Obama official: He's Running in '08

[Mike Teezie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6349081.stm

I for one, am excited. This is a candidate that I feel that I can really get behind, and not just choose out of pure despair for the other guy.

[gauchogolfer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6349081.stm

I for one, am excited. This is a candidate that I feel that I can really get behind, and not just choose out of pure despair for the other guy.

Agreed. I'm looking forward to hearing him further clarify and articulate his position, hopefully stirring up some good debate along the way.

[BoyBach]

Along with Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, the Democratic Presidential race is going to interesting.

By 'interesting' I mean that they have three very strong candidates.

[yojitani]

Along with Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, the Democratic Presidential race is going to interesting.

By 'interesting' I mean that they have three very strong candidates.

Yes, they do, though I'm not sure about Edwards. He was certainly way too conservative for me and others last time around (though not in the Leiberman sense!). Still, Obama is having an effect I have never seen in my short time in the US - he is interesting to young people. Apparently one of the hottest reads around campus among undergrads is his autobiography! Whether that translates into votes, we'll see, but since we're talking Iowa here, I'd say it's a good sign for him.

Meant to add: I think Obama's political survival is going to hinge on how he deals with the controversies. Wesley Clark's inexperience really crippled him when he was faced with questions on abortion, if you remember.

[yg17]

I caught the second half of his speech on CNN this morning, and it was an excellent one. Between that, and his famous DNC 04 speech, he seems like a candidate who's truly in it for the people and not for the power. He's very charismatic and I think he's got a shot. People like him, and that's exactly what a candidate needs.

I don't think the lack of experience hurts, in fact, it may be helpful. It seems like the longer you spend in politics, the more corrupt you get, and Obama is someone who hasn't been around long enough to let big corporations and lobbyists fill his wallet and buy his vote.

I just hope race isn't an issue. I shouldn't even have to mention it, but we're 100 years behind the rest of the world when it comes to race and equality. But....I think Obama even said it himself: The people who wouldn't vote for someone due to the color of their skin are people who wouldn't vote Democratic anyways.

He's got my vote when the Missouri primaries come around in a little more than a year. And hopefully I'll be able to vote for him in November 2008 and 2012.

[leekohler]

I love me some Barack. ;)

[BoyBach]

I don't think the lack of experience hurts, in fact, it may be helpful.


From today's Independent front page article:

As for complaints that Mr Obama lacks the experience to lead America in a desperately complicated world, his response is simple and devastating. The Bush administration, with the likes of Powell, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had perhaps the most experienced national security team in US history, he says - and look what a mess they made of things in Iraq, and what they've done for America's good name in the world. Enough said.

The Great Black Hope - Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2255654.ece)

[obeygiant]

this guy is good. too bad hillary is going to get the nomination.


http://obama.ytmnd.com/

[PlaceofDis]

this guy is good. too bad hillary is going to get the nomination.


http://obama.ytmnd.com/

i hope not. i'd much rather have Obama get the nomination.

[carbonmotion]

I'm not sure if you guys know this or not, but as someone who has worked in Washington, I'm always surprised at how much one speech can make or break one's reputation. I personally feel like Obama's decision to run for POTUS is premature, he is, after all, only a junior senator. Additionally, each time that I've met Obama in person, he's never made much of an impression on me. He's also an average public speaker, although he is amazing when he delivers a well practiced speech. Hiliary on the other hand, has the presence and political clout to make it all happen. A few of my professors were on her husband's cabinate and one was infact his national security adviser.

[zimv20]

another saturday announcement. is this en vogue?

[PlaceofDis]

I'm not sure if you guys know this or not, but as someone who has worked in Washington, I'm always surprised at how much one speech can make or break one's reputation. I personally feel like Obama's decision to run for POTUS is premature, he is, after all, only a junior senator. Additionally, each time that I've met Obama in person, he's never made much of an impression on me. He's also an average public speaker, although he is amazing when he delivers a well practiced speech. Hiliary on the other hand, has the presence and political clout to make it all happen. A few of my professors were on her husband's cabinate and one was infact his national security adviser.

if speech performances were what made a president, then how did Bush get elected twice?

[FleurDuMal]

Good luck to him. I'll certainly be backing him.

