Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 03, 2026
Book review: Little Brother by Cory Doctorow
This was written in 2008, in a U.S. where a Department of Homeland Security has turned on Americans in the name of security following a terrorist attack. And as its focus and energy was on keeping Americans in line, it created opposition in the form of people who wanted to go about their lives and do so without surveillance. And in this, the protagonists are teenager who were caught up in a dragnet while playing games.
I was in a group that had a conversation about computer privacy recently, and someone expressed a belief that everyone in positions of power was supportive of encryption and privacy. But I remember the days when governments actively opposed the spread of good encryption, even for businesses who wanted to be able to secure discussions and transfer of payments. The technology issues brought up here I still remember, and I recognize a lot of the debates and issues, the opposition to encryption, the desire to do mass tracking and surveillance through cameras and electronic devices. And the technology and social methods that the kids in the book used I recognize from those that were used in real life (which fits the author's purpose).
But the real question here is what does being an American mean? One scene involved the review of the Declaration of Independence and what it means, all the while comparing the grievances expressed in the Declaration of Independence to the fictionalized Department of Homeland Security. The kids are not a White Rose brought to present day. They are not philosophical about morality and righteousness. They only want to live their lives as they see fit, and for their friends to be able to do the same, because they recognize that if the right to live as they please is refused to some, it is refused to all. So they act in ways that provide the freedom action they want to everyone. In contrast, the purpose of those who are demonstrating power is purely to be able to exercise power and limit the ability of others to live their lives.
Another side note. Power for its own sake becomes incompetent. Free creativity creates its own quality. The kids in their creativity create technical solutions outpacing the Department of Homeland Security, who only knows power and cruelty. The kids are not super technologists. They peripherally encounter older protagonists who can do what the kids do, but better. And because they are focused, the older counterparts are quieter and more effective. But this story is about the kids.
This is not a tech-savvy version of White Rose. The kids are not portrayed as idealistic saints. They are kids, who want to live freely and create space for others to do so as well. Which is a very real way what the Declaration of Independence proclaims.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Inside Team Romney's whale of an IT meltdown - Ars Technica
Inside Team Romney's whale of an IT meltdown: ORCA, the Romney campaign's "killer" app, skips beta and pays the price
It was supposed to be a "killer app," but a system deployed to volunteers by Mitt Romney's presidential campaign may have done more harm to Romney's chances on Election Day—largely because of a failure to follow basic best practices for IT projects.
. . .
IT projects are easy scapegoats for organizational failures. There's no way to know if Romney could have made up the margins in Ohio if Orca had worked. But the catastrophic failure of the system, purchased at large expense, squandered the campaign's most valuable resource—people—and was symptomatic of a much bigger leadership problem.
This is quickly turning into a how to on how NOT to run an IT project. Project ORCA was the Romney campaign Get out the Vote platform, developed by Microsoft and an unnamed consultant. (ORCA was a play on the Obama version, NARWHALE, because killer whales are a predator of narwhales) It was developed in seven months, but more importantly, it was developed in relative obscurity, with volunteers who have computer development experience stating that their briefings were more like rah-rah sessions and technical questions that they raised (like 'was this stress-tested?') went un-answered.
1. Security through obscurity. The reason given for not having more open testing (e.g. expose it to the internet and put a load on it) was to avoid having the system be hacked. Most open source advocates state that you want to have your system be exposed and tested by friendly adversaries (e.g. a Red Team made up of campaign volunteers) because they will find faults that you can then fix, security or otherwise.
2. Users are part of the system. The users of ORCA had nearly a literal 0 involvement in development of the system. Volunteers who were expected to use ORCA were expected to obtain the app the Monday before elections. The instructions for the app (which people got Monday night) turned out to be a 60 page PDF. Those that received and read it complained that it included numerous mistakes that could have been caught with proof reading. And another surprise for people looking at Android and Blackberry App Stores was that this was a web app.
3. Users are part of the system part 2. The deployment of those who were part of the ORCA managed GOTV campaign did not account for any realities on the ground. Issues like multiple precincts with co-located voting locations, distance from volunteer to the assigned polling place, and the instructions given (or not given) to poll watchers (e.g. they neglected to mention that you need to have a poll watcher certificate to hang out at a polling place or you will be suspected of voter intimidation).
4. Models, systems, and data are nice, but the value is on what decisions you can make out of it. When they Romney campaign gave an interview proudly presenting ORCA as their response to the Obama campaign data analysts, they said that the main use was to redirect resources from areas where they determined they had good turnout to areas that had low turnout. But what are you going to do? That would mean moving people across the state on short notice? If you had resources you could have used in an area, why were you not using them before? i.e. high tech is flashy, but what are you going to do with it?
From what I can tell from various articles and interviews (and blogs by technically adept people who were Romney campaign volunteers) was that Project ORCA may have really been a technical marvel, as those involved still claim, but it was a project management failure. Rather ironic coming from a campaign and a party that prides itself on business sense.
It was supposed to be a "killer app," but a system deployed to volunteers by Mitt Romney's presidential campaign may have done more harm to Romney's chances on Election Day—largely because of a failure to follow basic best practices for IT projects.
. . .
IT projects are easy scapegoats for organizational failures. There's no way to know if Romney could have made up the margins in Ohio if Orca had worked. But the catastrophic failure of the system, purchased at large expense, squandered the campaign's most valuable resource—people—and was symptomatic of a much bigger leadership problem.
This is quickly turning into a how to on how NOT to run an IT project. Project ORCA was the Romney campaign Get out the Vote platform, developed by Microsoft and an unnamed consultant. (ORCA was a play on the Obama version, NARWHALE, because killer whales are a predator of narwhales) It was developed in seven months, but more importantly, it was developed in relative obscurity, with volunteers who have computer development experience stating that their briefings were more like rah-rah sessions and technical questions that they raised (like 'was this stress-tested?') went un-answered.
1. Security through obscurity. The reason given for not having more open testing (e.g. expose it to the internet and put a load on it) was to avoid having the system be hacked. Most open source advocates state that you want to have your system be exposed and tested by friendly adversaries (e.g. a Red Team made up of campaign volunteers) because they will find faults that you can then fix, security or otherwise.
2. Users are part of the system. The users of ORCA had nearly a literal 0 involvement in development of the system. Volunteers who were expected to use ORCA were expected to obtain the app the Monday before elections. The instructions for the app (which people got Monday night) turned out to be a 60 page PDF. Those that received and read it complained that it included numerous mistakes that could have been caught with proof reading. And another surprise for people looking at Android and Blackberry App Stores was that this was a web app.
3. Users are part of the system part 2. The deployment of those who were part of the ORCA managed GOTV campaign did not account for any realities on the ground. Issues like multiple precincts with co-located voting locations, distance from volunteer to the assigned polling place, and the instructions given (or not given) to poll watchers (e.g. they neglected to mention that you need to have a poll watcher certificate to hang out at a polling place or you will be suspected of voter intimidation).
4. Models, systems, and data are nice, but the value is on what decisions you can make out of it. When they Romney campaign gave an interview proudly presenting ORCA as their response to the Obama campaign data analysts, they said that the main use was to redirect resources from areas where they determined they had good turnout to areas that had low turnout. But what are you going to do? That would mean moving people across the state on short notice? If you had resources you could have used in an area, why were you not using them before? i.e. high tech is flashy, but what are you going to do with it?
From what I can tell from various articles and interviews (and blogs by technically adept people who were Romney campaign volunteers) was that Project ORCA may have really been a technical marvel, as those involved still claim, but it was a project management failure. Rather ironic coming from a campaign and a party that prides itself on business sense.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Rep. Altmire (PA-4) goes to the Northland Public Library
My congressman has been going around his district this weekend having town hall meetings. His district covers the North Hills of Pittsburgh and parts of Beaver and Butler counties. All three of the regions mentioned are very conservative. Rep. Altmire is a Democrat in his second term. What follows are a summary of the meeting, then comments.
So, issues covered:
Not one of those town halls that you would see on TV. It is characterized by the organized group that was their to listen to themselves yell out "B***S***" and "Yes or no" and that came with their sheets of talking points (Rep. Altmire's staff was able to get a copy of the talking points sheets being passed around so they gave him a copy) From the copy I got, it was majoring in minors. It asked about why he moved to Western PA after being on a congressman's staff (it was written to insinuate that he is an outsider that moved here soley to be a politician He was born in Western PA, then moved here in 1998 to work for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (recognized as a Pittsburgh 40 under 40 in 2003), then was elected to the House in 2006. And it also asked about his association with a lobbying firm under investigation (they had donated money to him. None of their clients were the focus of any funding requests/earmarks by him)
The other big question was on the concept of mandatory vs. discretionary spending. Most of the federal budget is due to social security, medicare and veterans (plus defense, which counts as discretionary), with 'mandatory' being a legal term. Many in the audience did not like that, claiming that this is not mandatory (presumably meaning they want to cut social security, medicare and veterans benefits).
And in the background of the whole thing is Article 1 of the United States Constitution, the one that states that all spending and taxes is under the perview of Congress, and that Congress deliberates and decides, with the President's proposal being no more then that. You don't think about it much, but Altmire speaks like he takes it seriously, and any congressman who does take his role seriously, especially with the transparancy rules that state that earmarks have to be accompanied by the member's name and that no changes are allowed to spending for 24 hours before approval, has no business complaining about a budget that he had 6 months to discuss and deliberate as being unknown to him.
The other undertone was about Obama's background. During the democratic primary, then Senator Clinton predicted that the Republican Party, should Obama be the Democratic nominee, would run a smear campaign. And this meeting showed this, with many of the attendees whispering about Obama being a Muslem, being really from Kenya, all things that are proved false multiple times (no muslem claims Obama is a muslem, the secretary of state for Hawaii has affirmed his native birth. Note that then Senators Obama and Clinton authorized the legal brief written during the presidental primaries that supported that McCain met the constitutional qualifications for president, dispite that he was not actually born in a state of the United States.)
Probably the most disturbing thing, the cries that the effects of Article 1 of the United States Constitution were "B***S***".
[Edit: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review account of the meeting and the Republican National Committee robocalls and talking point is here:
At town-hall meeting, Altmire insists he's a 'centrist']
So, issues covered:
- Homeland security reports on extremists - The Department of Homeland Security has written (distributed? I think only in summary form) two reports detailing the dangers of left-wing and right-wing domestic extremism. While there does not seem to be any questions about the identification of eco-terrorists, al-Queda/Somali attempts to recruit Muslims, anarchist or progressive black bloc types (I'm paraphrasing) etc. in the report on left-wing extremists, there seems to be considerable reaction to the report on anti-abortion bombers, gun-rights activists reiterating a claim the feds are coming for their guns, and right-wing extremists recruiting among veterans. Rep. Altmire comments that as someone who is a veteran, owns guns, and is anti-abortion, he intends to find out just how this report is being used (since he is a member of the groups that are perceived to be most targeted by this report). This is of course met with loud and repeated cries of *yes or no* and repeated questions of what is he going to do. Of course, he is being asked for this even though noone has actually read the actual report (only a summary). He also noted that this is a regularly done report, which did not seem to get the same response during prior years (of course, it could be because only one of the two reports got routine attention).
- Fiscal spending - The well loved stimulus package. This was a nonsensical with a very vocal bloc seeming to be driven by a desire to scream out B***s***. (there was a point where Altmire stopped talking and called out one of the louder ones and called on him to yell it out a few more times so Altmire could actually discuss this.) What Altmire ended up doing was teaching what used to be called civics. Or, the Schoolhouse Rock "I'm just a bill." One of the "answer yes or no" folks was yelling this out as part of a question "Did you vote for the President's budget?" This is a non-sensical question because President's budgets do not come up for votes. Altmire pointed out that the President could propose, but budgets are debated and negotiated in Congress. In this case, starting in September 2008. There was also a lot of commentary about "voting on a 1000 page budget that they did not read." Altmire pointed out that everything was discussed and debated in the open, and there was nothing in that 1000+ page budget that every congressman/Senator had multiple opportunities to look at over the past 6 months (especially since one of the more recent reforms was blocking the ability to add to a spending measure 24 hours before votes). And all comments to that effect were, well, misleading (to put it charitably).
