Baker's Touch

von

Best sign that Jim Baker hasn't lost his political touch?

Somehow, he managed to co-author a report on Iraq that Democrats, Republicans, alleged Libertarians, and even Andrew-freakin'-Sullivan can claim, like, totally validates at least one of their dearly-held positions.  Sure, they all find problems to pick at.  But c'mon:  Give props to the political maestro at work.

Best sign that RedState never had it?

Rather than spin the report to their best advantage -- i.e., embrace the nettle, like Goldberg and Reynolds -- they unrelentingly attack it.

Comments

[spartikus]

To the Redstate crowd, the war in Iraq isn't about the war in Iraq. It's about using the war in Iraq to bludgeon their domestic enemies. And in this particular case, their wrath is aimed at the moderates of the Republican Party. Soon they'll turn on their own [relative] moderates.

[hilzoy]

spartikus: and here I thought the war in Iraq was all about our National Will (TM).

[Dantheman]

hilzoy,

It is. They are bludgeoning their political opponents to subvert them to their Will.

[bob mcmanus]

That was Diem, This is Now ...Max Sawicky on the ISG

"It is to defend the boundaries of elite discourse on national security, what might be called the ideology of U.S. imperialism. What are the premises of this bi-partisan ideology?

* The "national interest" is the interest of U.S. elites, not a prerogative of popular sovereignty. Foreign policy cannot be entrusted to public opinion." ...MS, and much more. Most excellent

Redstate might not disagree!

In my moderate moods, the elites use existing cultural divisions as tools for hegemony. In my extremist moods, these cultural divisions are created and perpetuated by elites.

The solution, of course, is the elimination of elites and systems that create and empower them.

In Iraq as in the US. I should go read some Gramsci.

[bob mcmanus]

Glaeser The Political Economy of War ...via M Thoma of Economists View. The ISG wasn't about Iraq, or saving Bush, but about protecting the Washington bipartison elite.

"This paper constructs a model of warfare where leaders benefit from war even though the population as a whole loses." ...MT

Seems to be a lot of this cynixism going aroungd lately.

You know,the Redstaters might have sincerely thought the war was about protecting Americans or helping Iraqis. They also might have thought that Washington cared what they thought. Silly wabbits.

I guess I should go read some Lenin

[Pooh]

Perhaps for the first time, I'm fully on board with McManus. See also Feingold. How do you have a "blue ribbon panel" without a single person who thought it was a bad idea to begin with?

Why does is still pay to be right to be wrong? This is really the kind of thing that, to generalize, pisses my generation (>30) off about politics - there is no bedrock of fealty to reality and actual success, not success as defined by suitability for public consumption. In a rational universe, those who were right all along get to drive, but in our current political universe, all being right gets you is an eternal seat at the kids table for the longest Thanksgiving dinner ever.

[rilkefan]

"If Baker will explain to me how having the Iraq Central Bank raise interest rates to 20% is interdependent with Israel agreeing to surrender I’d like to hear about it."

Whaaaa? Baker wants Israel to surrender to ... who? The touch of the better angels of her nature, perhaps, or the beat?

[Ara]

All wrong. The war in Iraq is about Magical American Power, which would do its wonder-working work, if we just took the gloves off and stopped being such pansies.

Because pansies all wear gloves.

[spartikus]

Magical American Power

And if only Dumbledore would let Harry use the Avada Kedavra spell this Voldemort business would be over.

[Anarch]

This is really the kind of thing that, to generalize, pisses my generation (>30) off about politics...

It ain't just your generation.

[Pooh]

It ain't just your generation.

Perhaps, but I think it's the root of the constant cynicism and ironicism (is that a word? it should be...) amongst the younguns

[Ara]

Anyone get the vibe that Baker's been a lot less cordian to Bush over the last couple of weeks than before? I have a feeling he's feeling insulted and snubbed. From his point of view, he put his credibility on the line to help give the Prez a politically acceptable out. The very worst response, from Baker's point of view, is not just to ignore the commission but to downplay its significance and malign its credibility, which has been some of the early administration response.

[hilzoy]

Ara: yep. And don't underestimate the fact that he's GHWB's friend, and has therefore presumably been privy to the 41-43 relationship as well. I can't see that anyone who liked GHWB would respond to that by feeling endeared to 43.

