenever the question arose about the possible use of American military power.”

In the service of full disclosure, readers should know three things about the reviewer: first, that that Marvin Kalb is a treasured friend; second, that I was privy to stories about the development of this book for several years before its publication, and read a couple sections in draft form; and third, that I am much taken by the 'back story' of this book, the partnership of a father and daughter in such an important and challenging intellectual adventure.

But if Haunting Legacy were anything short of an important, authoritative, and engaging book, it wouldn't be on this list.


Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth, Frederick Kempe, G. P. Putnam's Sons

Having just ended a review with a 'full disclosure,' this one will begin with a similar notice.

The author is a friend, also president of a Washington DC think tank - The Atlantic Council -- where I spend considerable time participating in their South Asia program. I first met him and learned of his thesis through a mutual friend, at a time when Kempe was in the midst of research-and-writing days. And in clear violation of TMR's commitment to review only those books that have been read cover-to-cover - this review comes to you as I begin Chapter 17 on page 419. One chapter and 83 pages left to cross the finish line. 

Now, about this masterwork.

Berlin 1961 is a story told in three parts - Part I, “The Players,” 'the protagonists,' as Kempe describes them: Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, President John F. Kennedy, West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and East German leader Walter Ulbricht; Part II, “The Gathering Storm,” John Kennedy's first year in office, which featured two high visibility foreign policy 'failures' - the Bay of Pigs and the Vienna Summit, which JFK described to the New York Times' James, 'Scotty', Reston as “Worst thing in my life. He [Khrushchev] savaged me;” And Part III “The Showdown,” in which the author provides exacting, scrupulous, revealing, and sometimes controversial details about a moment when the world stood on the brink of nuclear war, and when the footprint of the Cold War was fixed for nearly three decades of history that would follow.

One of JFK's national security strategists - William Kaufman -- who was engaged in both Berlin and the Cuban Missile Crisis, describes it this way:

“Berlin was the worst moment of the Cold War. Although I was deeply involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I personally thought that the Berlin confrontation, especially after the wall went up, where you had Soviet and U. S. tanks literally facing one another with guns pointed, was a more dangerous situation. We had very clear indications mid-week of the Cuban Missile Crisis that the Russians were not going to push us to the edge . . . You didn't get that sense in Berlin.”

It is in Kempe's Introduction where he sets both the stage and the tone for 500 pages that follow - a scholarly work that reads more like a tantalizing mystery novel; a fascinating character study of four protagonists and other key players, including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Vice President Lyndon Johnson, General Lucius D. Clay, and a preview of Henry Kissinger, the young Harvard professor who is briefly a consultant to the Kennedy Administration, but who returns to academia licking a wounded ego, having failed to prevail in minor power struggles for Kennedy's attention owing to blackballing by his former Dean, McGeorge Bundy; and, finally, an historical analysis that challenges much of the conventional wisdom and offers new perspectives on a much under-appreciated moment in history.

Without disclosing specifics of Kempe's thesis, Berlin 1961 is both a page-turner and a head-turner, offering fresh perspectives about the principals and the political calculus in NATO and Warsaw Pact countries. And it all begins with a series of seven questions that provide the framework for the 'gift that keeps on giving' for 500 pages. Here are two:

“Should history consider the Berlin Wall's construction the positive outcome of Kennedy's unflappable leadership . . . or was the Wall the unhappy result of his missing backbone?”

“Was Khrushchev a true reformer whose efforts to reach out to Kennedy following his election were a genuine effort (that the U. S. failed to recognize) to reduce tensions? Or was he an erratic leader with whom the U S. could never have done business?”


Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, Noah Feldman, Twelve (Hachette Book Group.)

Years ago, I read a stunning book entitled, “A World Lit Only by Fire,” written by the preeminent historian, William Manchester, which is a brief history of the medieval centuries and a look at the medieval mind. It grew out of an assignment to write an introduction to a friend's biography of Ferdinand Magellan, while under doctor's orders to relinquish work on his three-part Churchill biography. Owing to his fascination with this period of world history, Manchester's insatiable intellectual curiosity went into overdrive, and within a matter of weeks his “Introduction” had morphed into what would become a nearly 300-page, award-winning book.

When I first began to write a review of Scorpions, I experienced an instinct similar to Manchester's, taken as I was by the brilliance of Feldman's tour de force about Supreme Court justices Felix Frankfurter, Hugo Black, Robert Jackson, and William O. Douglas.

If you're a devotee of Supreme Court history, a Constitutional scholar at heart, a lay historian of the early-middle years of the 20th century, an FDR aficionado, or someone who simply loves a great story told by a gifted storyteller about the machinations of powerful figures in American history, then Scorpions is for you.

It is Feldman's fifth book - the other four written while still in his 30's - and despite the density of subject matter, it is a genuine 'page-turner,' and one that would challenge any reviewer to be sparing in superlatives.  

After much backing-and-filling, I concluded that Feldman's opening paragraphs set the tone and the thesis better than anything I might offer:

“A tiny, ebullient Jew who started as America's leading liberal and ended as its most famous judicial conservative. A Ku Klux Klansman who became an absolutist advocate of free speech and civil rights. A backcountry lawyer who started off trying cases about cows and went on to conduct the most important international trial ever. A self-invented, tall-tale Westerner who narrowly missed the presidency but expanded individual freedom beyond what anyone had dreamed.

“Four more different men could hardly be imagined. Yet they had certain things in common. Each was a self-made man who came from humble beginnings on the edge of poverty. Each had a driving ambition and a will to succeed. Each was, in his own way, a genius.

“They began as close allies and friends of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who appointed them to the Supreme Court in order to shape a new, liberal view of the Constitution that could live up to the challenges of economic depression and war. Within months, their alliance had fragmented. Friends became enemies. In competition and sometimes outright warfare, the men struggled with one another to define the Constitution and, through it, the idea of America.”


When Art Worked: The New Deal, Art, and Democracy, Roger G. Kennedy and David Larkin, Rizzoli Books. 

You can put this on your “Do Not Take To The Beach” list, but if your summer plans call for spending time in a place where you can sit at trusty old table or desk on a rainy afternoon, this is your prize - a stunning visual exhibition and narrative history by two remarkable scholars who have crafted an encyclopedic, illustrated documentary of the art, architecture, culture, history, politics, and presidential leadership of these remarkable years in a volume that weighs in at something less than a healthy newborn but more than a spirited Brook trout. 

When Art Worked is both a coffee table and art book - but you'll need a sturdy coffee table -- and is a reminder that good things still come in large packages.

Thanks to Larkin's unerring eye and exquisite taste, and Kennedy's encyclopedic familiarity with and feel for the temper and themes of the times, When Art Worked is a stunning portrait of a country barely recognizable to the majority of Americans today -- as distant from the Age of Google as the Civil War or the California gold rush were from the New Deal. 

In ten chapters, 350+ large plate pages, and 460 black-and-white and color images, masterfully produced by Rizzoli Books of New York, you will rediscover 'the real America' through the art and architecture of hundreds of out-of-work artists who helped lift the spirits of a sagging nation and provided works that define the American character to the present day. 

It was the sculptor, Gutzon Borglum, whose most famous work adorns Mt. Rushmore, who wrote that “art helped coax the soul of America back to life.”

Might be just the right gift for your favorite member of Congress or for Barack Obama's 50th birthday, which looms during the same week as the alleged deadlines for America's financial default.