- Earmarks and PAC money. Many accusations of being pushed by corrupt money. Altmire pointed out that the current congress increased transparency by requiring congressmen to attach their name to any projects that were proposed, and that all of his campaign contributions were also public record. And the challenge was to find any major campaign contributors who were recipients of a funding request (earmark). The answer is none. The only gray example (which Altmire provided unprompted) was a major corporation who already had a contract with DoD who asked for assistance on that contract. (more rounds of B***S*** while he waited for people to amuse themselves before he could answer.)
- Big thing about attempts to block people from listening to any of the various right-wing talk shows. The Fairness doctrine was mentioned. It turns out, Altmire has for the second time, submitted a bill that prevent the Fairness doctrine from even coming up again. (and gives a reasoned argument against all such restrictions) This lead to further questions about his position on other un-proposed restrictions against right-wing talk shows.
- Accusations of not being interested in constituent views. Mind you, this question was being raised in the middle of a town hall meeting where the Rep. in question was fully aware that this was being loaded (he had a copy of the talking points that were being distributed to those in the town hall who were more vocally opposed to him). Altmire pointed out the irony of asking that question in a forum where he was physically present getting constituent views.
Not one of those town halls that you would see on TV. It is characterized by the organized group that was their to listen to themselves yell out "B***S***" and "Yes or no" and that came with their sheets of talking points (Rep. Altmire's staff was able to get a copy of the talking points sheets being passed around so they gave him a copy) From the copy I got, it was majoring in minors. It asked about why he moved to Western PA after being on a congressman's staff (it was written to insinuate that he is an outsider that moved here soley to be a politician He was born in Western PA, then moved here in 1998 to work for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (recognized as a Pittsburgh 40 under 40 in 2003), then was elected to the House in 2006. And it also asked about his association with a lobbying firm under investigation (they had donated money to him. None of their clients were the focus of any funding requests/earmarks by him)
The other big question was on the concept of mandatory vs. discretionary spending. Most of the federal budget is due to social security, medicare and veterans (plus defense, which counts as discretionary), with 'mandatory' being a legal term. Many in the audience did not like that, claiming that this is not mandatory (presumably meaning they want to cut social security, medicare and veterans benefits).
And in the background of the whole thing is Article 1 of the United States Constitution, the one that states that all spending and taxes is under the perview of Congress, and that Congress deliberates and decides, with the President's proposal being no more then that. You don't think about it much, but Altmire speaks like he takes it seriously, and any congressman who does take his role seriously, especially with the transparancy rules that state that earmarks have to be accompanied by the member's name and that no changes are allowed to spending for 24 hours before approval, has no business complaining about a budget that he had 6 months to discuss and deliberate as being unknown to him.
The other undertone was about Obama's background. During the democratic primary, then Senator Clinton predicted that the Republican Party, should Obama be the Democratic nominee, would run a smear campaign. And this meeting showed this, with many of the attendees whispering about Obama being a Muslem, being really from Kenya, all things that are proved false multiple times (no muslem claims Obama is a muslem, the secretary of state for Hawaii has affirmed his native birth. Note that then Senators Obama and Clinton authorized the legal brief written during the presidental primaries that supported that McCain met the constitutional qualifications for president, dispite that he was not actually born in a state of the United States.)
Probably the most disturbing thing, the cries that the effects of Article 1 of the United States Constitution were "B***S***".
[Edit: The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review account of the meeting and the Republican National Committee robocalls and talking point is here:
At town-hall meeting, Altmire insists he's a 'centrist']
Monday, December 01, 2008
A Handpicked Team for a Sweeping Shift in Foreign Policy - New York Times
A Handpicked Team for a Sweeping Shift in Foreign Policy by David Sangler, New York Times
President-elect Obama today introduced a set of cabinet appointees for positions involved in national security. Among them are Sen. Hillary Clinton (a rival candidate for the Presidency), Mr. Gates (current Secretary of Defense under a Republican Presidency) and Gen. Jones (USMC, ret.) The range of reactions has reached a bit of predictability. Progressives/liberals complaining that these are people who have been working in this field and therefore do not represent change. The Republican National Committee talking about how these picks are taking their places alongside the Four Horsemen of the Apocylpse (I'm only slightly facetious here). And various greybeards observing that President-elect Obama has a pattern of picking pragmatists for all of his policy positions. And Obama supporters who have observed that the entire Obama campaign was based on pragmatism planks over ideology.
But looking at those senior picks of Jones and Gates, neither of whom is there any reason to believe are Obama loyalists, the question is how can they work together. All of the picks (to include Sen. Clinton, Dr. Rice and the others) have strong personalities and definitive beliefs. President-elect Obama has stated that he intends his senior leadership meetings to be one of vigorous debate, in stark contrast to the current policy of removing all cabinet members that showed dissent. But it is also observed that people who disagree all the time don't work together all that well.
It turns out there is a unifying theme among the top nominees. The theme are the elements of national power, described as DIME (diplomacy, information, military, economic). Gen. Jones and Secretary Gates have been heard on many occasions advocating the need to strengthen the non-military elements of national power. Sec. Gates going so far as to say he would willingly give up part of the budget of the Department of Defense to strengthen the Department of State. (and reminding JCS Chief Admiral Mullen he made similar statements when he was PACOM). This is also the driving factor of candidate Obama's national security platform when running. So, essentially, the top-level nominees and the President-elect (with the exception of Sen. Clinton, whom I do not know about) have each independently advocated the same change in the overall approach to the national security of the United States. For all their differences (and it is expected that intelligent, capable people have differences), the fact that they have subscribed to the same paradigm makes the rest details.
President-elect Obama today introduced a set of cabinet appointees for positions involved in national security. Among them are Sen. Hillary Clinton (a rival candidate for the Presidency), Mr. Gates (current Secretary of Defense under a Republican Presidency) and Gen. Jones (USMC, ret.) The range of reactions has reached a bit of predictability. Progressives/liberals complaining that these are people who have been working in this field and therefore do not represent change. The Republican National Committee talking about how these picks are taking their places alongside the Four Horsemen of the Apocylpse (I'm only slightly facetious here). And various greybeards observing that President-elect Obama has a pattern of picking pragmatists for all of his policy positions. And Obama supporters who have observed that the entire Obama campaign was based on pragmatism planks over ideology.
But looking at those senior picks of Jones and Gates, neither of whom is there any reason to believe are Obama loyalists, the question is how can they work together. All of the picks (to include Sen. Clinton, Dr. Rice and the others) have strong personalities and definitive beliefs. President-elect Obama has stated that he intends his senior leadership meetings to be one of vigorous debate, in stark contrast to the current policy of removing all cabinet members that showed dissent. But it is also observed that people who disagree all the time don't work together all that well.
It turns out there is a unifying theme among the top nominees. The theme are the elements of national power, described as DIME (diplomacy, information, military, economic). Gen. Jones and Secretary Gates have been heard on many occasions advocating the need to strengthen the non-military elements of national power. Sec. Gates going so far as to say he would willingly give up part of the budget of the Department of Defense to strengthen the Department of State. (and reminding JCS Chief Admiral Mullen he made similar statements when he was PACOM). This is also the driving factor of candidate Obama's national security platform when running. So, essentially, the top-level nominees and the President-elect (with the exception of Sen. Clinton, whom I do not know about) have each independently advocated the same change in the overall approach to the national security of the United States. For all their differences (and it is expected that intelligent, capable people have differences), the fact that they have subscribed to the same paradigm makes the rest details.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Book Review: The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama
The Audacity of Hope by Barack ObamaMy review
rating: 5 of 5 stars
The Audacity of Hope is not a biography, it is a discussion of politics in the United States. It is not a denunciation of the current political system, but a description of it and how and why it developed the way it has.
Obama walks through a number of topics, the two-party system, values, the constitution, politics, opportunity, faith, and race, and writes about how each is related to the political process. He discusses the actual issues that are involved, how various groups within the United States view the various sides of the issues, and he discusses on how these issues are addressed during political campaigns.
The theoretical part is instructive. Among other things, Obama taught constitutional law in one of the top law schools in the country. That is not a qualification in itself, but he notes that it exposes him to intelligent people who will challenge details of his understanding, and force him to clarify the corners of what he believes. The chapter on constitutional law is probably one of the better descriptions of the views and implications of the strict constructionist view of law, and why Obama opposes it (Strict construction implies that the law should be taken as written. The opposition arguement "judicial review" is the law (especially founding fathers) tells us how to think, not what to think, the writers of the constitution actually disagreed on many things, so the concept of "founders intent" in "what to think" is meaningless. Since the founders left behind considerable commentary (paralleled by the congressional record in the case of laws), the commentary can be used in understanding "how to think" and give an understanding of how the law should be applied to the situation at hand.) )
The more practical components stem from his experiences on state and federal level campaigns (Illinois and U.S. Congress) and his experience at the community level as an organizer with a number of churches on the south side of Chicago. It is highly practical, how politics work at street level. It is probably one of the more comprehensive explanations of why special interests are so important to political campaigns, especially as the area covered by the campaign gets larger.
His main point about special interests is they provide two things, money and political workers on the ground. A normal candidate cannot provide these things by him/herself because a mere candidate base of support starts as local, where the candidate has been working in the past. So all political candidates work with people who can provide large sums of funds, and motivate people who would be willing to speak on behalf of the candidate in various parts of the country, and to their neighbors through phone banks and canvassing. For the Democrats, the main groups that provide this manpower are labor unions, environmental groups, and prochoice groups. For Republicans, the key special interest groups are the religious right, local chambers of commerce, the NRA and anti-tax organizations. And the messages are "spun" by media in this context.
So it is instructive on how this understanding of the political process played out in the campaign. Not just how the sides were taken (the Republican advocacy of Strict construction, the Republican use of Gov. Palin to keep the key special interest groups involved in the campaign, the McCain/Palin emphasis on not raising taxes.) but how Obama structured his campaign. The emphasis on small donations rather then large donations. The refusal to take money from lobbyists or allow lobbyists to take positions in the campaign. The heavy recruiting of volunteers not associated with unions, environmental or prochoice groups. So if a lobbyist comes to advocate a position, that lobbyist cannot say that the group he represents provided the decisive contribution to the Obama campaign, in either money or workers. The lobbyist must advocate the issue on its face.
Audacity of Hope is a primer on the U.S. political system, both as theory, and how it actually works and why. It also provides a framework to look at the American political system at work. And, it provides thoughts on how the more self-destructive tendencies can be mitigated. The next question is how this works in practice.
View all my reviews.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Obama Ground Game, from the ground
[these are notes, so someday I can tell my grandkids what it was like as part of the Obama campaign]
I started following the Obama campaign during the primary season, in the days leading up to the Pennsylvania Primary. A Democratic Primary campaign that was expected to be a lock for Sen. Hilary Clinton had turned interesting, with the first two contests split between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. Sen. Clinton's big push was against Sen. Obama's inexperience, proclaiming that when the primaries were over, Sen. McCain and the Republicans would launch into a no-gloves smearfest, and Sen. Clinton could handle it while Sen. Obama could not. She predicted that the Republicans would leave no stone unturned, or distorted, to make these attacks. And since the Republicans have been smearing her for 10 years, the Democrats already knew she could survive.
As part of these attacks, Sen. Clinton's campaign brought up the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. A veteran, with a tour in the Marine Corps, then a tour in the Navy during the Vietnam war era, Rev. Wright was Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, which is where Sen. Obama accepted the Christian faith and became part of a christian community. Rev. Wright was also known for his fire and anger at the United States with all of its injustices. And Sen. Clinton attacked Sen. Obama for this.
Sen. Obama had two options. He could ignore the attack, hoping it would not stick. Or he could forsake his pastor, denouncing Rev. Wright's views. He decided something different. He acknowledge the hate of his pastor, then denounced it, stating that it acknowledged truth, but denied what America could be. And, in Philadelphia, he presented a vision for an America that could be ("More Perfect Union"), completely in keeping with the themes of his political life.