There was an interesting report on him today on British TV. It said that the Afro-American community (in the least monolithic sense) were actually more behind Clinton that Obama, the latter not being black enough and suspicious of how he has become so popular in mainstream, white politics.

Will America ever sort out the black/white thing?

[carbonmotion]

if speech performances were what made a president, then how did Bush get elected twice?

Speech performance really is the ability for the man running to relate to the common man. Bush had that folksy charm that the working people of American just loved! His first opponent was Albert Gore, who at the time had zero charisma. His second opponent was John Kerry, who while being a decent speaker, comes from too much of an elite family background to be taken in with comfort with the American people. :apple:

Another issue with Obama is his blackness. Now, being an Asian American, if a minority ever gets in to office, I'd throw a party. However, after working in Washington, I felt a very subtle but present racist attitude amongst many of the whites there. It ranges from use "your people this and that" to things like "well, the Chinese make great engineers, why are you here?" I've lived in very upper middle class WASP suburbs all my life and have never really experience racism as I did in DC. So, I'm not sure if DC is ready for a minority POTUS quiet yet.

My personal gripe with Obama is his lack of experience and seemingly juvinile notions on forigen policy. Having worked at a forigen policy thank tank, it makes me kind of nervous to have a man so inexperienced international diplomacy led the nation. However, if I can see in to the future and see that he picks a good cabinet and shows that he listens to them, I'd be working the polling stations at his campaign. Personally, I like Hilliary because many of my professors were her husband's former advisers and they're sense of policy and economics is very solid. Well, my two cents at least.

[carbonmotion]

Good luck to him. I'll certainly be backing him.

There was an interesting report on him today on British TV. It said that the Afro-American community (in the least monolithic sense) were actually more behind Clinton that Obama, the latter not being black enough and suspicious of how he has become so popular in mainstream, white politics.

Will America ever sort out the black/white thing?

Will Britain ever sort out the marginalized brown people in their country? Nearly every industrialized country has their racial problems, some just talk about it less than others.

[leekohler]

Having worked at a forigen policy thank tank, it makes me kind of nervous to have a man so inexperienced international diplomacy led the nation. However, if I can see in to the future and see that he picks a good cabinet and shows that he listens to them, I'd be working the polling stations at his campaign.

I certainly don't think he could do worse than Bush. Talk about juvenile. ;)

[FleurDuMal]

Will Britain ever sort out the marginalized brown people in their country? Nearly every industrialized country has their racial problems, some just talk about it less than others.

As we're not talking about a British candidate for Prime Minister, it'd be a waste to talk about representation of ethnic minorities in British politics.

British people have no qualms with talking about their racial problems, its just unfortunate that in the most public forums those who talk about it use the debate as a means to an often more dubious and often sinister end.

[carbonmotion]

I certainly don't think he could do worse than Bush. Talk about juvenile. ;)

I will say this much... no matter who leads america, many in the world will always be pissed at our forigen policy. However, Bush and his Neocon cronies are hands down the worst of the bunch. It's gonna take a genius or a group of genius advisors to right the wrongs and I simply don't see that kind of genius in Obama's speech. Even as a Foreign Policy simpleton.... A lowly degree in Political Science... I can see that a lot of his FP ideas are overly idealistic. Although to be fair, I've only personally spoken with him once for about 13 minutes -ish.

[IJ Reilly]

I certainly don't think he could do worse than Bush. Talk about juvenile. ;)

Right. I think the issue of experience, political or otherwise, can easily be over-thought and over-analyzed. John Kennedy had little political experience when he was elected president, and Robert Kennedy even less when he was running in (and almost certainly would have won) the '68 Democratic primary.

[carbonmotion]

Right. I think the issue of experience, political or otherwise, can easily be over-thought and over-analyzed. John Kennedy had little political experience when he was elected president, and Robert Kennedy even less when he was running in (and almost certainly would have won) the '68 Democratic primary.

In many ways a good President is really a man who's good at picking good staff. Kennedy had decent policy advisers in the FP department, thus at the very least he dealt with Cuba semi-effectively. When it comes to Forgien policy, I'm non partisan... Nixon on the other hand, had a GREAT man as his FP advisor. Readig about the way Kissinger opened up China was like seeing theoretical political science text like Barrington Moore's Evolution vindicated.

