Villainous Company

« Obama: The Audacity of Branding | Main | The Blogosphere's Worst Video Contest »

July 23, 2008

What Does Obama Offer America, Minus The Hype?

Vizzini cuts the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.

For the past few days, American voters have been bombarded with carefully selected images of a presidential candidate whose strongest qualification for office seems to be the audacious hope that come November, he will occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Demonstrably his resume, when contrasted with previous occupants of the Oval Office, is painfully thin:

Obviously it is racist to wonder whether Barack Obama has enough experience - or even the right experience - to handle the demanding duties of running the world's largest superpower. In deciding that such questions are racist, we are not allowed to look at the facts.

We are not allowed, for instance, to compare Obama's experience to that of other men who have won the nomination of their party in presidential elections:

Since the Civil War, 49 men have won a major-party presidential nomination. Only three of these nominees were less qualified, by traditional measures of leadership and experience, than Obama.

That puts Barack Obama at or around the 6th percentile of presidential candidates chosen by a major party in the last century and a half, experience-wise. But we are not allowed to notice this, because it would be racist to elevate experience over skin color.

Interestingly:

None of those men was able to win the White House.

But we are not allowed to notice this, because it would be racist to elevate statistical evidence of voter preferences over skin color.

Americans have only elected 6 U.S. Presidents who had no previous executive experience. Notably, since the Civil War, we have only elected one: John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

But we are not allowed to notice this. You see, that would be racist.

One might be justified in asking, is executive experience a good predictor of presidential performance? Let's find out:

Based on the historical rankings of all the U.S. Presidents (the Wall Street Journal 2005 study) compared to their levels of experience prior to taking the high office, the evidence indicates that experience in general isn't in itself an indicator of how successful our Presidents have been in office. However, there is evidence that that the type of experience is extremely important. By dividing our Presidents into groups based on the types of experience they had prior to coming to office, here are some statistical observations:

* Presidents who possessed previous experience as a Government Chief Executive at the state or local level have above-average historical ratings.

* Presidents who did not possess previous experience as a Government Chief Executive at the state or local level have below-average historical ratings.

Click for bigger

But since Amerikka has a long history of deeply entrenched racism, the very notion that we can trust history is, in itself, deeply racist. So that's right out.

Though John McCain has no executive experience in civilian government, he was the the Executive Officer and the Squadron Commander of the largest aviation squadron in the United States Navy, having attained the rank of Captain. Having direct responsibility for a government organization which employs over 1000 people and maintains 75 aircraft is comparable to running a small corporation.

Barack Obama has no comparable executive experience in either the civilian or government sector. So we are left with the question of who has more legislative experience: John McCain or Barack Obama?

John McCain has 24 years, both as a member of the House of Representatives and the United States Senate. He has been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since his election to the Senate in 1987.

Barack Obama was an Illinois State Legislator from 1997-2004 and a United States Senator from 2005 to the present. He served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has 8 years of experience to John McCain's 24. Only 3 years of Mr. Obama's legislative experience were served at the national level. Assuming the two men's records were directly comparable in a qualitative sense (they are not), from a quantitative sense Mr. Obama brings roughly one third the amount of experience to the table.

Perhaps to make up for the glaring deficits in his experience, Senator Obama assures us he has "The Judgment to Lead" and that his candidacy offers "change we can believe in". That many Obama fans have fallen for the latter slogan is evident from listening to the gushingly inane pronouncements of celebs like George Michael:

Michael, 45, touring North America for the first time in 17 years, told fans during a concert at New York City's Madison Square Garden that "I know you guys all need a change."

He admitted he doesn't know what kind of change Obama would bring if elected, saying that after "months of watching CNN" he still does not know what Obama or Clinton stand for. But he went on to say that the Illinois and New York senators would make "the strongest team" for the Democratic ticket.

That many Democrats are willing to embrace change - any kind of change - for change's sake is all too evident from statements like Michael's and Susan Sarandon's:

"So I think he definitely has convinced people that he stands for change and for hope, and I can't wait to see what he stands for."

Blind, unthinking support. Now there's change America can believe in, if they only knew what it was. Oh well. Just close your eyes and Daddy will fix all the evil in the world while you sleep. Never mind about those pesky details:

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

But this is not a matter which need concern you. The metamessage here is that an Obama presidency is inevitable. Like Fate, Obama cannot be denied and those who dare to point out the inconsistencies between what he says and the realities on the ground are just petty naysayers who oppose the hopeful change Obama so desperately wants to bring to a waiting world:

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

But these are mere trivialities. It is so important to stay on message and the message here is the Obama brings hope, he has the judgment to lead, and most importantly that he was right to bravely oppose the Surge, even if ignorant folk think he doesn't quite grasp the mechanics of the recent turnaround in Iraq's fortunes:

It’s conventional wisdom now to say that Anbar improved because the Sunni tribes aligned against al Qaeda. True enough, but an incomplete explanation. With inadequate manpower, the Marines and Army National Guard and active duty soldiers persisted year after year with gritty, relentless patrolling that convinced the tribes the American military was, as one tribal leader said to me, “the strongest tribe”. Hence the tribes could turn against al Qaeda, knowing they had the strongest tribe standing behind them.