I ended up voting for Obama in the primary, then connected with the campaign. Months later, as Sen. Obama began winning more primary contests, and the Sen. Clinton campaign died down, the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania started up again, looking towards the national election.
I live in the North Hills, affluent north suburbs of Pittsburgh. The area is heavily conservative. In addition, the entire southwest Pennsylvania region is striking in its insularity and lack of diversity, visible to anyone who has to work with the region as a whole (my experience is with public safety and emergency services). And with a multi-racial candidate, this was shown to be an issue with whisper campaigns and unattributed e-mails that circulated throughout the primary season.
I first started with voter's registration in Cranberry, then in the North Hills. The local field organizer for Butler County (a student from California taking a semester off), as part of our introduction, explained that it was never expected that Butler County would vote for Obama. But the goal was to cut into its dominance, and let the Butler Republican Party know that the Democrates would work in Butler County. The field organizer for the North Hills (recent graduate, taking time off before starting a teaching job in PA where he grew up) said the same. For Pennsylvania, it could be expected the Democrats would dominate Philadelphia and the city of Pittsburgh, the Republicans would dominate central PA. The question would be the ability of the Democrats to develop support in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh suburbs. And as campaign volunteers in the north suburbs of Pittsburgh, we would see it all.
Voter's registration went on during the remainder of the summer. It was good natured, especially in dominantly Republican Butler County. We probably registered as many Republicans as Democrats in Cranberry. But the point was to make a presence, and let people know that Democrats were not stand-ins for the devil (which was a serious issue there.)
By late-July, the North Hills team was started with a field organizer who grew up in the North Hills, and a few couples who would serve as volunteer organizers, dividing the six townships in northern Allegheny County. We continued voter's registration, but as Obama reached the point that he won the Democratic nomination, we started calling voter's and canvassing (knocking on doors), asking them about their views on Obama and McCain, recruiting volunteers from supporters and talking to Clinton supporters, encouraging them in their support of Clinton and the Democratic Party in the runup to the Democratic National Convention. And we laid the groundwork for a bigger organization to come. From a group that started in late July at about 20 volunteers for the six townships in the North Hills, it was expected to multiply ten-fold after the convention.
Right after the convention, and after going to a rally in Beaver County with Obama and VP-Candidate Sen. Biden, I left for three weeks to volunteer in Texas and Louisiana in response to Hurricane Gustav and Ike. The volunteer coordinator for Franklin Park/Marshall teases me for being so lazy to leave the campaign in September.
When I returned, the campaign was a buzz of activity. The campaign had a North Hills office, right off McKnight Road (the big commercial road for the North Hills) There were always volunteers there on the phone, with extra ones for the evening. There were now two additional staff. Of course, this was after the Republican Convention. With the standard convention bounce, polls considered the race even. Which was expected as Sen. McCain was the only Republican who was different enough from the Republican party to have a good shot at the middle. And while the conservative wing of the party, especially those who spoke for evangelical christians, openly disliked him, having Sarah Palin as candidate for VP gave them cause to embrace and support the Republican candidates. With so many volunteers, I elected to canvass when I had time, because I was comfortable with going around, knocking on doors of strangers, even if I was alone. Because I figured the North Hills of Pittsburgh did not compare to Afghanistan or a disaster area.
Knocking on doors had lots of responses. There were the houses with Obama supporters who asked "are there other Obama supporters here?" The houses where people said "good work" and "good luck". Old ladies who were so delighted to have someone that came to talk to them. People who were delighted to have a Presidential campaign contact them and wanted to help in any way. Veterans who did not support Obama, but when learning I was in Afghanistan, we would greet each other as brothers. There were people who wanted to talk about health care, or taxes or the economy. We would usually have a few fact sheets and specific issues. And the Obama-Biden campaign would posts videos on YouTube about issue areas as well as current campaign speeches by the candidates and supporters around the country. One day Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (daughter of John F. Kennedy) came by to give us a pep talk and join us canvassing. And so many people who asked "do you think he (Obama) has a chance?" (my reply "he has a chance, but we have work to do.") The most memorable conversations were a few mothers of soldiers or soon to be soldiers. We spent alot of time talking about Afghanistan, and why I thought that Obama would be a good commander-in-chief for their children. Several asked if Obama would get us out of the war. Of course, unlike some candidates, Obama does not promise a unilateral, immediate pullout. But I could tell them that he will use the military appropriately, and he will also bring other aspects of national power (DIME) to bear, not just the military.
And the campaign also posted McCain-Palin ads and recordings of campaign phone calls. The McCain-Palin campaign had made the choice to go almost all negative, to the point where their campaign site had only the briefest of outlines of their position and platform. There were the houses where they heard from church that Obama was a Muslim (Obama is a church going Christian, there is no Muslim in the world who would call Obama a Muslim. If Obama was not Christian, he could not be attacked on the basis of his pastor.) There were those who asked if he worked with terrorists (based on being part of a Republican organized board to improved schools in Chicago. The Republican organizers included a former member of the 60's radical Weather Underground.) Others were told he went to school in a madrassas (He went to public schools in Indonesia. And the ones that wondered if he was indeed a citizen and truly eligible to be President (Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Sen. Obama had earlier in the year prepared a memorandum that supported that the Panama Canal-born John McCain was considered 'natural born citizen' as opposed to one who citizenship was conferred to ensure McCain's citizenship would not be an issue during the Presidential campaign.) And there were the people who would slam the door in any Democrates face. During this time these views were being promoted on radio shows, automatic telephone calls and email campaigns. All of which the Obama-Biden campaign would make available on the internet so we could address the smear campaign.
By the week before the election, the weekend canvassing was too big to work out of the Obama campaign office, so we staged out of the local congressional campaign office. Then we used staging areas at the volunteer coordinators (three for the North Hills). The weekend before the election, 200 volunteers had canvassed in the North Hills at some point. While McCain was 'guarantee victory', the Obama campaign was preaching "Don't let up" And we did not. With that many volunteers, we were meeting each other all over the place. Over the weekend I took four shifts. I saw three other groups of Obama canvassers, two groups with SEIU (a union that was supporting Obama) and a group supporting Republican Congressional Candidate Hart. And I know that there was at least one group with Democratic Congressional Candidate Altmire around me as well. There were thanks and encouragement from Obama supporters and those who did not want to say who they supported, and heckles from McCain supporters. On Saturday night there was a big volunteer conference call, that included Sen. Obama himself giving a pep talk to the volunteers over the phone. ( *ring ring* this is the Obama campaign. Please hold the line for a few minutes for a conference call with Sen. Obama.)
The last day was election day. After voting, I spent the rest of the day knocking on doors, checking if people had voted. It was just like the old school Chicago precinct captain election day ritual of walking around the neighborhood to make sure people had voted. There were packets of walk sheets that the volunteer coordinator house. People were dropping off food, snacks and drinks for the volunteers, and others were standing by to provides for anyone who needed it.
And then the wait. Everyone had discounted polls talking about 15% advantage for Obama in PA, preferring to focus on all of McCain and Palin campaigning in the area, and our memories were of when PA was considered even. I took the time off to go home and rest. And around 8:30 my wife and I went back to the volunteer organizer's house to watch the results. The next couple hours went from casual acceptance to astonishment. Many of the states were pretty well known. Pennsylvania was the first shock, because we almost did not believe that Obama would be that much ahead to call so early (Obama ended up winning by 10%). We discounted almost every piece of news before 9PM. There was Indiana not being called for either for the longest time. The announcement that Democrats swept the New England congressional races. Obama winning New Mexico. Colorado still being in contention. Then Ohio being called for Obama. And after the unified media had Obama at 200 electorial votes, with California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii yet to close, everyone knew that Obama would reach 270. The various network announcers were tripping over themselves dealing with the obvious (CA, OR, WA and HI were all going to be for Obama without question) without actually saying it before the polls in those states closed. Of course, everyone else could do the same math, and all the various campaign offices were calling us, sharing in the excitement without actually saying anything because it may jinx it. And then, at 11 EST, the west coast polls closed. And the six media networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, AP) all declared that Obama would win those states, and their tally had Obama over 270 electorial votes (even without Florida, Virginia, North Carolina or Missouri) And much gladness, and feeling of a job well done.
I started following the Obama campaign during the primary season, in the days leading up to the Pennsylvania Primary. A Democratic Primary campaign that was expected to be a lock for Sen. Hilary Clinton had turned interesting, with the first two contests split between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. Sen. Clinton's big push was against Sen. Obama's inexperience, proclaiming that when the primaries were over, Sen. McCain and the Republicans would launch into a no-gloves smearfest, and Sen. Clinton could handle it while Sen. Obama could not. She predicted that the Republicans would leave no stone unturned, or distorted, to make these attacks. And since the Republicans have been smearing her for 10 years, the Democrats already knew she could survive.
As part of these attacks, Sen. Clinton's campaign brought up the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. A veteran, with a tour in the Marine Corps, then a tour in the Navy during the Vietnam war era, Rev. Wright was Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ, which is where Sen. Obama accepted the Christian faith and became part of a christian community. Rev. Wright was also known for his fire and anger at the United States with all of its injustices. And Sen. Clinton attacked Sen. Obama for this.
Sen. Obama had two options. He could ignore the attack, hoping it would not stick. Or he could forsake his pastor, denouncing Rev. Wright's views. He decided something different. He acknowledge the hate of his pastor, then denounced it, stating that it acknowledged truth, but denied what America could be. And, in Philadelphia, he presented a vision for an America that could be ("More Perfect Union"), completely in keeping with the themes of his political life.
I ended up voting for Obama in the primary, then connected with the campaign. Months later, as Sen. Obama began winning more primary contests, and the Sen. Clinton campaign died down, the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania started up again, looking towards the national election.
I live in the North Hills, affluent north suburbs of Pittsburgh. The area is heavily conservative. In addition, the entire southwest Pennsylvania region is striking in its insularity and lack of diversity, visible to anyone who has to work with the region as a whole (my experience is with public safety and emergency services). And with a multi-racial candidate, this was shown to be an issue with whisper campaigns and unattributed e-mails that circulated throughout the primary season.
I first started with voter's registration in Cranberry, then in the North Hills. The local field organizer for Butler County (a student from California taking a semester off), as part of our introduction, explained that it was never expected that Butler County would vote for Obama. But the goal was to cut into its dominance, and let the Butler Republican Party know that the Democrates would work in Butler County. The field organizer for the North Hills (recent graduate, taking time off before starting a teaching job in PA where he grew up) said the same. For Pennsylvania, it could be expected the Democrats would dominate Philadelphia and the city of Pittsburgh, the Republicans would dominate central PA. The question would be the ability of the Democrats to develop support in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh suburbs. And as campaign volunteers in the north suburbs of Pittsburgh, we would see it all.
Voter's registration went on during the remainder of the summer. It was good natured, especially in dominantly Republican Butler County. We probably registered as many Republicans as Democrats in Cranberry. But the point was to make a presence, and let people know that Democrats were not stand-ins for the devil (which was a serious issue there.)
By late-July, the North Hills team was started with a field organizer who grew up in the North Hills, and a few couples who would serve as volunteer organizers, dividing the six townships in northern Allegheny County. We continued voter's registration, but as Obama reached the point that he won the Democratic nomination, we started calling voter's and canvassing (knocking on doors), asking them about their views on Obama and McCain, recruiting volunteers from supporters and talking to Clinton supporters, encouraging them in their support of Clinton and the Democratic Party in the runup to the Democratic National Convention. And we laid the groundwork for a bigger organization to come. From a group that started in late July at about 20 volunteers for the six townships in the North Hills, it was expected to multiply ten-fold after the convention.
Right after the convention, and after going to a rally in Beaver County with Obama and VP-Candidate Sen. Biden, I left for three weeks to volunteer in Texas and Louisiana in response to Hurricane Gustav and Ike. The volunteer coordinator for Franklin Park/Marshall teases me for being so lazy to leave the campaign in September.