The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, David Remnick, Alfred A. Knopf. 

David Remnick's masterful biography about the most remarkable politician of his generation is the story of sui generis written by rara avis. 

Strictly speaking, Remnick has crafted more than a biography of a man, it is also a biography of the places, ideas, and people who have influenced America's 44th president.

o The politics of Kenya in the post-WW II years when Jomo Kenyatta and Tom Mboya were leading the country toward independence from the British Crown, and who were important influences in Obama's father's troubled career.

o Chicago, the 'black metropolis,' home to black and white leaders like William Dawson, Saul Alinsky, Richard J. Daley, Harold Washington, and others from whom Obama would learn mostly what not to do.

o The rootlessness of moving back and forth between Hawaii and Indonesia, deserted by his father, living with his mother, then separated from her, living with his grandparents, and being a young black boy thrust into the privileged Punahou School environment where being 'black' was neither alien nor ordinary.

In this nearly 600-page account of Obama's highly textured and unconventional upbringing, Remnick skillfully weaves together the multiple influences that conspired to produce a most uncommon man whose countenance belies the complexity of those early life experiences.

“Obama, who had been attracted to community organizing by the example and the romance of the civil-rights movement, was, by the time his experience with it was over, thinking about how to combine elements of charismatic leadership, the principles of organizing, and a set of liberal political and policy principles.”

And the title -- The Bridge?

It's borrowed from an observation by the great civil rights leader and Georgia Congressman, John Lewis: “Barack Obama is what comes at the end of that bridge in Selma.”


Neoconservative: The Biography of a Movement, Justin Vaisse, Belknap Press of Harvard University. 

This book that took me by surprise on three counts: first, because I could not have imagined becoming engrossed in a nearly 300-page book devoted to a 'movement' about which I have always been skeptical, at best; second, because it provided an in-depth look at American politics from the 1950's through to the first decade of the 21st century, which provided fresh perspective on several of the primary -isms; and finally, because this is the work of a French scholar -- Justin Vaisse, now a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and formerly a member of the Policy Planning Staff of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- who demonstrates a remarkable grasp of American domestic politics, recalling a similar skill of his fellow countryman, Alexis de Tocqueville.

Vaisse sorts neoconservatism into its three distinct philosophical and (even) geographic developmental 'ages,' beginning in New York in the 1950's - “Liberal Intellectuals in Dissent;” then another shift in the 1970's in both New York and Washington, DC, “Cold War Democrats in Dissent;” and finally, its form known to most during the late 1990's and into the administration of George W. Bush, which he calls, “National Greatness Conservatives.”

The great strength of Vaisse's scholarship is its objectivity, eschewing the either/or perspectives through which this '-ism' has been typically discussed. He is neither proponent nor critic:

“Neoconservatism also offers a way into the very rich intellectual debate about politics that took place in the United States in the second half of the twentieth century. It can tell us a great deal about both liberalism (which neoconservatives angrily rejected in the end, but in a way that suggests the narcissism of small differences may have played a role) and conservatism (which neoconservatives embraced but never fully identified with.) 

“Finally, neoconservatism sheds a fascinating light on the way in which American political society works . . . Behind political ideas we find not only people but also networks linking intellectuals to journalists and decisionmakers, careers that take individuals back and forth between the academic and political worlds, and a variety of organizations from think tanks to citizen groups to political parties.”

Vaisse quotes his countryman, de Tocqueville, with this coda:

“When Americans have a feeling or idea they wish to bring to the world's attention, they will immediately seek out others who share that feeling or idea and, if successful in finding them, join forces. From the point on, they cease to be isolated individuals and become a power to be reckoned with whose actions serve as an example; a power that speaks, and to which people listen.” 

One wonders what de Tocqueville would observe on a visit today?


Books We're Going to be Reading

Rock the Casbah: Rage and Rebellion Across the Islamic World, Robin Wright, Simon and Schuster: Wright is among the most accomplished and respected foreign correspondents of her generation who has spent four decades studying the Middle East and its peoples, and who writes with the unerring instincts of a great reporter and the literary skills of an eminent novelist. Her earlier book - Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East - was one of 2008's “Best Books” rated by both the Washington Post and New York Times. I consider it one of the half dozen best books on the Middle East, and have every expectation that Rock the Casbah will be its equal. So, too, does New York magazine, which rates it as one of this summer's “Five Must-Reads.”

Bloodmoney: A Novel of Espionage, David Ignatius, W. W. Norton: If you're familiar with Ignatius as the foreign policy and national security columnist of the Washington Post (and former Editor-in-Chief of the International Herald Tribune), then you're aware of his matchless reputation as a reporter and foreign correspondent. If you're familiar with his previous novels - The Increment, Body of Lies (adapted to a movie directed by Ridley Scott, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe), Agents of Innocence - then you can anticipate another stunning piece of fiction grounded in his incomparable knowledge of the Middle East and South Asia and in the business of espionage. And if Ignatius is a new name for you, you have gifts awaiting. 

Francie's Fortune, Kita Helmetag Murdock, Blue Mustang Press: This one is for your elementary school-age children or grandchildren, and it's a sure bet that they'll love this at least as much as you'll be engaged by the adult TMR reading list. It's an entrancing story about 10 year-old Francie, a child of Hollywood, who much against her will is spirited off to spend a summer with a grandmother whom she's never really known, and in mountains of Colorado, a place she doesn't want to be. All signs point to a long and disappointing summer, and particularly because Francie suspects that her grandmother might be a witch. But as the story unfolds, it reveals a special gift that they share, and a heartwarming account of the bonds that exist between humans and animals.

And if you can tolerate one more “full disclosure,” the author is “family,” if not in the purely legal sense, enough so that to claim anything less would be misleading. 


If you've made it this far, there is a reward awaiting you somewhere in your future - and I trust that it will be between the covers of at least one or more of these recommended books.


R. Garrett Mitchell
The Mitchell Report
July 27, 2011

Bibi Netanyahu, Politicaster

 May 29, 2011

 

“People may be honest, though they are doing wrong: that is between their Maker and them. But we, who are suffering by their pernicious conduct, are to destroy them. We are sure that [Burke] acts from interest. We know what his genuine principles were. They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

Life of Johnson

James Boswell

 

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

I’ve been searching for a word or term to describe Israel’s 27^th and 32^nd Prime Minister, after observing his Trumpian-stentorian-triumphal tour of Washington DC.

 

Having considered many options, and finding bully, coward, and poseur fitting, although insufficient to the task, yesterday’s e-mail provided a moment of discovery, drawn from the weekly edition of “World Wide Words,” and its “Weird Word” entry for the week -- criticaster.

 

“You may gather it [criticaster] is uncomplimentary. It refers to those who set themselves up as arbiters of taste and literary discernment but whose sensibilities are inadequate to the task.

 

“It was coined in the late seventeenth century by adding the ending -aster to critic. The suffix came directly into English from Latin, where it meant an incomplete resemblance. English adapted it to refer to a person of inferior or inadequate qualities. It turns up in a small number of words, of which poetaster, a person who writes bad poetry, and philosophaster, a shallow or pretentious philosopher, are the least rare.”

 

Aha! Just like Pygmalion’s Professor Henry Higgins, I said: “By Jove, I think we’ve go it.”

 

Binyamin Netanyahu, aka, Bibi, is a politicaster, i. e., a person who practices bad politics, is shallow and pretentious, and has sensibilities that are inadequate to the task.