There are all these people out there, on TV, writing in newspapers, etc., who seem to think that the fact that Baker is Bush's dad's friend somehow means that Bush will listen to him. I can't imagine why they think that. I mean, you'd think they had never had, or been, kids. Even I, little miss harmonious relationship with my parents, have known enough other people to spot the problem with that assumption.

[liberal japonicus]

Bob,
just curious, you've been suggesting that there would be something like rioting in the streets given the course on Iraq. Now, with the ISG report, we seem to, as von and you point out, have restored the veneer of bipartisanship that papers over these atrocities. I'm wondering what you think about this, i.e. is it a self centering mechanism that allows the elites to pull this stuff, or if you feel like the progressives have let yet another opportunity slip from their grasp. (of course, it could be both) This is not to disagree with you feelings (and we could all stand to read more Gramsci)

[Katherine]

did you mean "< 30"?

I'm not sure how generational it is but we do seem to be astonishingly badly led. I used to think it was bizarre to read serious books from the 60s that un-self-consciously wrote about The Establishment in capital letters. I still don't use the word and certainly wouldn't capitalize it, but I'm starting to see where they were coming from.

[bob mcmanus]

"you've been suggesting that there would be something like rioting in the streets given the course on Iraq"

Not would, should. Ok, let me see if I can can make this succinct. It is just a theory or my opinion, and I am no expert on Marxism and sociology. tho studying 1875-1925 pretty hard soon. And my betters disagree, which never inhibits me. A couple of recent links, for the heck of it:

Economics is ComplicatedMatt Yglesias declares an end of ideology and praises Hayek, for God's sake

The">http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_digbysblog_archive.html#116553315080957566">The Aristocrats ...but Digby says the drive toward dynasty endures

Why aren't there mass protests? Our era is not about the triumph of capitalism over socialism, but about the triumph of liberalism or social democracy.

1)Schumpeter and Keynes convinced the elites that just enough goodies delivered to the workers would prevent revolution and hassles while not really ceding much political power.

2) Given this minimal improvement in stds of living, the left decided it could work within parliamentary structures to incrementally achieve its aims. The Left now just loves the gov't, which is their friend ad here to help them. But the workers will never really control gov't, the purpose of gov't is to create elites and limit democracy.

So in the decades following WWII, the left has gradually forgotten its extra-governmental power. Unions, strikes, marches, etc. This was the plan of the 30s and 40s and liberalism has been internalized. The kids like MY and Ezra think Casey, Obama, Webb will take care of them, and the tactics of the dirty f'ing hippies were counterproductive. I don't expect them to learn better until their leaders in Congress and the WH gut the entitlements.

That the kids don't seem to connect America's permanent and perpetual WAR/Keynesian/deficit economy to big gov't liberalism boggles my mind.

[dmbeaster]

This post is dead on with regard to the magic of Baker, who should not have much credibility given his actual track record. For some reason, the magic does not work on Junior.

bobm:

So in the decades following WWII, the left has gradually forgotten its extra-governmental power. Unions, strikes, marches, etc. This was the plan of the 30s and 40s and liberalism has been internalized.

In the spirit of your commie rhetoric references, it is more likely Americans have largely become petit-bourgeoise wannabes -- the ultimate foolish collaborators with the elites (according to that way of thinking).

tho studying 1875-1925 pretty hard soon.

Great stuff, since so much of history after that is putting fixes in place to moderate the excesses of capitalism. The last hundred years of Western history is best defined as liberal capitalism, in which capitalism is the root value, but regulated to prevent excesses. Except, that is, when Reagan or a Bush takes power.

They want to dial the clock back to 1875, literally -- a great example is this whack-a-doodle Heritage Foundation seminar last August, 2005, entitled Did the Progressives Destroy America?

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks bob. I kind of go back and forth between your viewpoint and what dm is saying, but it is comforting to see that getting older (I'm thinking you are older than me and dm) doesn't mean you have to become a defender of bourgeoise privilege ;^)

[joel hanes]

von :

glad you're posting.

god knows we need thoughtful
persons of all stripes at this
momement -- and at all moments.