When I returned, the campaign was a buzz of activity. The campaign had a North Hills office, right off McKnight Road (the big commercial road for the North Hills) There were always volunteers there on the phone, with extra ones for the evening. There were now two additional staff. Of course, this was after the Republican Convention. With the standard convention bounce, polls considered the race even. Which was expected as Sen. McCain was the only Republican who was different enough from the Republican party to have a good shot at the middle. And while the conservative wing of the party, especially those who spoke for evangelical christians, openly disliked him, having Sarah Palin as candidate for VP gave them cause to embrace and support the Republican candidates. With so many volunteers, I elected to canvass when I had time, because I was comfortable with going around, knocking on doors of strangers, even if I was alone. Because I figured the North Hills of Pittsburgh did not compare to Afghanistan or a disaster area.
Knocking on doors had lots of responses. There were the houses with Obama supporters who asked "are there other Obama supporters here?" The houses where people said "good work" and "good luck". Old ladies who were so delighted to have someone that came to talk to them. People who were delighted to have a Presidential campaign contact them and wanted to help in any way. Veterans who did not support Obama, but when learning I was in Afghanistan, we would greet each other as brothers. There were people who wanted to talk about health care, or taxes or the economy. We would usually have a few fact sheets and specific issues. And the Obama-Biden campaign would posts videos on YouTube about issue areas as well as current campaign speeches by the candidates and supporters around the country. One day Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (daughter of John F. Kennedy) came by to give us a pep talk and join us canvassing. And so many people who asked "do you think he (Obama) has a chance?" (my reply "he has a chance, but we have work to do.") The most memorable conversations were a few mothers of soldiers or soon to be soldiers. We spent alot of time talking about Afghanistan, and why I thought that Obama would be a good commander-in-chief for their children. Several asked if Obama would get us out of the war. Of course, unlike some candidates, Obama does not promise a unilateral, immediate pullout. But I could tell them that he will use the military appropriately, and he will also bring other aspects of national power (DIME) to bear, not just the military.
And the campaign also posted McCain-Palin ads and recordings of campaign phone calls. The McCain-Palin campaign had made the choice to go almost all negative, to the point where their campaign site had only the briefest of outlines of their position and platform. There were the houses where they heard from church that Obama was a Muslim (Obama is a church going Christian, there is no Muslim in the world who would call Obama a Muslim. If Obama was not Christian, he could not be attacked on the basis of his pastor.) There were those who asked if he worked with terrorists (based on being part of a Republican organized board to improved schools in Chicago. The Republican organizers included a former member of the 60's radical Weather Underground.) Others were told he went to school in a madrassas (He went to public schools in Indonesia. And the ones that wondered if he was indeed a citizen and truly eligible to be President (Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Sen. Obama had earlier in the year prepared a memorandum that supported that the Panama Canal-born John McCain was considered 'natural born citizen' as opposed to one who citizenship was conferred to ensure McCain's citizenship would not be an issue during the Presidential campaign.) And there were the people who would slam the door in any Democrates face. During this time these views were being promoted on radio shows, automatic telephone calls and email campaigns. All of which the Obama-Biden campaign would make available on the internet so we could address the smear campaign.
By the week before the election, the weekend canvassing was too big to work out of the Obama campaign office, so we staged out of the local congressional campaign office. Then we used staging areas at the volunteer coordinators (three for the North Hills). The weekend before the election, 200 volunteers had canvassed in the North Hills at some point. While McCain was 'guarantee victory', the Obama campaign was preaching "Don't let up" And we did not. With that many volunteers, we were meeting each other all over the place. Over the weekend I took four shifts. I saw three other groups of Obama canvassers, two groups with SEIU (a union that was supporting Obama) and a group supporting Republican Congressional Candidate Hart. And I know that there was at least one group with Democratic Congressional Candidate Altmire around me as well. There were thanks and encouragement from Obama supporters and those who did not want to say who they supported, and heckles from McCain supporters. On Saturday night there was a big volunteer conference call, that included Sen. Obama himself giving a pep talk to the volunteers over the phone. ( *ring ring* this is the Obama campaign. Please hold the line for a few minutes for a conference call with Sen. Obama.)
The last day was election day. After voting, I spent the rest of the day knocking on doors, checking if people had voted. It was just like the old school Chicago precinct captain election day ritual of walking around the neighborhood to make sure people had voted. There were packets of walk sheets that the volunteer coordinator house. People were dropping off food, snacks and drinks for the volunteers, and others were standing by to provides for anyone who needed it.
And then the wait. Everyone had discounted polls talking about 15% advantage for Obama in PA, preferring to focus on all of McCain and Palin campaigning in the area, and our memories were of when PA was considered even. I took the time off to go home and rest. And around 8:30 my wife and I went back to the volunteer organizer's house to watch the results. The next couple hours went from casual acceptance to astonishment. Many of the states were pretty well known. Pennsylvania was the first shock, because we almost did not believe that Obama would be that much ahead to call so early (Obama ended up winning by 10%). We discounted almost every piece of news before 9PM. There was Indiana not being called for either for the longest time. The announcement that Democrats swept the New England congressional races. Obama winning New Mexico. Colorado still being in contention. Then Ohio being called for Obama. And after the unified media had Obama at 200 electorial votes, with California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii yet to close, everyone knew that Obama would reach 270. The various network announcers were tripping over themselves dealing with the obvious (CA, OR, WA and HI were all going to be for Obama without question) without actually saying it before the polls in those states closed. Of course, everyone else could do the same math, and all the various campaign offices were calling us, sharing in the excitement without actually saying anything because it may jinx it. And then, at 11 EST, the west coast polls closed. And the six media networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, AP) all declared that Obama would win those states, and their tally had Obama over 270 electorial votes (even without Florida, Virginia, North Carolina or Missouri) And much gladness, and feeling of a job well done.
An American Election
After voting (an hour wait at 7AM) I spent the day all over the North Hills of Pittsburgh, knocking on doors, reminding people to vote. Somewhat incongruous, because "everyone knows" the North Hills is overwhelmingly Republican. Or, it is supposed to be. Many people said thanks. A few were surprised to find that their polling location had changed from what they knew of it. And a few who proudly informed me that they had voted for McCain. Depending on my mood, I informed them I served my country in a combat zone so they could vote. And many people for Obama wondering "can he (Obama) win?"
We spent the evening in a small house party at the local volunteer organizer's house. One of the shockers was seeing the networks declaring Pennsylvania so quickly. Because we remember back in summer that Pennsylvania was almost even, so the reports of ~10-15% advantage to Obama/Biden was "crazy talk".
Throughout the night as the results rolled in, and once it was apparent that the only thing that everyone was waiting for was the Pacific Time Zone states to report in, the phone calls were coming in. At our little party we got calls from friends in California, Virginia, Florida. The campaign staff at the local congressman campaign headquarters and those at the Pittsburgh headquarters, all sharing their joy, and asking if any of us wanted to go. But we stayed. Happy to be with our little band, basking in months of hard work, making calls and pounding pavement. And a President-elect who promises hard work ahead for this country.
We spent the evening in a small house party at the local volunteer organizer's house. One of the shockers was seeing the networks declaring Pennsylvania so quickly. Because we remember back in summer that Pennsylvania was almost even, so the reports of ~10-15% advantage to Obama/Biden was "crazy talk".
Throughout the night as the results rolled in, and once it was apparent that the only thing that everyone was waiting for was the Pacific Time Zone states to report in, the phone calls were coming in. At our little party we got calls from friends in California, Virginia, Florida. The campaign staff at the local congressman campaign headquarters and those at the Pittsburgh headquarters, all sharing their joy, and asking if any of us wanted to go. But we stayed. Happy to be with our little band, basking in months of hard work, making calls and pounding pavement. And a President-elect who promises hard work ahead for this country.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Voting in Pennsylvania
One of those dark open secrets of American democracy is the embarrassingly low voter turnout rates. The U.S. is a country that considers 50% participation to be high. Dictatorships around the world point to this number and tell their populations that American democracy is a myth and not for their people. And they point to their 100% turnout in their elections, with 99% of the votes for the winning (and only) candidate. After all, 100% turnout is much more representative then the <50% the U.S. gets, even for a presidential election. It is a hard argument to refute.
This is one of the things that makes voter suppression efforts in the U.S. to be so insulting. The right to vote is the foundation for all the other rights. When an interest is shut out of the political process, the only means left to being heard is through violence. The right to vote brings groups that would otherwise resort to extremes and violence into the political process. And in the U.S. and around the world, moderates them. The modern classical example is the Basque region of Spain, where Basque separationist have operated for generations. Then the Basques were given semi-autonomy, and the responsibility of governance. Even with many issues still open, the violence went down.
To attempt the wholesale rejection of people's right to vote is to refute representative government as created by principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It is cynicism in the extreme. One of the perverse effects has been the wholesale challenges to a large number of voter registrations in Ohio, where one of the challenged names was Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." But Joe will be glad to know that the Democratic Party is fighting for his right to vote.
Voting information for Pennsylvania
Protecting your right to vote
How to use voting machines in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (ES&S iVotronic video)
This is one of the things that makes voter suppression efforts in the U.S. to be so insulting. The right to vote is the foundation for all the other rights. When an interest is shut out of the political process, the only means left to being heard is through violence. The right to vote brings groups that would otherwise resort to extremes and violence into the political process. And in the U.S. and around the world, moderates them. The modern classical example is the Basque region of Spain, where Basque separationist have operated for generations. Then the Basques were given semi-autonomy, and the responsibility of governance. Even with many issues still open, the violence went down.
To attempt the wholesale rejection of people's right to vote is to refute representative government as created by principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It is cynicism in the extreme. One of the perverse effects has been the wholesale challenges to a large number of voter registrations in Ohio, where one of the challenged names was Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, also known as "Joe the Plumber." But Joe will be glad to know that the Democratic Party is fighting for his right to vote.
Voting information for Pennsylvania
Protecting your right to vote
How to use voting machines in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (ES&S iVotronic video)
Sunday, November 02, 2008
NYTimes: Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage
If Elected . . . - Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage
It is an altruism that you can be judged by the quality of your enemies. When the subject is political discourse, it is hoped that the saying can be rephrased to "opponents" oe "those who disagree." This U.S. Presidential Race is remarkable that there happens to be an issue that is considered a major flashpoint in American politics, and both major party candidates agree. Both Obama and McCain oppose same-sex marriage and both Obama and McCain oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But the difference lies in the way this opposition is presented.
Gay rights activists have reported many interactions with Obama on the issue of same-sex marriage. The New York Times article and other reports are the same, Sen. Barack Obama will not back same-sex marriage due to his Christian beliefs. And there is no expectation that Obama will be changing his understanding of Christian tradition that "marriage is something sanctified between a man and woman" , nor change his acceptance of this aspect of Christian beliefs and teaching. But they support him despite his opposition to this dearly held goal. Because his Christian beliefs also include a belief in his own sinfulness and fallibility. And a Christian faith that recognizes the fallibility of the holder is something they can live with.
McCain's opposition to same-sex marriage is due to acceptance of culturally accepted norms, according to his advisors. But when this is communicated to those of the gay community, it comes out, wrong. Whereas Sen. Obama always openly communicates to the gay community that he will not support same-sex marriage due to his Christian beliefs, Sen. McCain is less straight-forward. In his interview with Ellen DeGeneres, they had the following exchange.
The California Supreme Court had just cleared the way for same-sex marriage, and Ms. DeGeneres had announced on her program that she planned to marry her longtime girlfriend. “We are all the same people, all of us — you’re no different than I am,” Ms. DeGeneres told Mr. McCain as they sat next to each other in plush chairs. “Our love is the same.”
Mr. McCain called her comments “very eloquent” and added: “We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness.”
Ms. DeGeneres said: “So, you’ll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you’re saying?”
Mr. McCain replied, “Touché.”