 

It’s about that simple.

 

But because he is also a poseur of considerable skill, he achieved two important goals for his efforts during this visit:

 

First, popularity at home.

 

According to a poll by Haaretz, Israel’s leading English language newspaper:

 

“It emerged that Netanyahu's trip not only put a brake on the drop in his popularity ratings, but actually reversed the trend.

 

“While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.”

 

Second, popular acclaim in Washington.

 

Haaretz columnist, Yoel Marcus:

 

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have read the phone book at the Congress podium and received the same standing ovation. His speech used the advice Moshe Sneh gave to himself . . . on the draft of one of his speeches: ‘weak argument, raise voice.’”

 

That’s the good news for Bibi, the short-term results of his impolitic and injudicious orating, but as columnist Marcus further suggests:

 

“One more victory like that and Israel is done for: A failure of the peace process is not an option. The status quo cannot be maintained. True friends tell each other the truth.”

 

Another commentator, renowned Israeli clinical psychologist Carlo Strenger, who is a blogger at Haaretz, The Guardian, and elsewhere, made this observation:

 

“The clear losers in Netanyahu’s short-sightedness wrapped into grandiose verbal pyrotechnics are the citizens of Israel. Once the dust of the media storm settles down, we will be faced with the stark truth: The specter of Israel’s ever-growing isolation and of increasing international pressure looms large. Once the Palestinians succeed in their bid for statehood, the Netanyahu government will be facing international criticism of its settlement policies unprecedented in force and intensity.”

 

The protagonist in this drama of uncertain length is President Barack Obama, whose reviews for speeches delivered at the State Department and at the AIPAC convention last week range from rabid to supportive – from the scathing criticism of Charles Krauthammer to the tepid rebuke from Congressional Democrats and to the unqualified endorsement of the folks at J Street and elsewhere who heard those speeches via distinctly different antennae.

 

As one insightful TMR reader, a prominent civic leader and respected member of the Jewish community far from the Beltway, put it:

 

“There was an article in the NY Times a few weeks ago describing the responses of Mormons to the new hit Broadway musical, Book of Mormon.  It basically said that conservative Mormons think the play is abominable and liberal Mormons think it’s hilarious.  From what I’ve heard in the last week, this is analogous to Jews’ reactions to the speeches of Obama and Netanyahu.”

 

He went on to say, “After hearing about Obama’s speech, my sister, who is extremely conservative on these issues, said, ‘Obama threw Israel under the bus.  He’s the worst U.S. President in history when it comes to Israel.’”

 

And for those who may have missed the speech, here’s exactly what the President said:

 

“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

 

To some that was ‘throwing Israel under the bus,’ and to others it was stating the obvious, the truth as it has been known for years.

 

But to Bibi, the politicaster, these were fighting words.

 

So fight he did – getting them out of their seats up on Capitol Hill 49 times during his speech, and warming up his numbers back home. Right before our eyes, Israel’s most talented orator rose up in righteous indignation rivaling the response to William Jennings Bryan’s stirring “Cross of Gold” speech to the Democratic Party convention 115 years ago.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

 

And with much the same result – thunderous applause, the audience on its feet and cheering wildly, proud men basking in the warm glow of political adulation, and little of substance to show for it all, save for the recordings that retrieve their ‘fifteen minutes of fame.’

 

The most remarkable thing about Binyamin Netanyahu to this observer is that he has achieved fame simply by being elected and ducking when the going gets tough. He has no accomplishments to his name. He has shown no courage on the paramount issue that besets his people and his country. He is rhetorical warrior in an empty suit of armor.

 

There are legitimate questions to raise about Barack Obama’s speech – its timing, its phrasing, and, of course, its impact. He may well have taken the wrong counsel on any of those factors, and there are serious questions to be addressed about whether there is still a beating heart in the process for solutions in this conflict, or whether a third intifada may be just over the horizon.

 

No geopolitical issue of consequence – and particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict – is so simple that there are those who have it right versus those who get it wrong. That’s why diplomacy and politics are central to the life of a democracy and a republic, and to the sustainability of the global order -- tools designed to be used when the issues are seemingly intractable.

 

Bibi’s decision to take the low road, to play to the crowd sensibility, and to engage in artful sophistry and casuistry may be consistent with his “genuine principles,” but as Boswell’s Life of Johnson reminds us:

 

"They who allow their passions to confound the distinctions between right and wrong, are criminal. They may be convinced; but they have not come honestly by their conviction.”

 

 

 

 

 

Tropes for Dopes

May 10, 2011

 

 

“Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as ‘leading from behind.’”

 

“The Consequentialist: How the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy,” by Ryan Lizza

 The New Yorker, May 2, 2011

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

“Leading from behind” is TMR’s early nominee for the 2011 “Tropes for Dopes” prize, a field crowded with entries during the last few months in which “Arab spring” has competed for above-the-fold space with a patchwork of prosaic rhetoric, some artful, some not, some tropes, some not.

 

For example, there is Donald Trump’s solipsistic response to the release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate:

 

"Today I'm very proud of myself, because I've accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish. I want to look at it, but I hope it's true, so that we can get on to much more important matters.

"I am really honored, frankly, to have played such a big role in hopefully, hopefully getting rid of this issue."

 

Or Michele Bachman’s declaration at a recent New Hampshire political event:

 

“You’re the state where the shot was heard around the world in Lexington and Concord.”

 

And, of course, another contender for the prize will be Sarah Palin’s rhetorical question about U. S. involvement in Libya during an otherwise vacuous interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News:

 

“Do we use the term ‘intervention?’ Do we use ‘war? Or ‘squirmish?”

Ah well, on publication eve of The New Yorker magazine article, President Obama addressed the nation near midnight with the stunning news that America had successfully concluded its search for Osama bin Laden in an audacious raid inside his Pakistani citadel.

 

Despite the indisputable frontal disposition of this raid, “leading from behind” may well be one of those ‘sticky phrases,’ as Malcolm Gladwell calls them, that pundits and politicians may find advantageous for future use, so it seems an apt time to offer an alternate perspective.

 

Aside from this misnomer having been an on-the-spot response from an adviser of unreported rank, who is presumably more adept at policy analysis than crafting figures of speech – aka, ‘tropes’ – it is both misleading and thin on substance.

 

One might say, for example, that what this President has understood, better than those who have followed the 26^th President, is the real meaning of:

 

“Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

 

It’s increasingly apparent that Teddy Roosevelt’s dictum is central to Barack Obama’s persona and leadership profile than most have understood – an idea that emerges from reading David Remnick’s masterful Obama biography, “The Bridge.”

 

In fact, if one examines the actions and accomplishments during Barack Obama’s 28 months in office, for better or for worse, most have been in frontal in nature, as have the polemics of his critics.

 

Much to the dismay of Obamaphobes and Obamaphiles alike, Barack Obama has neither articulated nor espoused anything that might resemble a “doctrine,” including the faux charge the he is redesigning American foreign and national security policy to a ‘leading from behind’ architecture.

 

Doctrines, like ideologies, are straitjackets. They encumber freedom of thought, expression, and action. They are as legally binding as wedding vows, and even less enforceable than ‘prenups.’

 

And despite official Washington’s long-held belief that a President without a doctrine is a like a CEO without a strategic plan or an NFL coach without a game plan, we have a President whose understanding of recent history and the emerging new global order leads him to eschew formulaic thinking and action, and instead to display a deftness with ambiguity, paradox, and the conundrums that are the hallmark of life in the 21^st century.

