Embracing Convention
So one of two things happened. Either Clinton has embraced Obama’s vision for fundamental change, or Obama has succumbed to “conventional Washington thinking.” ~Philip Klein
Not to be a broken record, but of course it is the latter. Well, except that he didn’t “succumb”–he embraces the conventional thinking, just as he does wherever he goes. As his political universe has changed and expanded, the conventional thinking he has had to embrace changed as well. This is what his friends and admirers call pragmatism, and it is a function of the temperament that Obamacons invoke when pressed to explain their support. This has been reasonably clear for at least the past several months. When running against conventional Washington thinking suited him as an outsider and challenger candidate, he did that. Now that he is firmly ensconced in Washington, conventional Washington thinking will be all right. This isn’t an accusation or even that much of a complaint–I have given up complaining about Obama’s conventional ways. At this point, it is merely a description. As I said immediately after his election:
If you have a high opinion of the Washington establishment and bipartisan consensus politics, Obama’s election should come as a relief. If you believe, as I do, that most of our policy failures stretching back beyond the last eight years are the product of a failed establishment and a bankrupt consensus, an Obama administration represents the perpetuation of a system that is fundamentally broken.
Most people in the broad “middle” seem to be relieved by Obama’s moves in the last few weeks, so I have to conclude that they don’t have much of a problem with conventional Washington thinking, either. The majority is not just getting the government they deserve, but apparently it is also the government they want. When it fails them, as it is going to do, I don’t want to hear them complaining about the problems of the status quo.
Daniel – I’m going to play advocatus diaboli for a moment here (fully cognizant that it is indeed the Devil I’m defending here) and say that Philip Klein’s dichotomy is fundamentally mistaken.
Clinton is being taken aboard as a functionary. When was the last time a high-profile first-term secretary of state actually set policy?
Colin Powell? Nope. Warren Christopher? Nope. Jim Baker? Yes, but he wasn’t really an outside pick. Al Haig? Nope. Vance? Nope. Whatsisname Nixon 1st term SoS? Hahahahaaha.
Fact is, first-term secretaries of state, *especially* the high profile, outside-the-comfort-zone picks, NEVER have a significant role in setting policy.
Now, there’s plenty of evidence to show that Obama’s policy is basically Baker-Snowcroft with a liberal do-gooding veneer, but you hardly have to go to the Clinton well to do that…and in fact, it’s somewhat counterproductive to do so.
The soap-opera distraction of the Clinton thing is part of the plan.
You are correct that Clinton is not going to drive or set policy, and I agree that he could have selected someone else (such as Kerry) and it would still be right to see Obama as accommodating Washington conventions in a “Baker-Scowcroft with a liberal do-gooding veneer” way. What many people seem to forget is that Obama embraced the Baker-Hamilton Report back in ’06 as if it were gospel. There is essentially nothing in his current views on the region that you could not find in that establishmentarian tome’s recommendations, including his proposal to enter into talks with Iran, which has somehow come to be seen in many quarters as a wild and original innovation on his part.
There is essentially nothing in his current views on the region that you could not find in that establishmentarian tome’s recommendations, including his proposal to enter into talks with Iran, which has somehow come to be seen in many quarters as a wild and original innovation on his part.
Agreed. It’s a pretty good index of how beaten-down the country is that Bush I foreign policy looks so new and shiny.
And that, slaney, is my point as well. We don’t know what Obama will do, but as compared to Bush, he is a breath of fresh air. Just hewing to the middle ground is such a change for the better – it’s that old saw about if it hurts, stop doing it, and we have just about stopped “doing” Bush.
Really, all y’all should push for whatever you think is important, just as you are, but keep in the back of your mind that the future hasn’t actually arrived yet, and only over the next year or longer will we see just what kind of President Obama intends to be.