It is not that their views are different, but Sen. Obama is capable of communicating differences with people, even on issues that they hold dear, even when the differences are irreconcilable due to an immutable value on Sen. Obama's part. While Ms. DeGeneres catches Sen. McCain offering patronizing platitudes without being willing to follow through in action. So Sen. Obama can disagree and leave his opposition's dignity intact, and with the belief that they are also viewed as human, with the greatness and fallibility this implies.
It is not only with the gay community that Sen. Obama does this. The Palestinians Sen. Obama deals with knows this, that they will never change Sen. Obama's staunch support for Israel's right to exist with secure borders ([Rashid] Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years - LATimes). Yet the Palestinians who desire peace also view Sen. Obama as someone who can consider the interests of the Palestinian people in the context of a secure Israel. (Those that do not desire peace dislike Sen. Obama without reservation) He has spoken openly to African-American audiences about the requirement for personal accountability and individual work ethic. Messages that have been reacted to badly when delivered by others such as Bill Crosby.
In his book Audacity of Hope Sen. Obama talks about the interaction of political candidates with special interest groups. He talks about how political advisors recommend not answering questionnaires from groups that oppose them, because it only gives them more reasons to hate you. But somehow, Sen. Obama has figured out how to confront audiences with his beliefs that are in opposition to their's, and leave them thinking that he is still the person they want in office. And I believe it is because he has this understanding of his own fallibility, that he knows there are no silver bullets, that the tasks and issues are not black and white and easy, but that the path ahead is hard. And he asks that along this hard road, his audiences follow him and work with him. And that this hard road ahead is something they can find believable, more then the many false platitudes they have heard before.
It is an altruism that you can be judged by the quality of your enemies. When the subject is political discourse, it is hoped that the saying can be rephrased to "opponents" oe "those who disagree." This U.S. Presidential Race is remarkable that there happens to be an issue that is considered a major flashpoint in American politics, and both major party candidates agree. Both Obama and McCain oppose same-sex marriage and both Obama and McCain oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But the difference lies in the way this opposition is presented.
Gay rights activists have reported many interactions with Obama on the issue of same-sex marriage. The New York Times article and other reports are the same, Sen. Barack Obama will not back same-sex marriage due to his Christian beliefs. And there is no expectation that Obama will be changing his understanding of Christian tradition that "marriage is something sanctified between a man and woman" , nor change his acceptance of this aspect of Christian beliefs and teaching. But they support him despite his opposition to this dearly held goal. Because his Christian beliefs also include a belief in his own sinfulness and fallibility. And a Christian faith that recognizes the fallibility of the holder is something they can live with.
McCain's opposition to same-sex marriage is due to acceptance of culturally accepted norms, according to his advisors. But when this is communicated to those of the gay community, it comes out, wrong. Whereas Sen. Obama always openly communicates to the gay community that he will not support same-sex marriage due to his Christian beliefs, Sen. McCain is less straight-forward. In his interview with Ellen DeGeneres, they had the following exchange.
The California Supreme Court had just cleared the way for same-sex marriage, and Ms. DeGeneres had announced on her program that she planned to marry her longtime girlfriend. “We are all the same people, all of us — you’re no different than I am,” Ms. DeGeneres told Mr. McCain as they sat next to each other in plush chairs. “Our love is the same.”
Mr. McCain called her comments “very eloquent” and added: “We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness.”
Ms. DeGeneres said: “So, you’ll walk me down the aisle? Is that what you’re saying?”
Mr. McCain replied, “Touché.”
It is not that their views are different, but Sen. Obama is capable of communicating differences with people, even on issues that they hold dear, even when the differences are irreconcilable due to an immutable value on Sen. Obama's part. While Ms. DeGeneres catches Sen. McCain offering patronizing platitudes without being willing to follow through in action. So Sen. Obama can disagree and leave his opposition's dignity intact, and with the belief that they are also viewed as human, with the greatness and fallibility this implies.
It is not only with the gay community that Sen. Obama does this. The Palestinians Sen. Obama deals with knows this, that they will never change Sen. Obama's staunch support for Israel's right to exist with secure borders ([Rashid] Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years - LATimes). Yet the Palestinians who desire peace also view Sen. Obama as someone who can consider the interests of the Palestinian people in the context of a secure Israel. (Those that do not desire peace dislike Sen. Obama without reservation) He has spoken openly to African-American audiences about the requirement for personal accountability and individual work ethic. Messages that have been reacted to badly when delivered by others such as Bill Crosby.
In his book Audacity of Hope Sen. Obama talks about the interaction of political candidates with special interest groups. He talks about how political advisors recommend not answering questionnaires from groups that oppose them, because it only gives them more reasons to hate you. But somehow, Sen. Obama has figured out how to confront audiences with his beliefs that are in opposition to their's, and leave them thinking that he is still the person they want in office. And I believe it is because he has this understanding of his own fallibility, that he knows there are no silver bullets, that the tasks and issues are not black and white and easy, but that the path ahead is hard. And he asks that along this hard road, his audiences follow him and work with him. And that this hard road ahead is something they can find believable, more then the many false platitudes they have heard before.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why I am voting for Obama
[Obviously, this is my own views, not vetted or approaved by any other person or organization or company]
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
- Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947
I've had the opportunity over the past few weeks to have a number of conversations with individuals about the U.S. Presidential election. And the fact that I was in Afghanistan does come up. With the proportionately small portion of the population associated with the military it is a different background. One of the most rewarding conversations was with one woman in the North Hills whose son has enlisted, and is going to start after high school graduation.
I first started paying attention to Obama after his "More Perfect Union" speech, given when he was being attacked because of the views held by his former Pastor. It was striking because instead of attacking back, or complaining about the unfairness of being attacked for the beliefs and views of another (beliefs that he disagrees with), he instead talked about what America was and could be. That America could be more like the 'City on a Hill' for the world to see and aspire too. And it is the 'last best hope for the world.' It was so different then the reflexive flag waiving or the criticize America that one usually hears that it is striking in its difference. And certainly to be dispised by the extremes on both right and left.
The areas I write about are National Security and ability to handle crisis.
1. National Security. The framework is the four elements of National Power: diplomatic, information, military, economic, referred to as DIME (Strategypage.com).
Diplomatic: A nations ability to rally allies, engage opponents, and persuade neutral governments. Obama has repeated stated that a forefront of his national security policy is to work with U.S. partners to further our shared interests and that he will engage potential opponents. McCain states as a virtue that he will ignore certain allies (will not commit to meeting with Spain??!!) and views engaging potential opponents as venal. McCain will instead form new groupings such as a 'League of Democracies' to deal with international issues as opposed to existing institutions such as NATO. The obvious question, what makes McCain think that NATO allies and the usual other allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea) are not an appropriate start (because NATO includes countries like Spain and France???)
Information: The ability to gather information, and communicate with foreign audiences. Obama would engage foreign populations directly to pursuade them and to undercut anti-U.S. propaganda. To amplify this point, look at a Obama-Biden rally vs. a McCain-Palin rally, and look at it from a point of someone in Asia or Africa or South America or the Middle East. Especially when Palin talks about representing 'Real Americans'. (Many in New York City think when hearing this 'We were American enough for Al-Queda, why are we not American enough for Republicans?') Obama's ability to do this is exemplified by Rashid Khalidi, a Palistinian advocate.
Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.
It is that ability to communicate a disagreement with someone outside of the U.S., and still being respected as someone of principle and someone who can be worked with, is vital for a President of a country that is cast as "the last, best hope of the Earth, we just have to show the world why that is so."
Military: Ability to apply military power. This goes beyond any shooting, as the U.S. military response to the tsunamis in Southeast Asia, the Philippines and disasters in Pakistan show. Both candidates will strengthen the military. Obama speaks also to bringing in the rest of the government (i.e. diplomacy and foreign aid) engaged on the ground in major areas instead of just the military. McCain does not speak to non-military elements.
Economic: Understanding how economic issues bear on foreign policy. Neither candidate speaks to this directly, as discussion of economic issues in the campaign focuses on domestic issues, but Obama speaks to applying the entire tools of the U.S. government to national security/foreign relations. McCain does not.
2. Crisis Management. The second area is the ability to handle crisis. When the U.S. has a new President and strong opponents, the new President will be tested. To say otherwise is naivete. The only question is how this crisis will be handled. This campaign had the added highlight of a major economic crisis, the potential fall of the U.S. financial system during the campaign.
From reports, we know of the following actions by Sen. Obama
i. Discussed the strategy with House Democratic leaders for finance and economics.
ii. As Democratic leaders determined their goals (that the rescue plan provide the opportunity for taxpayers to recoup their investments), Sen. Obama began speaking in public on the need for a rescue and the Democratic desire that the rescue be made as investments so the investment can be recovered.
iii. Liberal democrats in congress who initially stated their willingness to let the U.S. financial system collapse report receiving calls from Sen Obama persuading them that the modified rescue plan was worth voting for.
iv. The use of government purchase of equity was used by European governments as the cornerstone of their rescue, based on past experience by some European countries. As provision had been made in the U.S. rescue plan for potential purchase of equity in financial institutions, the U.S. Treasury took part in the plan.
From reports, we know the following actions by Sen. McCain
i. Suspended campaign and went to Washington DC to work on the House negotiations, which collapsed that day. There are no reports of significant inputs to the debate, nor Sen. McCain's understanding or support.
Obama had made the comment that a "President will have to deal with more than one crisis at a time. His steadiness, taking the time to understand the issues, and ability to communicate the issues to other lawmakers and to the public are the mark of a leader. There is no evidence for results for McCain.
Colin Powell stated in his endorsement of Obama
And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.
And these are the traits that I would look for in handling crisis.
There are other reasons for choosing Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. Colin Powell discusses a number of them in his endorsement ((Transcript)). Christopher Buckley, onetime columnist with the conservative National Review does the same.One could go to the two candidate websites for information on what they believe. http://www.barackobama.com http://www.johnmccain.com
==========
Colin Powell Endorsement (Transcript) (12:28)
Obama Closing Arguments, Norfolk, VA October 28, 2008 (35:47)
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
- Winston Churchill, speech in the House of Commons, 11 November 1947
I've had the opportunity over the past few weeks to have a number of conversations with individuals about the U.S. Presidential election. And the fact that I was in Afghanistan does come up. With the proportionately small portion of the population associated with the military it is a different background. One of the most rewarding conversations was with one woman in the North Hills whose son has enlisted, and is going to start after high school graduation.
I first started paying attention to Obama after his "More Perfect Union" speech, given when he was being attacked because of the views held by his former Pastor. It was striking because instead of attacking back, or complaining about the unfairness of being attacked for the beliefs and views of another (beliefs that he disagrees with), he instead talked about what America was and could be. That America could be more like the 'City on a Hill' for the world to see and aspire too. And it is the 'last best hope for the world.' It was so different then the reflexive flag waiving or the criticize America that one usually hears that it is striking in its difference. And certainly to be dispised by the extremes on both right and left.
The areas I write about are National Security and ability to handle crisis.
1. National Security. The framework is the four elements of National Power: diplomatic, information, military, economic, referred to as DIME (Strategypage.com).
Diplomatic: A nations ability to rally allies, engage opponents, and persuade neutral governments. Obama has repeated stated that a forefront of his national security policy is to work with U.S. partners to further our shared interests and that he will engage potential opponents. McCain states as a virtue that he will ignore certain allies (will not commit to meeting with Spain??!!) and views engaging potential opponents as venal. McCain will instead form new groupings such as a 'League of Democracies' to deal with international issues as opposed to existing institutions such as NATO. The obvious question, what makes McCain think that NATO allies and the usual other allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea) are not an appropriate start (because NATO includes countries like Spain and France???)
Information: The ability to gather information, and communicate with foreign audiences. Obama would engage foreign populations directly to pursuade them and to undercut anti-U.S. propaganda. To amplify this point, look at a Obama-Biden rally vs. a McCain-Palin rally, and look at it from a point of someone in Asia or Africa or South America or the Middle East. Especially when Palin talks about representing 'Real Americans'. (Many in New York City think when hearing this 'We were American enough for Al-Queda, why are we not American enough for Republicans?') Obama's ability to do this is exemplified by Rashid Khalidi, a Palistinian advocate.