 

It has been said that we campaign in poetry and govern in prose; however, the lessons of recent years suggest that while we campaign by bumper sticker, we must govern by a higher order of thoughtfulness that will always look to some as dithering or doubt.

 

We must not confuse the velocity of the digital age and the instantaneity of the 24/7 news cycle with the heavier lifting requirements of good governance in an era when fundamental change is all about us.

 

To some that may well seem like “leading from behind,” but it is precisely the kind of leadership this nation would have profited from in the 2002 and 2003 when a distinctly American version of kabuki led the country to a war it need not have fought.

 

TMR is willing to put its substantial capital reserves on the notion that no edition of Bartlett’s Quotations will include an observation from an American president that says:

 

“Gee, if only I’d had a doctrine.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up The Creek Without a Paddle

“To be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem better than its competitors, but it need not, and in fact never does, explain all the facts with which it can be confronted.”
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas S. Kuhn

Dear Friends,

If you find it difficult to pinpoint or articulate a governing principle, a doctrine - dare we say, a paradigm -- about whether the U. S. should intervene in Libya, Bahrain, possibly Syria, and wherever else revolutionary spirits may awake, welcome to the 21st Century.

Consider for a moment, the basis on which precepts - national security interest, humanitarian concern, responsibility to protect, affordability - you believe decisions of this magnitude should be made.

And then imagine that you're the President of the United States.

America confronts a world as complex and uncertain as at any time in history, and we do so without “an American paradigm” - a foreign policy and national security paddle to rival George Kennan's “containment policy,” which kept us upright and afloat for a full half-century.

Hence, today's inquiry - Whither America in the 21st century global order?

And on that question, there are competing theories, schools, and models, which 
reach beyond those insipid rhetorical claims -- we're in decline and we're still No. 1. - and ask us to consider our view of the first order questions.

Today we'll consider the work of three scholars who confront this question with differing perspectives, and who eschew traditional metrics about power and balance of power. As you'll note, each sees a narrower, less expeditionary and interventionist role for America.  

First up is “Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War,” by Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, Colonel, U. S. Army (ret.), and a prolific author and essayist.

As the title implies, Bacevich is a contrarian of the first order whose personal transformation from orthodoxy to heterodoxy (or apostasy) is described in his Introduction, “Slow Learner:”

“By temperament and upbringing, I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy. In a life spent subject to authority, deference had become a deeply ingrained habit. I found assurance in conventional wisdom. Now, I started, however hesitantly, to suspect that orthodoxy might be a sham. I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high - whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops - is inherently suspect. The powerful, I came to see, reveal truth only to the extent that it suits them. Even then, the truths to which they testify come wrapped in a nearly invisible filament of dissembling, deception, and duplicity. The exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor.”

Bacevich's call for America to return to its roots as a non-warrior nation finds inspiration from a succession of strange philosophical bedfellows, beginning with President John Quincy Adams -- who opined in 1821 that the United States, “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy,” a sentiment articulated 24 years earlier in George Washington's Farewell Address and 165 years later in President Dwight Eisenhower's. In addition, he incorporates thinking from diplomat George Kennan, Senator William Fulbright, social critic Christopher Lasch, Medal of Honor recipient and Marine General David Shoup, and Martin Luther King.

According to Bacevich, at the heart of the American Century were its credo - to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world - and its trinity - global military presence, power projection, and interventionism. 

“Together, credo and trinity - the one defining purpose, the other practice - constitute the essence of the way that Washington has attempted to govern and police the American Century. The relationship between the two is symbiotic. The trinity lends plausibility to the credo's vast claims. For its part, the credo justifies the trinity's vast requirements and exertions. Together they provide the basis for an enduring consensus that imparts a consistency to U.S. policy regardless of which political party may hold the upper hand . . . From the era of Harry Truman to the age of Barack Obama, that consensus has remained intact. It defines the rules to which Washington adheres; it determines the precepts by which Washington rules.”

The author closes with his vision for America's role in the 21st century -- “a new trinity:”

“First, the purpose of the U. S. military is not to combat evil or remake the world, but to defend the United States and its most vital interests.”

“Second, the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America.”

“Third, consistent with the Just War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self-defense.”

So much for orthodoxy. As the author laments: “Question its claims and your prospects of being heard in the hubbub of national politics become nil.”

Next comes the work of Bruce D. Jones, director of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, and director of the Managing Global Order project at the Brookings Institution, where he serves as Senior Fellow. Earlier this month, Jones published a Brookings Foreign Policy monograph, “Largest Minority Shareholder in the Global Order LLC: The Changing Balance of Influence and U. S. Strategy.”

Leaving little to the imagination with that title, Jones succinctly states the case for his thesis:

“America's dominance is dulled, but its influence is sustained. From its new position, the United States confronts not a rigid bloc of emerging powers, but complex and shifting coalitions of interest. The greatest risk lies not in a single peer competitor, but in the erosion of systems and institutions vital to U. S. interests and a stable order. U. S power is indispensible for international order, but not sufficient. No longer the CEO of the Free World Inc., the United States now holds a position akin to that of the largest minority shareholder in Global Order, LLC.

Like much of the literature on globalism, the global order, power in a multipolar world, and the like, Jones focuses on those nations commonly called “the rising powers:” the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) as well as a second and third tier of nation-states, including Australia, Canada, Chile, Iran, Korea, South Africa, Spain, and others.

And the questions are to what extent and in what ways will these 'rising powers' affect the international system, for which he offers three postulates:

o “First, rapid growth is generating exponential increases in the demand for scarce supplies of energy and consumable resources.”

o “Second, emerging powers have every interest to maneuver for greater influence over the rules of the global economic game.”

o “Third, the simple fact is that with rising capacity comes rising ambition.”

Where Bacevich sets out to save the soul of a nation and to 'call it home,' literally and figuratively, Jones' concern is with how the current and future administrations should retool American strategy to optimize its influence and its capacity to bend the global order in the direction of stability and predictability while protecting its national security.

Finally, we have “The Frugal Superpower: America's Global Leadership in a Cash-Strapped Era,” by Michael Mandelbaum, the Christian Herter Professor and director of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins' School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Known to many outside the academy as Tom Friedman's tutor on the broad range of foreign policy and national security issues, Mandelbaum is noted also for two skills not often found in the same body - keen intellectual insight and economy of language.

Hence the title, which captures his thesis in 11 words, and in the following 194 pages, he posits that, “Just what the United States will and will not do will be the most important issue in international relations in the years ahead.”

And in Chapter 1 -- “The Tyranny of Numbers” - he lays out the predicate for America's choices:

“The collapse of 2008, the surge in American indebtedness, and the retirement of the baby boomers with the resulting explosion of claims on the federal government will create a different economic imperative: higher taxes more saving, and less consumption. This change will reduce the resources available for all public purposes: there will be less to go around. Along with other publicly funded activities, the change will impose new limits on the conduct of foreign policy. It will do so by altering the framework within which American foreign policy is made and carried out.” 

Mandelbaum reminds us that all great powers have experienced periods of waxing and waning in power and influence, citing historian Paul Kennedy's thesis of “imperial overstretch,” but adds two caveats: 

“First, the American decline will not be nearly as steep as the previous ones.