But why join “the strongest tribe” if it is migrating back to the States?

Furthermore, Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army ceasefire was a result of the surge, but had nothing to do with the decrease in suicide bombings, which accounted for the biggest reduction in violence at the time.

Barack Obama — a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — should have been paying more attention to what was going on in Iraq as he prepared to run for president than relying on the Washington Post. That he either remains ignorant of what happened in Iraq, or seeks to mislead voters about it, simply to maintain the fiction that he was not wrong about the surge, does not inspire confidence in his competence or trustworthiness.

The fact of the matter is that it is Obama who has a frighteningly poor grasp of the Surge and what it has accomplished. He argues, illogically, that we cannot afford to lose in Iraq. And yet we should never have funded the very Surge that transformed Iraq from a losing proposition to the point where he is able to speak of withdrawing troops. He says he wants to "avoid hypotheticals", yet his entire "plan" is based on the hypothetical and completely unsupported notion that, had we given in to the demands of al Qaeda and the insurgency they would have laid down their arms and abandoned their publicly announced plan to seize an Arab state and turn it into the central front of a global jihad against the West.

They must not have received the Obama memo. Iraq is not - we repeat not - the central front in the war on terror.

Such colossal ignorance, such determination to ignore what Osama bin Laden has openly threatened to do time and time again is, truly, (as Rep. Heather Wilson stated) frightening. Such determination to ignore what Bin Laden has promised - that retreat, far from placating al Qaeda, only encourages further attacks, is incomprehensible:

...fears [have] enshrined you all. Where was this false courage of yours when the explosion in Beirut took place on 1983 AD (1403 A.H). You were turned into scattered pits and pieces at that time; 241 mainly marines solders were killed. And where was this courage of yours when two explosions made you to leave Aden in lees than twenty four hours!

But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.

It is not John McCain who fundamentally fails to understand the Surge or the nature of the enemy we face, but Barack Obama. The Anbar Awakening was, like many gains purchased at such great cost in Iraq, indeed fragile and easily reversible. It took a massive and credible demonstration of America's ongoing commitment to the future of Iraqi democracy in Iraq to more those early gains from the "clear" column into the "hold" column; to build trust in the hearts of ordinary Iraqis that we would not pull the rug out from underneath them, to convince them to risk retribution from the insurgency and report the militia members in their neighborhoods.

Clearly, Barack Obama still does not understand simple human nature. He does not understand the nature of instilling trust, whether it be among our foreign allies or in the troops he would one day lead should be become Commander in Chief. Trust means having the courage to stick with unpopular positions. It means keeping your promises, even when the political winds grow chilly and sharp:

Just as success in winning past global conflicts depended on forging a broad coalition that stretched across party and ideological lines, success in using the advance of democracy to win the war on terror will depend on building and maintaining a wide consensus of support.

Yet despite these criticisms, I recognize that I have the luxury of criticizing Mr. Bush's democracy agenda only because there is a democracy agenda in the first place. A policy that for years had been nothing more than the esoteric subject of occasional academic debate is now the focal point of American statecraft.

For decades, a "realism" based on a myopic perception of international stability prevailed in the policy-making debate. For a brief period during the Cold War, the realist policy of accommodating Soviet tyranny was replaced with a policy that confronted that tyranny and made democracy and human rights inside the Soviet Union a litmus test for superpower relations.

The enormous success of such a policy in bringing the Cold War to a peaceful end did not stop most policy makers from continuing to advocate an approach to international stability that was based on coddling "friendly" dictators and refusing to support the aspirations of oppressed peoples to be free.

Then came Sept. 11, 2001. It seemed as though that horrific day had made it clear that the price for supporting "friendly" dictators throughout the Middle East was the creation of the world's largest breeding ground of terrorism. A new political course had to be charted.

Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

Yet with each passing day, new voices are added to the chorus of that doctrine's opponents, and the circle of its supporters grows ever smaller.

Critics rail against every step on the new and difficult road on which the United States has embarked. Yet in pointing out the many pitfalls which have not been avoided and those which still can be, those critics would be wise to remember that the alternative road leads to the continued oppression of hundreds of millions of people and the continued festering of the pathologies that led to 9/11.

Now that President Bush is increasingly alone in pushing for freedom, I can only hope that his dissident spirit will continue to persevere. For should that spirit break, evil will indeed triumph, and the consequences for our world would be disastrous.

I have said this before, but there is often a steep price for doing the right thing and in an increasingly borderless world we may well be finding out that freedom is not the automatic birthright we once believed it to be. Technology is rapidly dissolving the buffers which have traditionally allowed us to think of ourselves as an isolationist nation: people, information and money move freely and with astonishing speed around the globe and neither force of arms nor the law appear able to stop them for long.

And so we are left with ideology. This, and a man many think is too stupid to eat a pretzel without choking. And yet, he sees this.

I think history will treat George Bush kindly.

Obama, not so much.

Posted by Cassandra at July 23, 2008 06:17 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2277

Comments

Posted by: Kat at July 23, 2008 10:30 AM

Posted by: Jeffrey at July 23, 2008 10:40 AM

Posted by: bthun at July 23, 2008 10:43 AM

Posted by: There Goes the Neighborhood at July 23, 2008 10:47 AM

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)