Obama Cabinet Looking Surprisingly Centrist and Responsible
The L.A. Times reports that Obama is seriously considering either Hillary Clinton or Richard Holbrooke for State and retaining the effective Robert Gates at Defense. We are already hearing the first sorrowful wailing from those for whom the highest form of patriotism is the emotional investment in America’s defeat and dimunition, in a way that is only coincidentally similar to the patriotism of its enemies. At least one of them had the deficiency of judgment to actually believe that Dennis Kucinich would not only make a fine Secretary of State, but would actually be selected for the position.
There are plenty of good things to say about the selection of either Clinton or Holbrooke. For the very reasons that many of us feared a Clinton presidency, the right people may well fear her as Secretary of State. She is not Warren Christopher. She is full of fire, spite, and intrigue. She is no babe in the woods (or in any other venue, for that matter). We could at least hope that she would be able to stare down Putin. Holbrooke would be a better selection, despite some of his recent rhetorical excesses on Iraq. While stationed in Korea a few years ago, I read his book, “To End a War,” and saw that Holbrooke understood (a) the importance of backing negotiation with force, and (b) that American leadership is necessary to solving international crises, because the European Union and the U.N. sure as hell won’t provide any.
Best of all, neither of them is “Kim Jong” Bill Richardson.
Obama’s policy statements on North Korea are have been both inconsistent and generally meaningless: “tough and direct diplomacy,” for example, means what in practice? The appointments to key positions will tell us more. At least three of those personalities who have talked the talk (or better) on human rights issues are likely to rise. The obvious one is Frank Jannuzi, who in this conversation told me more than I’m permitted to write here, most of it encouraging. Gordon Flake was an early Obama supporter, but long before that, he sat down for an OFK interview here. A quote:
If [the North Koreans’] anticipation is that a Democratic Congress or a Democratic Administration is likely to be significantly softer in its approach, particularly after a nuclear test, they are likely to be sorely disssapointed.
One of the axioms of international politics in Washington is that only Nixon can go to China. Nixon had the anti-Communist credentials that Kennedy or Johnson didn’t have. The modern equivalent of this is that only Bush can ignore North Korea. Over the last 5 years, he’s talked a tough game — “evil,” “pygmy,” “loathe,” and so on. But in terms of action, he’s done almost nothing. Every North Korean crossing of “red lines” met with yawns and promises to solve the problem through diplomacy or the six-party talks. I’m not sure a Democratic president or Congress would have as much leeway not to respond to such provocations.
Later, Flake advocated reimposing sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear test, which took place roughly a week before that interview. The Bush Administration’s reaction was to send John Bolton to the U.N. to secure a very tough resolution, and then fail to implement it effectively.
Gordon is affable, brilliant, a fluent Korean speaker, and sincerely interested in easing the oppression of the North Korean people. He is now an Obama advisor and, by inference, a candidate for some influential role. Gordon and I sat side by side when I testified in a 2006 congressional hearing where former Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa presided. Leach was a paradox in many ways — another long-time advocate for human rights in North Korea, Leach is a liberal Republican who supports a fairly dovish foreign policy in other ways. He was later defeated for reelection two months after that hearing, and later defected to the Obama camp. He recently met with Lee Myung Bak on Obama’s behalf.
Obama advisors are already saying, off the record, that Bush’s concessions to North Korea have gone too far. The latest such concession is Chris Hill’s “agreement” with the North Koreans that we’ll defer any nuclear sampling for another day (whether you call this masturbatory diplomacy or diplomatic onanism, it’s painful to watch Bush negotiate against himself and declare each new concession a breakthrough). Unfortunately, with all of the political appointees leaving town or packing, Hill and the East Asia Bureau will have several months both before and after the inauguration to do pretty much what they want with no restraint from the elected branches. I’m sure they’re counting on exactly that.
Obama’s sensible nominations are great news for the country. They are also terrible news for Republicans, because Obama recognizes that this year’s election was not an embrace of the left but a rejection of George W. Bush, and even as a sudden economic gust blew Obama’s way, it was probably doubts about his experience and judgment that held him to just 52%. A seasoned cabinet that pursues generally centrist policies may help Obama dissipate those doubts in the next four years. That sets the rudderless Republicans up for the same kind of prolonged irrelevance that gripped the British Conservative Party after Tony Blair’s election.
In the longer term, permanent one-party domination would be exceptionally bad for America — it would erode our system of checks and balances, and that danger is never greater when the press wholly abandons its impartial role as critic and watchdog and becomes a secular clergy that leads its audience in the adoration and worship of a country’s leader (I have never seen this happen voluntarily before).
To claw their way back and restore competitiveness to American politics, the Republicans will need three things to happen:
First, their luck will have to improve. Just look at the timing of the mid-September meltdown in the credit market, something I’d privately predicted to my wife since we first went house-hunting in late 2003 (sky-high prices + low interest rates + interest-only loans with balloon payments + buyers who clearly could not afford said payments = wave of defaults, foreclosures, and bank failures). Republicans and Democrats were both responsible for pushing the easy credit that created this mess, but it happened six weeks before a presidential election on an unpopular Republican incumbent’s watch. Of course, things will continue to go wrong, and the party in power will still be blamed for them, which isn’t fair. And?
Second, the Republicans will need to coalesce around a few coherent themes on foreign, economic, and social policy. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was really just a mirror image of Bill Clinton’s “triangulation,” that is, a shift toward the center. It was a dilution of principle rather than a realignment of it, and Bush’s Korea policy was an excellent illustration of the gridlock, paralysis, and ultimate absence of direction that resulted.
Third, the Republicans will have to learn to communicate their message even as most of the media unabashedly worship the ruling party. Hatred of Obama will not work and is unworthy of a loyal opposition party. The left’s hatred of Bush often crossed the line to the irresponsible and unpatriotic, as did its indifference toward (or open desire for) defeat in Iraq despite the disastrous consequences of this. They will need to work hardest on building an opposition-oriented press to communicate a unitary vision on war policy, dealing with rogue states, America’s role in the world, economic recovery, homeland security, and increasingly contentious social issues. Today, George W. Bush bequeaths Republicans neither a vision to communicate nor the means to communicate it.