“No other country will, in the foreseeable future, rise to challenge America's global role, let alone supplant it as the most powerful member of the international system.”

And then this:

“What the world's strongest power faces in conduct of its foreign policy is not only (and perhaps not mainly) weakness in relation to others but also, where usable foreign policy resources are concerned, scarcity.”

What sets Mandelbaum's thesis apart from the rest is his unequivocal policy recommendation - to reduce the American consumption of oil. As his tutee, Tom Friedman, reminds us in his many op-eds on the subject, Mandelbaum says very simply: “Thus it is that the United States is waging a war against terrorism and funding both sides.”

And in what he calls a policy of “New Containment,” he observes that:

“Substantially reducing the role of oil in the American, Chinese, and global economies would, over the long term, lower the cost of America's international obligations in one final way: it would enhance the prospects for democracy, and therefore for democratically inspired peaceful foreign policies. Oil is the enemy of democracy.

Each of these messengers takes primary aim at a different audience: Bacevich is addressing the citizenry, calling on them to help steer the country away from guns and back to butter; Jones aiming his message directly to the White House and the foreign policy and national security decision-makers and managers; and Mandelbaum is teeing up a new way for the Congress and the Administration to think about national security and the politically challenging necessity of imposing a gasoline tax.

And now it's over to you.


R. Garrett Mitchell
The Mitchell Report
March 24, 2011

 

Mark Twain on Foreign Policy

March 1, 2011

 

The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter--it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.
- Mark Twain’s Letter to George Bainton, 10/15/1888

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

Mark Twain and foreign policy?

 Some would say that’s a clear case of ‘never the twain shall meet,’ but if we permit a modicum of poetic license, it might just make sense.

 If you’ve been reading the editorial and op-ed pages of various periodicals during these last few weeks of tumult in Northern Africa and the Middle East, you’ve been treated to an array of thought experiments from various points on the political spectrum suggesting that the Obama administration – and the President himself – have been moving sluggishly, clumsily, uncertainly, and ineptly.

 Many pundits believe that in Egypt and Libya, for example, America should have been out front from the get-go in vocal support of the forces of democracy and against the instruments of oppression, i.e., the ruling regimes and their supporters.

 It’s hard to disagree with this sentiment, but sentiments are not the basis for making policy. The bigger question is: Does it pass the sensibility test? Is it sensible?

 

Twain’s counsel on vocabulary -- ‘the difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter” – provides an analog for evaluating foreign policy. That the difference between the almost right foreign policy and the right foreign policy is really a large matter, and a subtlety lost on more than one American president.

 

It is, for example, captured in the difference between two words that seem almost the same: simple and simplistic.

 

The former means, “easily understood or done, presenting no difficulty; plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature or design.

 

Whereas the latter is about, “treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are.”

 

Now, to the claims about America’s failure to lead the parade on Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere.

 

Is this a simple matter or a simplistic notion?

 

Of course America belongs with the forces of freedom and democracy wherever they are opposed by autocrats and kleptocrats. If we’re not always in a position to ‘stand’ for that, we certainly do ‘speak’ for it?

 

Of course we deplore the brutality of despots and autocrats, wherever and whenever they are found -- in the USSR, the PRC, Latin America, Africa, throughout the Middle East and across the Mahgreb. How we actually deal with them is another matter, indeed.

 

In the Arab and Muslim world, America has a checkered history stretching back for decades and decades that cannot be expunged in the short term, even with the most artful ‘public diplomacy.’

 

However, on each occasion of political awakening in the Middle East, including many false starts over many years, the world looks to America to strut the stage on behalf of the forces for democratization and liberalization. If not the United States, then who? And if not visibly and vocally, then how?

 

Well, there are multiple reasons why leading a rhetorical parade can be a trap for the U. S, and damaging to the forces for moderation and secular governance in the region, as well-- a cross between a “Catch 22” and a “Trojan horse,” ergo a “lose-lose proposition.”

 

Americans need to understand the profusion of complexities and contradictions that come with “Made in the USA” throughout the region. On the one hand, it is our values that people admire and wish to emulate; and on the other hand, it is our policies that have created so much ill will for so long with “the Arab street.”

 

Over the course of modern history in the Middle East – following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the eventual withering away of colonial powers – America’s paramount interest has been about oil. Period. As a consequence, our policies have been driven by that interest, creating an irremediable discontinuity – or “the mother of all contradictions,” if you prefer.

 

But let us not simplify our history: oil was vital to the national security interest, so we did what nation-states do. We acted in our national interest, but with policies that put our democratic values and national security interests at loggerheads -- hence, the indelible tarnish that stains the American brand in the Middle East.

 

Does that mean that America must t-h-i-n-k v-e-r-y c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y before it insinuates itself in circumstances such as the popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Iran, Bahrain and elsewhere?

 

Of course.

 

In most of the Arab-Muslim world, an American ‘endorsement’ is a double-edged sword, at best, and the kiss of death, to many – a reinforcement of the duality of our walk and our talk. Millions throughout the region know precisely which side we’ve been on – talking democracy and freedom while walking the status quo and support for autocrats who have made the Middle East safe for petroleum-driven economies in the western hemisphere and elsewhere.

 

What happens next in each of these countries is a matter for Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, and whoever else may follow to determine on their own, despite the risk potential to the global economy and the transnational community.

 

Instead of intervening, even with the best of intentions, America would do well to take this moment to commence a major policy realignment – one that matches its walk with its talk, and that looks ahead to a new era in Arab Middle East governance, recognizing that this may be years and even decades in the making. And that would suggest waiting for a formal invitation to help while eschewing another intervention – preemptive, preventive, presumptive, or otherwise.

 

 

R. Garrett Mitchell

The Mitchell Report

March 1, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What To Do Between Now and Tuesday?

The secret of teaching is to appear to have known all your life what you learned this afternoon.

Anonymous

Dear Friends,

For a great many Americans, the next 72 hours will be agonizingly long ones, filled with anxiety and fear, suffused with doubt or gloom, and characterized by epic uncertainty. 

And the challenge is: What to do between now and Tuesday?

Here's some background that can help you while away those harrowing hours -- and -- prepare for a celebrity role at the office on Monday or at your Election Night party. Or anywhere in between. And as the anonymous quote suggests, with just a little preparation you can appear to have had this knowledge for sometime.

And on that point, I'll acknowledge indebtedness to a host of very smart teachers -- political scientists, pollsters, pundits, and reporters from whom I have learned much in the lead-up to this election -- and the three institutions with whom they are associated:

o The American Enterprise Institute's Election Watch series, featuring Michael Barone, Karlyn Bowman, John Fortier, and Norman Ornstein -- the longest-running, most informative and entertaining political analysis program in town.

o A Brookings Institution and Princeton University Center for the Study of Democratic Politics project, co-directed by Brookings' Senior Fellow, Thomas Mann and Princeton professor, Larry Bartels, featuring a dozen of the nation's most distinguished political scientists and journalists who combine rigorous social science analysis and thoughtful empirical observations to make sense out of the American electoral process.

o The Pew Research Center, the preeminent polling organization whose CEO, Andrew Kohut, and associates, Scott Keeter and John Green, consistently generate the most accurate data and keen analysis.

And now, here are five ways to think about Election 2008.

o Follow the Money.

Welcome to the first $1,000,000,000 presidential campaign. Yes, that's “billion.” 

