I've long felt that the politician Barack Obama most clearly resembles is John F. Kennedy. The same youthful, technologically-tinged message of change. The same pop-star style excitement. The same sort of outside-the-party-regular kind of campaign. The same sort of substantively modest modest agenda compared to what a more tradition liberal would be pushing in similar circumstances. The same abundance of tactical and short-term strategic brilliance that can lull one into ignoring the lack of a sound long-term strategic planning.
And the same flawed judgment when it comes to land wars in Asia? It well could be. JFK's Vietnam policy has long been shrouded in myth and mystery, but for me--a boomer who's read about Vietnam in five decades now, the most insightful narrative so far on this particular aspect of the war appears to be David Kaiser's 2000 tome, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson, and the Origins of the Vietnam War . While Kaiser's view of Kennedy is more favorable than mine, his interpretative touch is relatively light, and I have no reservations in enthusiastically recommending this book for the insight it provides. It makes a very strong case that Kennedy had no desire to fight in Asia, and went to extraordinary lengths to reverse a collision course that Eisenhower had set us on. But one thing Kennedy did not do was replace the ideologically-blinkered advisory apparatus, which kept failing to give him the sort of genuine alternatives he was hungering for.
How sharp Kennedy's hunger really was is subject to debate, as are similar questions about Obama. One thing is for certain, however: Both men recognize the limits of military power, and the need for more wide-ranging thinking, but both, so far, have failed to reach out to create a policy apparatus that might help them find a better way.
As We Celebrate Our Independence, It Is Time for Energy Independence.
On Friday July 4th we will celebrate Independence Day marking 232 years since our founding fathers declared that the United States of America would be an independent nation. Back in 1776, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others showed courage, leadership and vision by drafting the Declaration of Independence creating a democratic government based on freedom and rights for the common people.
Now, 232 years later, we need to see the same courage, leadership and vision from our elected leaders to declare independence again. In 2008, the independence we need to declare is not from tyrannical leaders and an oppressive government but energy independence from foreign sources that have too much control over a product that is so vital to our nation.
In the wake of the disasterous Bush presidency there are two possible responses. One is that, just like the last time conservatives controlled the country--1920-1932--they are destroying the country. The second is that both sides are to blame. They're both fighting, instead of solving the problems we face. Obama represents the second response, and he is, quite simply, utterly, totally and dangerously wrong. Whatever his intentions may be, action based on this worldview cannot fundamentally reverse the damage that movement conservatism has done to our country. Because of the fierceness of movement conservative opposition, his worldview demands that we change things only modestly in the grand scheme of things.
This is what's at the root of the problems Obama has faced recently, epitomized by his remarks praising Ronald Reagan, however you interpret them. Obama claims he has been misunderstood. But really, it is Obama who fundamentally misunderstands history, and it his misunderstanding that it is the root cause of the confusion he spreads to others. His misunderstanding is based on three inter-related things--a lack of historical knowledge, an acceptance of the dominant political discourse, and a devaluing of material causes and conditions. In particular, the dominant narrative blaming both sides for our political problems, and attributing the cause to bad attitudes in people's heads and hearts, is not just historically inaccurate, it results from a virtual rightwing takeover of the media and many other institutions--a material cause that affects the nature of our political narratives regardless of the actual evidence at hand.
Specifically:
Our problem is not that people are too partisan. The problem is the opposite--there are too many people with divided loyalties, and this has produced a 40-year period dominated by divided government, unlike any other time in our history.
The problem is not that Democrats are too combatative, just like Republicans. There is nothing the Democrats have done that is remotely close to the GOP impeachment of Clinton. To the contrary, the Democratic leadership has refused to even consider impeachment for a list of literally dozens of high crimes and misdemeanors.
The problem is not individual attitudes preventing politicians from agreeing. There are real, fundamental differences, driven by a widening wealth gap, and loss of political power by average people.
Kennedy and Reagan were not transformative leaders. FDR and Nixon were--not necessarily because of who they were, or anything to do with personal charisma, but because they came to power at the true turning points in political alignment--or in Nixon's case, de-alignment.
Let's take these up, one-by-one. The order will change a bit, because of how the evidence flows.