Khalidi added that he strongly disagrees with Obama's current views on Israel, and often disagreed with him during their talks over the years. But he added that Obama, because of his unusual background, with family ties to Kenya and Indonesia, would be more understanding of the Palestinian experience than typical American politicians.
It is that ability to communicate a disagreement with someone outside of the U.S., and still being respected as someone of principle and someone who can be worked with, is vital for a President of a country that is cast as "the last, best hope of the Earth, we just have to show the world why that is so."
Military: Ability to apply military power. This goes beyond any shooting, as the U.S. military response to the tsunamis in Southeast Asia, the Philippines and disasters in Pakistan show. Both candidates will strengthen the military. Obama speaks also to bringing in the rest of the government (i.e. diplomacy and foreign aid) engaged on the ground in major areas instead of just the military. McCain does not speak to non-military elements.
Economic: Understanding how economic issues bear on foreign policy. Neither candidate speaks to this directly, as discussion of economic issues in the campaign focuses on domestic issues, but Obama speaks to applying the entire tools of the U.S. government to national security/foreign relations. McCain does not.
2. Crisis Management. The second area is the ability to handle crisis. When the U.S. has a new President and strong opponents, the new President will be tested. To say otherwise is naivete. The only question is how this crisis will be handled. This campaign had the added highlight of a major economic crisis, the potential fall of the U.S. financial system during the campaign.
From reports, we know of the following actions by Sen. Obama
i. Discussed the strategy with House Democratic leaders for finance and economics.
ii. As Democratic leaders determined their goals (that the rescue plan provide the opportunity for taxpayers to recoup their investments), Sen. Obama began speaking in public on the need for a rescue and the Democratic desire that the rescue be made as investments so the investment can be recovered.
iii. Liberal democrats in congress who initially stated their willingness to let the U.S. financial system collapse report receiving calls from Sen Obama persuading them that the modified rescue plan was worth voting for.
iv. The use of government purchase of equity was used by European governments as the cornerstone of their rescue, based on past experience by some European countries. As provision had been made in the U.S. rescue plan for potential purchase of equity in financial institutions, the U.S. Treasury took part in the plan.
From reports, we know the following actions by Sen. McCain
i. Suspended campaign and went to Washington DC to work on the House negotiations, which collapsed that day. There are no reports of significant inputs to the debate, nor Sen. McCain's understanding or support.
Obama had made the comment that a "President will have to deal with more than one crisis at a time. His steadiness, taking the time to understand the issues, and ability to communicate the issues to other lawmakers and to the public are the mark of a leader. There is no evidence for results for McCain.
Colin Powell stated in his endorsement of Obama
And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one. And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor. I think that he has a, a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.
And these are the traits that I would look for in handling crisis.
There are other reasons for choosing Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. Colin Powell discusses a number of them in his endorsement ((Transcript)). Christopher Buckley, onetime columnist with the conservative National Review does the same.One could go to the two candidate websites for information on what they believe. http://www.barackobama.com http://www.johnmccain.com
==========
Colin Powell Endorsement (Transcript) (12:28)
Obama Closing Arguments, Norfolk, VA October 28, 2008 (35:47)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
McCain Guarantees Victory
A tale of two campaigns
McCain Guarantees Victory
Sunday October 26, 2008
“I guarantee you that two weeks from now, you will see this has been a very close race, and I believe that I'm going to win it,” McCain told interim "Meet" moderator Tom Brokaw. “We're going to do well in this campaign, my friend. We're going to win it, and it's going to be tight, and we're going to be up late.”
From the Obama Campaign
Don't Let Up
McCain Guarantees Victory
Sunday October 26, 2008
“I guarantee you that two weeks from now, you will see this has been a very close race, and I believe that I'm going to win it,” McCain told interim "Meet" moderator Tom Brokaw. “We're going to do well in this campaign, my friend. We're going to win it, and it's going to be tight, and we're going to be up late.”
From the Obama Campaign
Don't Let Up
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Operation Enduring Freedom grave
Colin Powell in his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'No, that's not America.'"
From the New Yorker
"Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian, has always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, 'What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?' The answer's 'No, that's not America.'"
From the New Yorker
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Leadership in crisis
Watching the two candidates respond to the ongoing U.S. financial crisis has been instructive. While the media spin has been that these are a continuing series of "bailouts" it is hard to think who has been bailed out, instead the owners (stockowners) of the institutions in questions have taken a bath, while their customers, clients and counterparties are merely protected from loss (to the extent that their individual dealings were of good quality).
The two candidates (McCain and Obama) do show their different ideas of leadership. McCain opted for publicly jumping into the fray with his physical presence. Senator McCain openly stated he would jump into the negotiations of the U.S. House of Representatives (which he is not a member) and inject his leadership. Nevermind if the House leadership was interested in this (polite statements afterwards aside). Senator Obama spoke to his colleagues in the House so he could understand the issues, then spoke to the American people to explain what the issues were (see LaCross, WI speech below).
The McCain is the in-your-face Great Man view of how things work. He promises that his vast experience will enable him to survive and be successful in the backroom face-to-face negotiations. Can this occur? Every freshman political science student has seen pictures or descriptions of President Lynden Johnson giving "the Treatment" from when he was Majority Leader of the Senate.
But there are actually facts and realities that lie behind these issues, and it is more then just personalities and "special interests" (are "interests" "special" when you are talking something so broad as the U.S. banking and financial market? Who does not have a bank account, work for someone with a line of credit, or have investments in stocks for retirement?) And this is where Obama shines in comparison to McCain. McCain derides as elitist Obama's tendency to explain the issues in their complexity as opposed to giving out soundbytes. But the historical parallel here is Franklin D Roosevelt, in the 1930s during the Great Depression with his fireside chats. Talking directly to a population scared of the future, he acted as if normal people were capable of understanding issues, or at least listening to them. But he also convinced the people that he had taken the time to understand something that was unfathemable to them, and because of that, he could guide them through the fearful unknown.
And that is what Obama is doing. Instead of riding the popular "hang them all" opinion that was seen by the House Republicans, he works behind the scenes in Washington and takes part in the building of a plan that he can understand and then go to the American people, and let them know what the issues are, not just the soundbyte "this is a bailout of fat pigs" rhetoric. He takes risks, as the conservative Republicans threaten they will use any vote that preserves the financial system to cruxify their opponents. And he does this, not in sophisticated audiences like those found in big cities, in university towns, or in a financial audience, but LaCross, WI. In a rural corner of a state that is bordering another rural corner of another state.
As for myself, I'll take intelligent analysis that can be presented to the people over backroom deals, soundbytes, and trying to fly in front of the wind any day.
Reno, NV
"if your neighbor's house is on fire, you can say that he is irresponsible . . . but first you help put out the fire, because it can spread to your house."
The two candidates (McCain and Obama) do show their different ideas of leadership. McCain opted for publicly jumping into the fray with his physical presence. Senator McCain openly stated he would jump into the negotiations of the U.S. House of Representatives (which he is not a member) and inject his leadership. Nevermind if the House leadership was interested in this (polite statements afterwards aside). Senator Obama spoke to his colleagues in the House so he could understand the issues, then spoke to the American people to explain what the issues were (see LaCross, WI speech below).
The McCain is the in-your-face Great Man view of how things work. He promises that his vast experience will enable him to survive and be successful in the backroom face-to-face negotiations. Can this occur? Every freshman political science student has seen pictures or descriptions of President Lynden Johnson giving "the Treatment" from when he was Majority Leader of the Senate.
But there are actually facts and realities that lie behind these issues, and it is more then just personalities and "special interests" (are "interests" "special" when you are talking something so broad as the U.S. banking and financial market? Who does not have a bank account, work for someone with a line of credit, or have investments in stocks for retirement?) And this is where Obama shines in comparison to McCain. McCain derides as elitist Obama's tendency to explain the issues in their complexity as opposed to giving out soundbytes. But the historical parallel here is Franklin D Roosevelt, in the 1930s during the Great Depression with his fireside chats. Talking directly to a population scared of the future, he acted as if normal people were capable of understanding issues, or at least listening to them. But he also convinced the people that he had taken the time to understand something that was unfathemable to them, and because of that, he could guide them through the fearful unknown.
And that is what Obama is doing. Instead of riding the popular "hang them all" opinion that was seen by the House Republicans, he works behind the scenes in Washington and takes part in the building of a plan that he can understand and then go to the American people, and let them know what the issues are, not just the soundbyte "this is a bailout of fat pigs" rhetoric. He takes risks, as the conservative Republicans threaten they will use any vote that preserves the financial system to cruxify their opponents. And he does this, not in sophisticated audiences like those found in big cities, in university towns, or in a financial audience, but LaCross, WI. In a rural corner of a state that is bordering another rural corner of another state.
As for myself, I'll take intelligent analysis that can be presented to the people over backroom deals, soundbytes, and trying to fly in front of the wind any day.
Reno, NV
"if your neighbor's house is on fire, you can say that he is irresponsible . . . but first you help put out the fire, because it can spread to your house."
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
On Patriotism "the world as it should be"
'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying, except in a desperate case. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'.
- G. K. Chesterton - A Defense of Patriotism
All of us driven by the simple belief that the world as it is just won't do, that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.
And that is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.
And, you see, that is why I love this country.
-- Michelle Obama - 2008 Democratic National Convention
I was listening to the Monday evening keynote address by Michelle Obama. And the lines that I remember, is when she talks about love of country, and of what she, and others strive for, that we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be.
This is the best form of patriotism can hope for. G.K. Chesterson has a illustration of Pimlico,
It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. . . . If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is THEIRS, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great.
Patriotism, like love in its best forms, should not be blind. It had a loyalty, not because its object is perfect, or even that its object is great. But because of what the object of that loyalty can be. And the expression of that patriotism is the desire for what could be, to become true. And for Michelle Obama to speak of working for "the world as it should be" is to talk of patriotism and love of this nation in its finest form. I remember, back in April, Barack Obama's speach after his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, USMC (Ret.) refused to repudiate his talk of racial hate. Barack Obama then spoke of "a more perfect union." A desire to see his country become greater than it is, because that is the way it should be, not what it is now.
The contrast is discussed by C.S. Lewis. The opposite of patriotism and love is not hate, it is cynicism. The view that things will never be great, that patriotism and love are tools of manipulation to protect a history of lies and iniquity.
To listen to a Michelle Obama or a Barack Obama, or to read an essay by G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis, you have options on the kind of world you want to live in. One that can think of a world or nation or city that can be, or one that prefers to remember the lies, deceits, hatreds and destruction that has created the wrongs one sees.
- G. K. Chesterton - A Defense of Patriotism
All of us driven by the simple belief that the world as it is just won't do, that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.
And that is the thread that connects our hearts. That is the thread that runs through my journey and Barack's journey and so many other improbable journeys that have brought us here tonight, where the current of history meets this new tide of hope.
And, you see, that is why I love this country.
-- Michelle Obama - 2008 Democratic National Convention
I was listening to the Monday evening keynote address by Michelle Obama. And the lines that I remember, is when she talks about love of country, and of what she, and others strive for, that we committed ourselves to building the world as it should be.
This is the best form of patriotism can hope for. G.K. Chesterson has a illustration of Pimlico,
It is not enough for a man to disapprove of Pimlico: in that case he will merely cut his throat or move to Chelsea. Nor, certainly, is it enough for a man to approve of Pimlico: for then it will remain Pimlico, which would be awful. The only way out of it seems to be for somebody to love Pimlico: to love it with a transcendental tie and without any earthly reason. If there arose a man who loved Pimlico, then Pimlico would rise into ivory towers and golden pinnacles; Pimlico would attire herself as a woman does when she is loved. . . . If men loved Pimlico as mothers love children, arbitrarily, because it is THEIRS, Pimlico in a year or two might be fairer than Florence. Some readers will say that this is a mere fantasy. I answer that this is the actual history of mankind. This, as a fact, is how cities did grow great.