As of October 15th, the Obama and McCain Campaigns had raised $980 million -- $640 by the Obama camp and $340 by the McCain organization. 

To put this in perspective, John McCain has raised more money than John Kerry in 2004 and only slightly less than George Bush. By contrast, Obama will probably have raised more than Bush and Kerry combined by the time it's all over.

Obama's donor list of 3.1 million individuals is more than twice that of any other political candidate, and is more than the donor lists of the Democratic and Republican National Committees. 

“He's practically created a party of his own,” according to Anthony Corrado, Colby College professor and one the of nation's leading experts on campaign finance, to whom TMR is indebted for this data.

$310 million of Obama's money has come from donors who gave $200 or less and $215 million from those who gave $1000 or more. By comparison, George W. Bush raised $147 million from the $1000 + donors in 2004.

o Follow White Catholics.

“There is a long history of white Catholic voters being swing voters. If one looks at polling data over the last 20 years, white Catholics do indeed move from one party to another depending on the candidate and the issues, and they almost always end up on the winning side. A lot of analysts look at white Catholics as a key barometer of where the election is going,” according to John Green, Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics at Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

William Galston, Brookings Senior Fellow and former Clinton White House domestic policy adviser, puts it quite simply: “As white Catholics go, so goes the election.”

Pew's polling data showed John McCain with a 13-point edge over Obama with White/non-Hispanic Catholics in late September; by late October, the lead had shifted dramatically giving Obama an 8-point lead. And by comparison, this was a group that supported George W. Bush in 2004 over his Catholic opponent, John Kerry.

A shift of this magnitude stems from multiple contributing factors, but one principal assumption is that White Catholics, whom Galston describes as “cross-pressured” between economic and social issues in their voting behavior, are more concerned with the economy than with abortion or same-sex marriage in 2008. And of the three states where gay marriage initiatives are on the ballot -- Arizona, Florida, and California -- only in Florida might it have any influence.

 o Follow Young Voters.

For years, young voters were the biggest “no-show” cohort in every national election, but that changed substantially in the 2004, according to the University of Maryland's youth voter research institute. 

21 million 18-29 year-olds voted in 2004, an increase of 4.5 million from the election of 2000. And turnout of eligible young voters increased by 9 percentage points, to 51.6 percent, up from 42.3 percent in 2000. 

In the 2006 midterm elections, turnout among 18 to 29 year-olds increased again, when they voted for Democratic candidates over Republicans in races for the House of Representatives (58% vs. 38%), the Senate (60% vs. 33%) and governor (55% vs. 34%).

There is no good news in these data for Republicans for next Tuesday's election.

According to Pew Center's data, the percentage of voters ages 18 to 29 identifying with the Democratic Party has increased from 48% in 2004 to 61% this year. Democrats have a nearly two-to-one margin over Republicans -- 61% to 32% -- up from a seven-point advantage in 2004. And they show a preference for Obama v. McCain by almost 2 to 1 -- 65% to 33%.

Pew data also shows that voters in the 30 to 49 year old cohort have shifted considerably since 2004, with nearly half (49%) identifying with or leaning toward the Democratic Party, up from 43% in 2004. This six-point advantage is a twelve-point shift from the comparable stage in 2004 when Republicans had a six-point advantage.

o Follow the Swing States.

First, which states “swing”? And what makes them “swing”?

Most experts agree that the “swing” or “battleground” states in 2008 are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Others would add Minnesota, New Mexico, and even Georgia.

What changed? And what makes them “in play” this year?

Consider this: 

o according to Pew data from 28,000 interviews, there has been a marked shift in voter identification this year -- 38% identify themselves as Democrats, 34% as Independents, and 28% as Republicans. In 2004, 35% were Democrats, 33% were Republicans, and 32% were Independents; 

o further, Pew shows that in nearly all battleground states, Democrats now hold a several point advantage over Republicans, and in some cases a double digit lead -- 5 points in Virginia, which was evenly split in 2004; 9 points in Ohio, where Democrats had just a two point edge in 2004; 

o the powerful combination of four factors that are causing shifts in nearly every demographic cohort and a growing number of states -- the credit crisis and the financial meltdown, the discrepancy in the performance of the two campaigns and the two presidential candidates, Sarah Palin, and the Obama National Bank.

o Pirate Ship v. Tight Ship

At a Brookings/Princeton seminar this week on the role of money, mobilization, and advertising in the 2008 election, Politico.com's, Mike Allen, reported that a favorite metaphor for the McCain campaign among the political cognoscenti is “pirate ship,” descriptive of its rollicking, swashbuckling character.

By contrast, there is the Obama campaign, which almost every seasoned observer rates as the most well-managed, adult, and consistently smart venture in the history of the business -- the prototypical 'tight ship.'

In fairness, much of this owes to the howling storm into which the McCain ship has had to sail -- the combination of an historically unpopular president of the same party, the Obama juggernaut, the economic earthquake, and whatever other factors have created the significant numerical advantage for generic Democrats this year.

Any analysis of the McCain campaign must begin with those harsh realities, and the recognition that if circumstances had been different, so, too, might have been the trajectory of the campaigns.

But those factors don't explain the brilliance of the Obama team's strategy and its nearly flawless execution, nor do they explain away the carelessness or the profound lability of John McCain's candidacy.

Irrespective of one's political preference, three factors have conspired in the final phase of the campaign -- those few weeks in which a close race appears to have become a potentially toxic election for Republicans of every stripe: 

o vice presidential selection: voters appear to have judged Obama's decision as thoughtful, measured, and responsible; in contrast, McCain's was viewed as impulsive and irresponsible;

o debate performance: Obama was seen as disciplined, unruffled, and “presidential” in demeanor; and by contrast, McCain's peripatetic and sometimes dismissive manner made him seem smaller, older, and too often angry;

o response to the economic upheaval: McCain's “loose cannon” response reflected poorly on his governing style and political judgment; Obama surrounded himself with the 'best and the brightest' in economic and financial matters, took their counsel, and did not make the mistake of trying to interpose himself into an ongoing political and policy debate.

There's more, certainly, and people of good judgment and goodwill will weave different narratives about this most historic of American elections.

But the goal of this TMR is to provide readers with a selection of “talking points” to enhance their performance in “spin rooms” around the country.

And that brings us to two final directives: first, remember to “fall back” tonight because daylight savings has run its course; and second, vote your heart out on Tuesday, unless, of course, you've already done that.  

On the other hand, if you've already voted, try again!

 

What Do We Do Now?

“If I am elected, I don't want to wake up on the morning of November 9 and have to ask myself, 'What in the world do I do now?'”

JFK Note to Clark Clifford, August 1960

Dear Friends,

For all but a few hundred Americans, the long political contest ends -- presumably -- one week from tonight (pause for applause.)

But for those few hundred, new challenges and two important numbers -- 77 and 100 -- present themselves the very next morning.

77: the time until Inauguration Day 2009, a fleeting presidential transition period of eleven weeks.

100: as in, "The First 100 Days,” the political trope that comes to us from FDR's presidency in the early months of 1933.

No matter which ticket prevails, the new President-elect won't face JFK's predicament. That's because each campaign has operational teams focused on these 177 days: the Obama-Biden group is led by former Clinton chief-of-staff and think tank CEO John Podesta; and the McCain-Palin team is headed up by former Nixon and Ford presidential assistant and lobbying firm CEO William Timmons.

