I have tremendous respect for Glenn Greenwald. He’s one of, if not the best bloggers in the business. But he has a reading comprehension problem. Today he has decided to mock me for alleged beltway journalism. I had the temerity to use a well-weathered insider analogy about adults and children, and who, in fact, is in charge. In my telling, Barack Obama has, through his centrist appointments, effectively sidelined (for the time being) meaningful opposition to his foreign policy goals.
I would have selected a different national security team. But I can see what Obama is doing. He has effectively sidelined critics of his foreign policy vision to the kiddie table over there in the corner. You can take a look to see who’s at the kiddie table. There’s Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There’s Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. There’s Joe Lieberman and John McCain. There’s even Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. They will all continue to screech now and then, and the adults will look over condescendingly and tell them to pipe down or there’s no dessert.
In saying this, I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama’s foreign policy and national security team is going to be right about the policies they pursue, or that they shouldn’t listen to anyone screaming from the sidelines. My greatest concern with the team is that it doesn’t (so far) include any of the strong voices that bravely opposed George and Dick’s excellent adventure in Iraq. My point, though, is that Obama has just carved out a huge swath of territory within which he can safely maneuver.
What am I saying? Am I applauding Obama’s appointments? “I would have selected a different national security team.” Am I saying that this centrist team is going to produce the correct results? “In saying this, I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama’s foreign policy and national security team is going to be right about the policies they pursue…” Am I picking on the anti-war position? “There’s Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There’s Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. There’s Joe Lieberman and John McCain. There’s even Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney.”
But none of that matters to Greenwald. In his reading, I am a “limitlessly Obama-enamored blogger” who is gushing over “Obama’s team of mostly establishment figures and war supporters.” Needless to say, Greenwald has missed my point.
I agree with Greenwald’s impatience for the adult/child analogy which, as he documents, gets thoroughly rehashed anytime there is a change in administration. That’s why I somewhat mischievously used it. However, I turned the usual usage on its head to show that the result of Obama’s centrist foreign policy appointments was to relegate the heretofore mainstream neo-conservative view (and, yes, the far left critique as well) to the sidelines of the national debate. I do, indeed, applaud this outcome, but not without caveats that I’ve been repeating all month. This should have been clear to Greenwald, but he chose to cherry-pick from what I wrote.
Concerns remain, and anti-war progressives are still looking for seats at the table where their superior judgment will not only be rewarded but put to good use going forward. But progressives can take comfort in the fact the field has been cleared politically to such a degree that they can move freely. If they remain marginalized, the neo-conservatives are newly marginalized, and to a far greater degree. Additionally, progressives are now empowered organizationally and have a far greater ability to mobilize public opinion than their opponents on the right. Palinists are truly out in the cold, and will remain there until there is some glaring failure or crack in the new governing coalition.
Obama has successfully disarmed an opposition (at least for the time being) that has dominated the public discourse in this country since (at least) September 11, 2001.
You can fairly describe this as a glass half-full analysis, but it is hardly gushing. It’s actually a fairly neutral assessment. I express my distaste for the picks up front, I state my qualms, and I address the positives. Chief among the positives is that Obama has created a wide consensus for his foreign policy vision (which appears no different than what he campaigned on) and gives him the ability to maneuver without having the fist of FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and a united Republican opposition in his mouth. There will be those on the far right that oppose Obama’s every move and there will be those on the far left that want Obama out of Afghanistan and every other place in the world. Those people might even be right in their criticisms (and he should include some of both in his inner council) but they won’t be driving the debate in this country. What I’m celebrating is the way Obama has marginalized the neo-conservatives and their media megaphones. Greenwald is fighting a strawman.