Patriotism, like love in its best forms, should not be blind. It had a loyalty, not because its object is perfect, or even that its object is great. But because of what the object of that loyalty can be. And the expression of that patriotism is the desire for what could be, to become true. And for Michelle Obama to speak of working for "the world as it should be" is to talk of patriotism and love of this nation in its finest form. I remember, back in April, Barack Obama's speach after his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, USMC (Ret.) refused to repudiate his talk of racial hate. Barack Obama then spoke of "a more perfect union." A desire to see his country become greater than it is, because that is the way it should be, not what it is now.
The contrast is discussed by C.S. Lewis. The opposite of patriotism and love is not hate, it is cynicism. The view that things will never be great, that patriotism and love are tools of manipulation to protect a history of lies and iniquity.
To listen to a Michelle Obama or a Barack Obama, or to read an essay by G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis, you have options on the kind of world you want to live in. One that can think of a world or nation or city that can be, or one that prefers to remember the lies, deceits, hatreds and destruction that has created the wrongs one sees.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
On the labeling of ideas (or, how to identify a liberal or conservative)
I have been entertained by someone who has been trying to use the word "Liberal" as an epitath. Like in the way 3rd grade boys shout insults to each other, and not nearly as sophisticated as the trash talk that can be found on any inner city basketball court. But words should have meaning, and to use it as a meaningless insult is, well, meaningless. And why would I not want to be considered a liberal? The classical meaning is a doctrine stressing individual freedom, limited government, stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets and individual freedom from restraints (taken from Wikipedia). Its foundation is on the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume, and Thomas Paine.
But there persists those who would rather turn a distinguished idea such as this as an insult, and seek to make words mean whatever they want it to at the time, instead of using words for what they really mean. And sometimes the purpose is the creation of hate and dissention, which is not useful, especially to those who believe that the United States experiment in a democratic republic is a useful one.
So, how to identify a "liberal" or a "conservative" (or a "progressive" or an "idealist", "realist", you get the idea)? The principal tthat is useful is to look to those who actually claim the label as their own, and see who they agree with. So ask liberals who are the liberals, conservatives to find out who are the conservatives, etc.
The current U.S. presidential campaign is remarkable in that both the liberals and the conservatives appear to have lost their respective nomination campaign, which is causing much wringing of hand and gnashing of teeth. The Democratic Party is furiously trying to keep the liberals in the fold, trying to appease the Clinton supporters and the disappointes supporters of universal health care, and hoping the demonstrations of the progressives do not get out of hand. The Republicans, well, have the spector of John McCain, who conservatives used to ask "Is McCain a Republican?"
Why It's Important to Note that Obama is NOT Liberal or Progressive at Open Left
Taylor Marsh at The Huffington Post, Barack Obama's Progressive Cannibalism
Oscar Howard at The Conservative Voice, John McCain is Not a Conservative
Babbin at Human Events.com, John McCain: The Anti-Conservative
What to make of it? Numerous newspaper columnists have had a chance to amuse themselves at liberals who have realized that Obama is not one of them by in effect observing some progressives seem to be intent on fooling themselves that he is only seeming centrist but a hidden progressive "In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward." (Paul Krugman, New York Times, The Obama Agenda) Or, it could be that maybe that there are other labels besides 'liberal' or 'conservative' that properly identify the candidates positions (which is the Obama position on this labeling). There are plenty to choose from ('idealist/realist', 'progressive/reactionary'). Or maybe it would pay to pay attention to what the candidates actually say.
But there persists those who would rather turn a distinguished idea such as this as an insult, and seek to make words mean whatever they want it to at the time, instead of using words for what they really mean. And sometimes the purpose is the creation of hate and dissention, which is not useful, especially to those who believe that the United States experiment in a democratic republic is a useful one.
So, how to identify a "liberal" or a "conservative" (or a "progressive" or an "idealist", "realist", you get the idea)? The principal tthat is useful is to look to those who actually claim the label as their own, and see who they agree with. So ask liberals who are the liberals, conservatives to find out who are the conservatives, etc.
The current U.S. presidential campaign is remarkable in that both the liberals and the conservatives appear to have lost their respective nomination campaign, which is causing much wringing of hand and gnashing of teeth. The Democratic Party is furiously trying to keep the liberals in the fold, trying to appease the Clinton supporters and the disappointes supporters of universal health care, and hoping the demonstrations of the progressives do not get out of hand. The Republicans, well, have the spector of John McCain, who conservatives used to ask "Is McCain a Republican?"
Why It's Important to Note that Obama is NOT Liberal or Progressive at Open Left
Taylor Marsh at The Huffington Post, Barack Obama's Progressive CannibalismOscar Howard at The Conservative Voice, John McCain is Not a Conservative
Babbin at Human Events.com, John McCain: The Anti-Conservative
What to make of it? Numerous newspaper columnists have had a chance to amuse themselves at liberals who have realized that Obama is not one of them by in effect observing some progressives seem to be intent on fooling themselves that he is only seeming centrist but a hidden progressive "In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade. They may have had it backward." (Paul Krugman, New York Times, The Obama Agenda) Or, it could be that maybe that there are other labels besides 'liberal' or 'conservative' that properly identify the candidates positions (which is the Obama position on this labeling). There are plenty to choose from ('idealist/realist', 'progressive/reactionary'). Or maybe it would pay to pay attention to what the candidates actually say.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Bush Assails ‘Appeasement,’ Touching Off Storm
New York Times
To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. - Winston Churchill (1954)
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. - John F. Kennedy (1961)
In a speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush said (quoted in the New York Times)
Barack Obama has been criticized in the past for stating a situation that would lead him to order an attack on a sovereign country. The reality is that part of the role of leaders of sovereign nations is the decision to defend or pursue identified interests, and this includes the use of deadly force, and the placing at risk of its young men and women. In modern history (and probably also in history going to antiquity) few of those who became heads of government for any length of time have avoided this question. The question for nations is how to choose those people who make that decision and for what reasons. In democracies (of any form) the decision is made by citizen voting for its representatives (directly or indirectly). To think that there is no reason to go to war is denial, and it is a statement that nothing is of value, including your lives. But it should be a choice made soberly and wisely. As Churchill states, speaking is better than war. But he was also a man who was perfectly capable of using his time in jaw-jaw to make the choice to go to war.
In a democracy, people use many criteria for voting for a leader. Many of these are issues. But reality is situations change over time, even the short time of the term of a U.S. President. What we are electing are how people make decisions and their values. And one of the things we are voting for is a thought process and criteria on the use of force.
To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war. - Winston Churchill (1954)
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate. - John F. Kennedy (1961)
In a speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush said (quoted in the New York Times)
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along, . . . We have an obligation to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
It is a sound bite, but high school logic and rhetoric students will recognize it as a strawman argument. The purpose of speaking to opponents is not to persuade, but to understand. And the purpose of understanding is not to pretend that differences don't exist, but to make sure that we determine what the differences really are, and that noone has false assumptions about the severity. To forget this is to get into needless fights, make enemies out of those who would not otherwise be, make enemies out of friends, and make friends turn away.Barack Obama has been criticized in the past for stating a situation that would lead him to order an attack on a sovereign country. The reality is that part of the role of leaders of sovereign nations is the decision to defend or pursue identified interests, and this includes the use of deadly force, and the placing at risk of its young men and women. In modern history (and probably also in history going to antiquity) few of those who became heads of government for any length of time have avoided this question. The question for nations is how to choose those people who make that decision and for what reasons. In democracies (of any form) the decision is made by citizen voting for its representatives (directly or indirectly). To think that there is no reason to go to war is denial, and it is a statement that nothing is of value, including your lives. But it should be a choice made soberly and wisely. As Churchill states, speaking is better than war. But he was also a man who was perfectly capable of using his time in jaw-jaw to make the choice to go to war.
In a democracy, people use many criteria for voting for a leader. Many of these are issues. But reality is situations change over time, even the short time of the term of a U.S. President. What we are electing are how people make decisions and their values. And one of the things we are voting for is a thought process and criteria on the use of force.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Who Lost the Debate? Moderators, Many Say
If none of us ever read a book that was "dangerous," had a friend who was "different," or joined an organization that advocated "change," we would all be just the kind of people Joe McCarthy wants.- Edward Murrow, to his staff before his "See It Now" broadcast on Joe McCarthy, 9 March 1954
You wonder what kind of campaign will we have. The candidates have somewhat refrained from direct character attacks, but this seems replaced by widespread collateral damage, as the candidates are being called on to repudiate staff, friends, former colleagues, former acquaintances, people they may or may not have met crossing the street (ok, I'm getting a little facetious, but not by much). And even if the candidates can restrain themselves from attacks (John McCain for one does not seem to have forgotten the Bush campaign of 2000, where an underground campaign painted John McCain as a "Manchurian Candidate" (as a reference to his time as a POW) and his daughter as a half-black illegitimate child (his daughter is a Bengledeshi adoptee). All indications are McCain has no intention of having a George Bush style presidential campaign.
But it may not matter. Because for both parties, it is not just the candidates, but the party organizations that are around them. The Clinton campaign has alluded to this expectation, fed by the dependence of the McCain campaign on the GOP due to financial issues, and the attempts of the McCain campaign to get the backing of the conservative wing of the Republican party (which would presumably include them acting in support of McCain, in ways McCain would approve or not.)
A marine colleague of mine made the comment, after the way that John McCain and John Kerry's combat zone service was portrayed in the 2000 and 2004 elections by the George Bush campaigns, he did not know how valuable his own combat zone service was worth anymore. And the same people who brought that, are on the sidelines waiting for the general election to begin. If McCain cannot or does not restrain them, then both of the Democratic candidates for President will agree on this, that the sniping and character attacks that are seen know (and described by some as distractions), will be nothing compared to what the RNC will come up with.
You wonder what kind of campaign will we have. The candidates have somewhat refrained from direct character attacks, but this seems replaced by widespread collateral damage, as the candidates are being called on to repudiate staff, friends, former colleagues, former acquaintances, people they may or may not have met crossing the street (ok, I'm getting a little facetious, but not by much). And even if the candidates can restrain themselves from attacks (John McCain for one does not seem to have forgotten the Bush campaign of 2000, where an underground campaign painted John McCain as a "Manchurian Candidate" (as a reference to his time as a POW) and his daughter as a half-black illegitimate child (his daughter is a Bengledeshi adoptee). All indications are McCain has no intention of having a George Bush style presidential campaign.
But it may not matter. Because for both parties, it is not just the candidates, but the party organizations that are around them. The Clinton campaign has alluded to this expectation, fed by the dependence of the McCain campaign on the GOP due to financial issues, and the attempts of the McCain campaign to get the backing of the conservative wing of the Republican party (which would presumably include them acting in support of McCain, in ways McCain would approve or not.)
A marine colleague of mine made the comment, after the way that John McCain and John Kerry's combat zone service was portrayed in the 2000 and 2004 elections by the George Bush campaigns, he did not know how valuable his own combat zone service was worth anymore. And the same people who brought that, are on the sidelines waiting for the general election to begin. If McCain cannot or does not restrain them, then both of the Democratic candidates for President will agree on this, that the sniping and character attacks that are seen know (and described by some as distractions), will be nothing compared to what the RNC will come up with.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
General Patraeus goes to Washington, Round 2
General David Patraeus, commander Multinational Force - Iraq (MNF-I), and Ambassador Crocker are currently in Washington DC giving testimony to the U.S. Congress regarding the current state of the U.S. and Coalition occupation of Iraq. The purpose of this is to give someone without background some of the background behind the testimony. Actual analysis and especially implications on the current U.S. Presidential candidates belong elsewhere.