[IJ Reilly]

I will say this much... no matter who leads america, many in the world will always be pissed at our forigen policy. However, Bush and his Neocon cronies are hands down the worst of the bunch. It's gonna take a genius or a group of genius advisors to right the wrongs and I simply don't see that kind of genius in Obama's speech. Even as a Foreign Policy simpleton.... A lowly degree in Political Science... I can see that a lot of his FP ideas are overly idealistic. Although to be fair, I've only personally spoken with him once for about 13 minutes -ish.

So he wasn't hatched fully grown? So what?

I very well remember the first time I heard George W. Bush asked difficult questions in an interview, while he was running for the nomination in 2000. His answers were so obviously muddled and poorly informed, you could see that the interviewer (Jim Lehrer) was having a hard time hiding his astonishment. My thought was, "this man is running for president?" Oh yes, and winning it too.

Time will tell if Obama has the stuff. But my God, Bush set the intellectual, experience and knowledge bar so low that I can only cringe when I hear Obama being criticized for being some sort of neophyte who might not be a rhetorical genius. Get real!

[63dot]

Along with Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, the Democratic Presidential race is going to interesting.

By 'interesting' I mean that they have three very strong candidates.

and that being said, it's pretty obvious the gop (at least right now) looks like they are certainly headed for defeat in '08

but that's not a stretch since i saw the dems win the elections in 60 and 64
gop took 68 and 72
dems took 76
gop took 80, 84, and 88
dems took 92 and 96
gop took 2000 and 2004

see a trend?

gone are the days where one party dominates 20 years like the dems did with roosevelt from '33 to '45, and truman from '45 to '53

[yojitani]

Speech performance really is the ability for the man running to relate to the common man. Bush had that folksy charm that the working people of American just loved! His first opponent was Albert Gore, who at the time had zero charisma. His second opponent was John Kerry, who while being a decent speaker, comes from too much of an elite family background to be taken in with comfort with the American people. :apple:

Are you kidding??! Bush DOESN'T come from an elite family??? What you are saying is purely PR. I don't think it's Bush's 'folksy charisma' that got him elected by working people. Look to the prevalence of social conservatism for GOP popularity... that's why Clinton went over so well: a social conservative who appeared to favor social-democratic economics (even though we all know he was as Liberal as a republican).

Another issue with Obama is his blackness. Now, being an Asian American, if a minority ever gets in to office, I'd throw a party. However, after working in Washington, I felt a very subtle but present racist attitude amongst many of the whites there. It ranges from use "your people this and that" to things like "well, the Chinese make great engineers, why are you here?" I've lived in very upper middle class WASP suburbs all my life and have never really experience racism as I did in DC. So, I'm not sure if DC is ready for a minority POTUS quiet yet.

Thankfully Washington doesn't vote for the entire nation.

Personally, I like Hilliary because many of my professors were her husband's former advisers and they're sense of policy and economics is very solid. Well, my two cents at least.

You are upfront about your bias. Personally, I would be glad to be rid of Clinstonianism as much as Bushism. Perhaps the US is not ready for a real left-wing, but I'd be glad to see one. Obama, IMHO, seems like to be 'left enough' for now.

[yg17]

The thing that bothers me about Hillary, is that, even though I think she'd make a great president, I'm bothered by the fact, that should she get 2 terms, this country would've been ran by the same 2 families for 28 years. This isn't a monarchy. We need a fresh set of faces and ideas in the white house. Should she win the Dem nomination, I would definitely vote for her (unless Giuliani won the Repub nomination and didn't move further to the right), but that's one of the many reasons I'm voting for Obama in the MO primaries next year.

[carbonmotion]

Are you kidding??! Bush DOESN'T come from an elite family??? What you are saying is purely PR. I don't think it's Bush's 'folksy charisma' that got him elected by working people. Look to the prevalence of social conservatism for GOP popularity... that's why Clinton went over so well: a social conservative who appeared to favor social-democratic economics (even though we all know he was as Liberal as a republican).



Thankfully Washington doesn't vote for the entire nation.