Both teams will benefit from the considerable contributions of scores of scholars and practitioners who have collaborated on the transition and launch phases of a half-century of presidencies, and whose findings and recommendations provide a range of thoughtful options about how best to manage these two critical phases of a new presidency.

These contributors include the Center for American Progress, Center for Excellence in Government, Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, National Academy of Public Administration, Partnership for Public Service -- and John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense and now CEO at Center for Strategic and International Studies, the American Enterprise Institute's renowned political scholar, Norman Ornstein, and many academics, including American University's, Dr. James Thurber, Colby College professor Calvin McKenzie, and others.

Among the most seasoned of these experts is Stephen Hess, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution, who has just written a remarkably readable, eminently utilitarian, and uncommonly unpretentious book (for Washington DC think tanks!) -- “What Do We Do Now: A Workbook For The President-Elect” -- from which the theme of this TMR and the JFK quotation are taken.

Hess has been engaged in every presidential transition since Eisenhower-to-Kennedy, and has been a member of two blue-ribbon panels convened to make recommendations for Reagan-to-Bush and Clinton-to-Bush.

And as the country prepares for the most important presidential transition since Hoover-to-Roosevelt or Buchanan-to-Lincoln, “What Do We Do Now” is a book every serious political junkie ought to own.

Though Hess may blanch at the comparison, he's created a kind of “Cliff Notes” or “Transitions for Dummies.” He makes serious subject matter accessible -- easy but never breezy -- and in doing so, he's given interested observers an opportunity to evaluate this presidential transition, just like symphony-goers who take musical scores to concerts to know whether the conductor and the orchestra got it right.

Thanks to the scholarship of Hess and scores of other “transitionists”, here's TMR's take on what to look and listen for -- seven not-so-secret thoughts about doing it right.

o First, quickly assemble the White House staff.

The highest priority is to assemble the White House staff, including chief of staff, personnel director, counsel, press secretary, Congressional relations chief, even a speechwriter or two.

These people make the trains run on time, they're essential for the cabinet vetting process, they're there to deal with Congress, they give the new administration one voice, and they make an important statement about who's in charge -- because a new president doesn't need cabinet appointees freelancing on policy or politics.

They are the first line of offense and defense.

o Second, identify the key national security, homeland security, and economic security nominees ASAP.

It is critical to bring on board the key actors whose jobs are central to the Constitutional commitment to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence.”

This would include cabinet secretaries at Defense, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, and Justice. But also deputy and secondary posts in those agencies, as well as those responsible for counterterrorism and national emergency management, for example.

o Third, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

Bring Congress into the act from the outset -- the leadership of both parties, key committee chairs, and Members who are known to have a vested interest in, knowledge of, and passion for the issues that will be central to those first 100 days.

It is always wise to consult with Congress, but it's too often given perfunctory attention and subsumed by the agenda of the new Administration. However, 2008 is not just another year and much is expected from the 44th presidency, thanks largely to the serial missteps of the 43rd.

With two wars being waged in the Middle East, a tottering national and global economy, and political instability fomenting in virtually every continent, reaching across the aisle and up Pennsylvania Avenue are not just figures of speech, they are essential steps in regaining our national strength and our international respect and prestige.

o Fourth, “Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”

We turn to Lewis Carroll's, Jabberwocky, in search of a metaphor that will capture the importance of avoiding the avoidable errors and pitfalls -- the ones that use up precious political capital and spill blood in the waters.

For example, if you have in mind an Attorney General nominee who has broken the law -- speeding tickets are permissible, but tax liens are not -- take a pass, even if he is “best of class.”

Or, if you've promised to shut down Guantanamo, first figure out what legal and morally defensible options exist to relocate the detainees. On the other hand, if you made this a major campaign commitment, and the press presses you on this in the transition, have a good look in the mirror.

It's probably a good idea to resist the temptation to give the First Lady a substantive policy assignment, even if she is more qualified than anyone on the staff or in the cabinet.

o Fifth, be careful about bipartisanship.

Having just said that “reaching across the aisle and up Pennsylvania Avenue” is essential to the promotion of the national interest, this is a cautionary note about how best to accomplish those objectives.

It's about the much celebrated and somewhat seductive notion of bipartisan cabinet appointments.

Here are three things to bear in mind when conversation turns to the benefits of a bipartisan cabinet, and when comparison is made to JFK's appointments of Douglas Dillon at Treasury, Robert McNamara at Defense, and the offer to “Wise Man” Robert Lovett to take his choice of State, Defense, Treasury or Justice.

First, bipartisanship ain't what it used to be, and the road back is long and rocky.

Second, if the best choice for Treasury, Homeland Security, Interior, or State is a member of the other party, fine. But if the choice is being made primarily in the service of bipartisanship, that's a miscalculation of priorities.

Third, the tension and conflict in Washington DC isn't simply Republicans versus Democrats -- although there's plenty of that to go around -- it's about which branch of government has the power -- Congress or the Executive, Article I or Article II. To assume that a bipartisan cabinet will soften those R v. D battles is errant logic; and it's equally important to understand that it will be of no help with the more contentious schism between Congress and the Administration.

Additionally, it's important to acknowledge that the moment a member of the opposition party becomes a cabinet officer, it is assumed that she or he is “carrying water” for the President, so the asset becomes a limited liability or worse.

The best form of bipartisanship is regular consultation with members of both parties and between both branches of government. And in 2008, sadly, that is a very steep challenge. It's doable with great and sustained effort, but if the expectation is that the opposition will be grateful, remember those roseate predictions about American soldiers being greeted as liberators by Iraqis.

o Sixth, ignore siren calls.

There will be innumerable invitations to leap into the breach to become a “kind-of” President before Inauguration Day.

Ignore them.

They will come daily from the political press, a little less frequently from constituencies who aided in the electoral process, self-serving bundler-donors, and potentially from the sitting President who may invoke the notion that it is important for the President and President-elect to act together on questions of national security.

Ignore them and him.

Wait your turn. Take a cue from Lincoln in 1860 and FDR in 1932, both of whom (rightly) determined that they would “take office” when they “took office,” and not before -- much to the dismay and anger of Presidents Buchanan and Hoover.

o Seventh, “Break glass only in case of emergency.”

You've seen those safety warnings on trains, in buildings, and elsewhere. It's good advice for Presidents, and you could say that it's an analog to the West African proverb that President Theodore Roosevelt often quoted -- “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

It's advice that could have made a big difference in the presidency of George W. Bush and his viceroy, Dick Cheney, lessons the next president must not ignore.

If the polls are accurate, Barack Obama may be on his way to an historically significant Electoral College and popular vote victory -- equal in impact if not necessarily electoral votes to Ronald Reagan's 1980 sweep of Jimmy Carter by a margin of 489 to 49 or to FDR's galloping defeat of Herbert Hoover in 1932 by an almost identical margin of 472 to 59.

If so, President-elect Obama will be well advised to be magnanimous in victory, respectful of those who voted for his opponent and members of Congress who lost their seats, and to demonstrate how resolve and humility can be partners in political leadership.

If by some improbable set of circumstances, the election of 2008 turns out like 1948 -- “Dewey Wins” -- then John McCain will every reason to be humble, respectful, and magnanimous.

No matter the outcome, the President-elect must be mindful that this election has been watched as closely in countries around the globe as at home, and to understand that their great hope -- as it is ours -- is that E Pluribus Unum is both this nation's enduring mission statement as well as a new commitment to global cooperation in the 21st century.