First, why is a senior General of the U.S. Army, and the commanding officer of the largest and most decisively engaged component of the U.S. military subject to questioning by a legislative committee(s). The U.S. has a strong tradition of civilian control of the military. In addition, the U.S. tradition is that the instruments of military power, are outside the political process. For many years, the U.S. military has emphasized as a point of pride, they were (are?) the only military in the world whose officer's swear their oath of service, not to a person or a group of people, but to a piece of paper (the U.S. Constitution). This is in marked contrast to the usual oath, which is to a head of state, a government body, or a political party. One of the ways that this plays out is both the executive and legislative branches can call on him based on their constitutional authority. And, the legislature can call on him without viewing him as an agent of the executive branch. And as all general officers are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Senate has some room to say that generals work for them. Not something that is used lightly, but in terms of providing testimony, the Senate can call on anyone they please.
Why Gen. Patraeus and not higher? The chain of command in the U.S. starts at the President, then the Secretary of Defense (a cabinet/ministerial level position). Then, the combatant commander (COCOM) (who is responsible for all military forces in the region) who then commands subordinates to implement policy. In the U.S., there is a parallel structure called the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who also report to the Secretary of Defense. The JCS are responsible for the training and equipping of forces. The COCOMs are responsible for how those forces are actually used. For U.S. forces in Iraq, as employed forces, their actions are under the perview of the COCOM (although their training back home is a JCS issue). In times of war, it is not unusual to appoint a theater commander (MacArthur, Ridgeway in Korea, Westmoreland, Abrams in Vietnam) responsible for all activities in theater, within the regional command. Patraeus is the regional commander for Iraq, within the larger umbrella of the U.S. Central Command.
Where did Patraeus come from? Regarding the current war in Iraq, Patraeus was a division commanding general during the initial invasion. Most accounts view him as very innovative during the initial combat operations, as well as in reestablishing civil affairs afterwards, something that was not viewed as typical. After return to the states, he was assigned to Iraq again in charge of training the Iraqi forces. He then returned to command the Fort Leavenworth and the Combined Arms College (a graduate level institution) at Leavenworth he and Marine General Mattis oversaw the writing of the new U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency doctrine. After this, Patraeus was selected to command MNF-I as the senior U.S. officer in the theater.
What is his relationship with the Bush administration? Well, pretty rocky over time. He has long been known as a counter-insurgency expert, and the Bush administration was very adament for a long time that the conflict in Iraq was not an insurgency. Some commentators thought that the assignment of Patraeus and others to the various military schools was essentially professional exile. (what kind of career does a military officer have as a college dean instead of commanding combat troops in a war). And with the Iraq war going very badly, the view of many commentators is that the Bush administration essentially cried for help, and brought Patraeus back to the war, even with his not very liked counterinsurgency doctrine. Because it probably would not do any worse. And Patraeus brought along a number of other officers who did a lot of thinking about counterinsurgency with him (and who had helped write the new counterinsurgency doctrinal manual). Somewhat of a return from exile.
Wait, I thought counterinsurgency and the 'surge' was viewed as the Bush great idea? Counterinsurgency (COIN) is still a very debated concept in the U.S. military, even among those who have recent experience in a war zone. One source of opposition are those who are concerned that the business of the army is to wage high intensity combat, the kind with tanks and artillery and mass formations. Not this COIN that is mostly done with small numbers in very close contact with civilians. Another group says that building up communities is not the military's job, so they should not learn how (the "we don't do nation building" crowd) and let the civilians do it. More cynical observers point to another source of opposition. Since COIN requires resources be put into training people rather then heavy equipment, cynics note that the normal military contractors don't get rich building tanks and planes in COIN, so they are opposed (along with their friends in uniform).
So, what is happening now in Washington? Gen Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker are back for a second round of testimony before congress. The first was in September 2007. Six months was considered to be a decent interval. As both of them are confirmed by the Senate, the Senate deals with them as their agents, (which is why Gen Patraeus had no need to discuss his testimony with the executive branch last September. The Ambassador is the President's personal representative overseas, so he probably does have some requirement to discuss with the President what he will say.)
The committees in question are the foreign service and the defense committees. This is where the real power in congress lies. The staff of these committees for both of the major parties are presumed to be experts in their fields, and are expected to prepare their members well regarding lines of questioning. But while they can give testimony regarding the current state of affairs in Iraq, as well as some discussion of options and what can be done with resources available (or made available), the actual current policy of Iraq is not really the topic of discussion. That comes when instead of listening to testimony, Congress is debating policy. And part of the purpose of this testimony is for the various sides to ask their questions and shape the policy debate to come. And to gather information and ammunition for that conflict to come.
First, why is a senior General of the U.S. Army, and the commanding officer of the largest and most decisively engaged component of the U.S. military subject to questioning by a legislative committee(s). The U.S. has a strong tradition of civilian control of the military. In addition, the U.S. tradition is that the instruments of military power, are outside the political process. For many years, the U.S. military has emphasized as a point of pride, they were (are?) the only military in the world whose officer's swear their oath of service, not to a person or a group of people, but to a piece of paper (the U.S. Constitution). This is in marked contrast to the usual oath, which is to a head of state, a government body, or a political party. One of the ways that this plays out is both the executive and legislative branches can call on him based on their constitutional authority. And, the legislature can call on him without viewing him as an agent of the executive branch. And as all general officers are confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the Senate has some room to say that generals work for them. Not something that is used lightly, but in terms of providing testimony, the Senate can call on anyone they please.
Why Gen. Patraeus and not higher? The chain of command in the U.S. starts at the President, then the Secretary of Defense (a cabinet/ministerial level position). Then, the combatant commander (COCOM) (who is responsible for all military forces in the region) who then commands subordinates to implement policy. In the U.S., there is a parallel structure called the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), who also report to the Secretary of Defense. The JCS are responsible for the training and equipping of forces. The COCOMs are responsible for how those forces are actually used. For U.S. forces in Iraq, as employed forces, their actions are under the perview of the COCOM (although their training back home is a JCS issue). In times of war, it is not unusual to appoint a theater commander (MacArthur, Ridgeway in Korea, Westmoreland, Abrams in Vietnam) responsible for all activities in theater, within the regional command. Patraeus is the regional commander for Iraq, within the larger umbrella of the U.S. Central Command.
Where did Patraeus come from? Regarding the current war in Iraq, Patraeus was a division commanding general during the initial invasion. Most accounts view him as very innovative during the initial combat operations, as well as in reestablishing civil affairs afterwards, something that was not viewed as typical. After return to the states, he was assigned to Iraq again in charge of training the Iraqi forces. He then returned to command the Fort Leavenworth and the Combined Arms College (a graduate level institution) at Leavenworth he and Marine General Mattis oversaw the writing of the new U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency doctrine. After this, Patraeus was selected to command MNF-I as the senior U.S. officer in the theater.
What is his relationship with the Bush administration? Well, pretty rocky over time. He has long been known as a counter-insurgency expert, and the Bush administration was very adament for a long time that the conflict in Iraq was not an insurgency. Some commentators thought that the assignment of Patraeus and others to the various military schools was essentially professional exile. (what kind of career does a military officer have as a college dean instead of commanding combat troops in a war). And with the Iraq war going very badly, the view of many commentators is that the Bush administration essentially cried for help, and brought Patraeus back to the war, even with his not very liked counterinsurgency doctrine. Because it probably would not do any worse. And Patraeus brought along a number of other officers who did a lot of thinking about counterinsurgency with him (and who had helped write the new counterinsurgency doctrinal manual). Somewhat of a return from exile.
Wait, I thought counterinsurgency and the 'surge' was viewed as the Bush great idea? Counterinsurgency (COIN) is still a very debated concept in the U.S. military, even among those who have recent experience in a war zone. One source of opposition are those who are concerned that the business of the army is to wage high intensity combat, the kind with tanks and artillery and mass formations. Not this COIN that is mostly done with small numbers in very close contact with civilians. Another group says that building up communities is not the military's job, so they should not learn how (the "we don't do nation building" crowd) and let the civilians do it. More cynical observers point to another source of opposition. Since COIN requires resources be put into training people rather then heavy equipment, cynics note that the normal military contractors don't get rich building tanks and planes in COIN, so they are opposed (along with their friends in uniform).
So, what is happening now in Washington? Gen Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker are back for a second round of testimony before congress. The first was in September 2007. Six months was considered to be a decent interval. As both of them are confirmed by the Senate, the Senate deals with them as their agents, (which is why Gen Patraeus had no need to discuss his testimony with the executive branch last September. The Ambassador is the President's personal representative overseas, so he probably does have some requirement to discuss with the President what he will say.)
The committees in question are the foreign service and the defense committees. This is where the real power in congress lies. The staff of these committees for both of the major parties are presumed to be experts in their fields, and are expected to prepare their members well regarding lines of questioning. But while they can give testimony regarding the current state of affairs in Iraq, as well as some discussion of options and what can be done with resources available (or made available), the actual current policy of Iraq is not really the topic of discussion. That comes when instead of listening to testimony, Congress is debating policy. And part of the purpose of this testimony is for the various sides to ask their questions and shape the policy debate to come. And to gather information and ammunition for that conflict to come.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Book Review: Fiasco - The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas Ricks
[ISBN 0143038915]
Fiasco takes a look at the run up to the American invasion of Iraq and the first years of the American occupation attempting to follow the thought and decision making processes of senior American political and military leaders. In the same vein of Bob Woodward's Plan Of Attack, Ricks is trying to paint a picture of how the American political and military establishments works (or does not). His picture is an ugly one, of a political establishment that is disfunctional in its ability to process information and tolerate dissent. His picture of the military is mixed, it is of a military that has a range of those who were inflexible, and those who were trying to learn how to fight a different kind of war, in a political environment that was resistant to learning.
One area that Ricks differs greatly from Woodward is in providing context. Both report on the words and explanations the principle participants used at various times to understand what information was available and the state of mind they received this information in. Ricks goes one step further and gives contextual information. The result is a damning indictment of the political establishment c. 2001-2005 in its misrepresentation of the information available and its protestations that the events were not expected and could not be handled better. His treatment of military leaders was mixed. He describes and Army that was fighting with the political establishment about the nature of war with mixed results. He shows some whose styles were utterly unsuited for this war amongst the people with its ambiguities (like Sanchez or Franks), and other who got it from the beginning (like Patraus and company) and others who learned along the way (like Odierno).
While Woodward seemed very conscious of telling "the first draft of history" and avoiding interpretation, and Atkinson in "In the company of soldiers" was telling a story, Ricks is writing a history, not letting the principles tell the story, but surrounding their words and actions with the context those words and actions appeared in. It provides many lessons in how decisions are made, arguments are won or lost, and the hazards of a political system resistant to dissent.
Fiasco takes a look at the run up to the American invasion of Iraq and the first years of the American occupation attempting to follow the thought and decision making processes of senior American political and military leaders. In the same vein of Bob Woodward's Plan Of Attack, Ricks is trying to paint a picture of how the American political and military establishments works (or does not). His picture is an ugly one, of a political establishment that is disfunctional in its ability to process information and tolerate dissent. His picture of the military is mixed, it is of a military that has a range of those who were inflexible, and those who were trying to learn how to fight a different kind of war, in a political environment that was resistant to learning.
One area that Ricks differs greatly from Woodward is in providing context. Both report on the words and explanations the principle participants used at various times to understand what information was available and the state of mind they received this information in. Ricks goes one step further and gives contextual information. The result is a damning indictment of the political establishment c. 2001-2005 in its misrepresentation of the information available and its protestations that the events were not expected and could not be handled better. His treatment of military leaders was mixed. He describes and Army that was fighting with the political establishment about the nature of war with mixed results. He shows some whose styles were utterly unsuited for this war amongst the people with its ambiguities (like Sanchez or Franks), and other who got it from the beginning (like Patraus and company) and others who learned along the way (like Odierno).
While Woodward seemed very conscious of telling "the first draft of history" and avoiding interpretation, and Atkinson in "In the company of soldiers" was telling a story, Ricks is writing a history, not letting the principles tell the story, but surrounding their words and actions with the context those words and actions appeared in. It provides many lessons in how decisions are made, arguments are won or lost, and the hazards of a political system resistant to dissent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)