You are upfront about your bias. Personally, I would be glad to be rid of Clinstonianism as much as Bushism. Perhaps the US is not ready for a real left-wing, but I'd be glad to see one. Obama, IMHO, seems like to be 'left enough' for now.



I think Bush's folksyness was what got him elected in the working class and toss up states during the first election... second election was both that aforementioned issue and security.

Clinton was a social centrist and a economic conservative. Really, you won't find many American policy makers asking the government to implement a single pay health system or anything like that. Clinton's adviser on e. asian foregin trade was my international econ seminar professor actually, I'm inclined to agree with his pro Globalization/ Free trade stance with minimal lasifaire in terms of international trade. Granted, I don't think a single candidate for the presidency in '08 will stray too far from that line.

[carbonmotion]

The thing that bothers me about Hillary, is that, even though I think she'd make a great president, I'm bothered by the fact, that should she get 2 terms, this country would've been ran by the same 2 families for 28 years. This isn't a monarchy. We need a fresh set of faces and ideas in the white house. Should she win the Dem nomination, I would definitely vote for her (unless Giuliani won the Repub nomination and didn't move further to the right), but that's one of the many reasons I'm voting for Obama in the MO primaries next year.

No monarchy is the wrong term to use, I think the term you're reaching for is either empire or hegemony... or hegemonic empire. Depending on what you think the us gov't is.

[carbonmotion]

The thing that bothers me about Hillary, is that, even though I think she'd make a great president, I'm bothered by the fact, that should she get 2 terms, this country would've been ran by the same 2 families for 28 years. This isn't a monarchy. We need a fresh set of faces and ideas in the white house. Should she win the Dem nomination, I would definitely vote for her (unless Giuliani won the Repub nomination and didn't move further to the right), but that's one of the many reasons I'm voting for Obama in the MO primaries next year.

Obama isn't a bad choose, but there are better choices. Washington insiders with the resources to get their agenda across the house and the senate.

Obama would be alright if he were a centrist on social issues and conservative on economic ones. I worry that he will be one of those advocating for a comprehensive federal welfare system similar to the one in europe, which will be very bad for America... slowing down ind. growth.

[SiliconAddict]

Along with Hilary Clinton and John Edwards, the Democratic Presidential race is going to interesting.

By 'interesting' I mean that they have three very strong candidates.

Edwards isn't strong. I'm not sure if I would even classify him as a second stringer. If Hilary drops her hat into the ring, and I'm still not 100% sure she will, I fully expect Edwards to bow out before we even get to the primaries. Personally I'm still wondering if Hilary is in this right now to draw the attention away from Obama and the other candidates because frankly the Republican party has some sort of weird obsession with Hilary, bordering on a fetish. If you listen to Faux News you can feel the venom spraying through the TV towards here whenever she is brought up. As if she is the anti-Christ or something.

Its going to be interesting to see who the Republicans pick. The far right still controls the party. There are really only a few candidates that can really take on the lineup that the Dems are putting out. John McCain is one. A more interesting candidate would be Giuliani. However the Fundis prob don't want to get behind him since he is more of a moderate more then anything else and is soft on gays. (Really would you rather that be be hard on....sorry :P )
Jeb Bush? Not a snowballs chance in heck. The man has been the center of attention on two many controversial topics. From his roll in 2000, to terry Schiavo, to the whole Katherine Harris debacle. Jeb's political future is pretty much washed up. Cheney? Possibly, however he has gone on record as saying he isn't interested in the big seat however there have been other veeps who has said the same thing. Cheney would definitely appease the fundis. This is a leap but how about Condoleezza? I've heard her name being thrown around in a few discussions I've listened to. However if Obama is nominated such a nomination is going to feel incredibly shallow, and frankly Obama would wipe the floor with her in a debate. Heck its even been suggested that Tim Pawlenty *sighs* my gov, one of the few survivors of November 7th, may try and make a run next year.

I think it boils down to this: If the Dems can put a candidate in play that is a moderate, which Obama is, and the Repubs put another ultra conservative in, I think the Dems stand more then a fair chance of winning. More then ever I think Americans want someone they can feel safe with. Someone they can identify with. Someone who isn't fringe one way (Right) other another (Left.) In short I think American want a moderate and while I'm 100% certain that Dems are fully willing to do that I'm not so sure about Repubs.