Ah, September: Moral Hazard Month

Ah, September: Moral Hazard Month
September 19, 2008
 
 
“Moral hazard” is the term economists use to describe the fact that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured . . . The savings-and-loan crisis of the nineteen-eighties was created, in large part, by the fact that the federal government insured savings deposits of up to a hundred thousand dollars, and so the newly deregulated S. & L’.s made far riskier investments than they would have otherwise. .
The Moral Hazard Myth
Malcolm Gladwell
New Yorker Magazine
8/29/05
 
 
Dear Friends,
 
September is “Back to School Month,” and this one offers a teachable moment for Americans of all ages about a concept known as “moral hazard,” which is a slippery little devil, as we shall see.
 
It’s taken me a long time to get the gist of it, and the truth is every time I hear the term used by a commentator or policy wonk, I have to reexplain it to myself.
 
Initially, I thought it described a powerful temptation that tested one’s moral mettle -- e.g., finding a bag full of cash in your office building elevator on the day your job was eliminated; playing a round of golf and filling out your scorecard a la Bill Clinton; or being a comparatively new state officeholder and getting a call from someone you’d met once asking if you’d be his vice presidential running mate.
 
Things you know you shouldn’t do, but which are tempting -- and -- difficult to account for -- morally, that is.
 
The dictionary wasn’t helpful because every reference was about insurance -- “the loss to an insurance company resulting from possible lack of prudence or honesty on the part of policyholder.” Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve never used “moral” and “insurance” in the same sentence or conversation, so I was still confused.
 
But after consulting a couple friends in the think tank world, I learned that the term is used in the world of politics and public policy to characterize public policy decisions that may encourage future risky and costly private behavior for which taxpayers could be responsible.
 
Or in slightly more cynical terms, situations in which enormous and costly errors are made by the wealthy and powerful and for which little folks are on the hook.
 
Okay.
 
Take September, for example.
 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch; and just yesterday, news that the powers-that-be are considering putting together the largest financial bailout in American history.
 
And the month isn’t over.
 
Five financial giants at the heart of America’s capital markets, all headed for extinction. Wall Street reeling, stock exchanges around the globe experiencing huge losses, investors small and large wondering whether the country is in freefall, and a President with virtually no political capital and personal credibility to help soothe the country’s jangled nerves.
 
So it has fallen to Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke to take the lead on a scenario that even Hollywood wouldn’t have conjured up.
 
Lehman Brothers’ CEO, Richard Fuld, had good reason to believe that the government might come to his firm’s rescue, given its bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the salvage operation of Long Term Capital Management, which was organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank a decade ago.
 
Turns out he guessed wrong. Who knew?
 
Had he known with certainty that the federal government would not be the court of last resort for a large failing financial institution, his firm (and others) might not have engaged in certain kinds of high risk investment instruments and practices. And having chosen not to do that, they might not be in Chapter 11 today.
 
Maybe, maybe not.
 
The same could be said about Merrill Lynch, but thanks to the good judgment of a new CEO who saw that gravity was rapidly evacuating Merrill’s market value, and who understood that his endgame options were evaporating precipitously, the firm stayed in the private sector, even if in the belly of the whale.
 
And I’m told that if you understand the finer details of credit default swaps (CDO’s) --- and, no, I don’t -- you’ll appreciate even more how Merrill CEO John Thain may have pulled off the most artful and legal legerdemain since Tom Sawyer got Ben to paint the fence.
 
Fannie and Freddie you know about -- sort of. Taken over by the government, which means that taxpayers are ultimately responsible for any losses that might be incurred. Counterbalancing that is the reality that if the government hadn’t stepped in, markets will still be falling, and current and future homeowners would be in a world of hurt.
 
Capping it all was this week’s AIG mega-deal, the details of which are still unfolding, but which demonstrate two verities:
 
First, size matters. If you’re going to fail be v-e-r-y big, bigger than Lehman Bros., apparently.
 
Second, that capitalism (in its slightly modified September 2008 configuration) and morality are strange bedfellows.
 
So if you’re confused about how the experts can rationalize the AIG deal and the Lehman non-deal, and which meets the moral hazard test and which does not, you’re not alone.
 
This doesn’t mean you’re right and they’re wrong. It means that when push comes to shove, the moral hazard standard gets v-e-r-y fuzzy, and then disappears from sight.
 
If you’ll pardon the leap from AIG to Abraham Lincoln, you’ll recall that when Lincoln ordered the suspension of writs of habeas corpus during the Civil War -- for which he took unmitigated political heat -- he said: "[A]re all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?"
 
Now, one week in advance of the first presidential debate, we might ask ourselves about moral hazard and the McCain–Palin ticket.
 
If one believes that the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie, Lehman, Bear Stearns, Merrill, Countrywide and other financial institutions were brazen, careless, or negligent in their management decisions -- at great cost to stockholder value and the impact on the American and global economy -- consider Senator John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin.
 
Even if you admire Palin, find her story compelling, and believe that she’s a quick study, it’s a very long, cold ride on one of those throbbing snow machines to equate that with her being qualified to be vice president of the United States. And, using McCain’s financial advisor Carly Fiorina’s logic, she’s also unqualified to be vice president of Hewlett-Packard.
 
Yet, there she is, chosen because John McCain needed to change the dynamic in his faltering presidential run. A number of qualified candidates from which to choose, but only one who offered three things he needed most: first, red meat -- caribou presumably -- to excite the Republican base of social conservatives; second, strengthening the ticket’s appeal to women, and particularly to disaffected Hillary supporters; and third, buzz -- driving Democrats to distraction and sending the political press into overdrive to vet her in a way that McCain had clearly not done.
 
And if there’s one thing the Republican base hates more than Democrats, it’s the press.
 
But her selection by McCain is a political decision purely in his self-interest with enormously risky implications for the national interest, as this month’s historic financial meltdown and this week’s bombing of the U. S. embassy in Yemen remind us.
 
Just imagine Sarah Palin at the helm.
 
Much of the hoopla about McCain’s stunningly impetuous choice has been spun to fit the persona of that young Navy pilot who survived the horror of the Hanoi Hilton and came home to run for office, and who has built a reputation of bucking his party on key political and public policy issues. It’s a narrative of independence, courage, and audacity. It’s a modern day “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
 
Fine, but this isn’t a movie.
 
And the point is that John McCain didn’t just bet his ranch, he mortgaged ours -- and with a subprime, no less.
 
And we best understand that now.
 
McCain is a big risk taker, a frequent risk taker, and a man for whom risk has been a way of life. That’s admirable in some instances and select vocations, even in the Senate, but it isn’t what we’re looking for in #44.
 
We have seen what bold and risky, strong and wrong, and our way or the highway looks like at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and we have had enough.
 
After twenty-two years in the United States Navy and twenty-six in the United States Congress, one would think John McCain would understand the implications of moral hazard.
 
But apparently not.
 
While he expresses outrage at the greed and selfishness on Wall Street and pontificates on the platinum parachutes that those failed financial CEO’s are bailing out with while their stockholders and employees are left with pennies on the dollar, he ought to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror.
 
That’s if he’s still got the courage.
 
 
 
 

SARAH, PALE IN COMPARISON

“To govern is to choose.”

Pierre Mendes France

SAY GOODNIGHT, PAUL

If you're only tool is a hammer, you tend to look at all problems as nails.

Mark Twain