This is going to be a fascinating race. I'm sure that there are going to be a number of republican leaders who are going to eat their arms off in frustration over this race.

PS- If it comes down to Giuliani vs. Obama I'm going to be really on the fence. Once upon a time I voted who I though was the best canidate, be that Repub or Dem. Since the introduction of the ultra conservative, I have been consistently voting Dem. However Giuliani is a moderate. Other then him being a real hawk about the Iraq war I do like most of his positions and frankly could swing either way.

PPS- I've already ordered my Obama bumper sticker. If Giuliani wins the nomination I may put his up as well. Watch as people run red lights as they try and wrap their minds around that... :D

[Grakkle]

this guy is good. too bad hillary is going to get the nomination.


I think that if Hillary Clinton is nominated the Democrats are going to lose. People are tired of the Republicans, but I highly doubt Hillary would do it. Of course, she does have most of the establishment support - but then, she also has a lot of baggage and not many original ideas.

If Obama gets the nomination, I'm voting for him. If Hillary gets it, I might still vote for her - but with great reluctance. I think Obama is by far the better candidate, despite his relative lack of political experience.

It'll be interesting to hear more from him as the primaries near, but so far I'm rooting for Obama - and booing Clinton.

[takao]

No monarchy is the wrong term to use, I think the term you're reaching for is either empire or hegemony... or hegemonic empire. Depending on what you think the us gov't is.

i think plutocracy (rich rule) or oligarchy (few rule)

of even better: Kleptocracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptocracy

"informal term for a government that is primarily designed to sustain the personal wealth and political power of government officials and their cronies"

[IJ Reilly]

i think plutocracy (rich rule) or oligarchy (few rule)


Either term works for me. They both bespeak of an entitlement to rule which is more inherited than earned.

[IJ Reilly]

Obama isn't a bad choose, but there are better choices. Washington insiders with the resources to get their agenda across the house and the senate.

Voters like Washington insiders? That's news to me.

[jelloshotsrule]

i'll be curious to see if he ever shows and real guts to stand up for things that aren't just safe issues, as he hasn't really showed it since he has gotten in the presidential campaign mindset.

it's a fairly showing stat that a far higher % of his supporters are above 70k/year income, whereas jesse jackson (in 88) had just the opposite support trend.

all said, i'd still prefer him to clinton.

[it5five]

Obama isn't a bad choose, but there are better choices. Washington insiders with the resources to get their agenda across the house and the senate.

Obama would be alright if he were a centrist on social issues and conservative on economic ones. I worry that he will be one of those advocating for a comprehensive federal welfare system similar to the one in europe, which will be very bad for America... slowing down ind. growth.

Yeah, since Europe has been destroyed with a comprehensive federal welfare system.

Wait a second. :rolleyes:

What this country really needs is a leftist as the next president, so all of the ******** that has come from this administration can be fixed as fast as possible. America is the land of right wing extremism, and only a leftist can pull us out of it.

[carbonmotion]

Yeah, since Europe has been destroyed with a comprehensive federal welfare system.

Wait a second. :rolleyes:

What this country really needs is a leftist as the next president, so all of the ******** that has come from this administration can be fixed as fast as possible. America is the land of right wing extremism, and only a leftist can pull us out of it.

oh yeah, that's gonna work. if only politics were like chemistry.

I'm assuming here that you don't understand much economics, according to my professors at the London School of Economics the the welfare state will eventually become hyperburdened by Globalization, thus it's not optimal for a 100 year projection.

Read Susan Strange's Mad Money: When Markets Outgrow Governments. Despite her odd name, she's one of the formost authority on Globalization and international economics.

[it5five]

My main point was: Europe is doing fine with a comprehensive federal welfare system. It's stupid to say that having one in the United States is going to destroy our country. The rest of the industralized world disagrees with you.

EDIT: Care to elaborate on what your professors mean when they say that, or are you just parroting whatever they tell you? Because in almost every post you've made in this topic, you've brought up what your professors believe.

[AJ Muni]

Has anyone read Obama's book? I'm not really into politics, but there is something about this guy that interest me. Everytime I see him doing an interview I walk away with that "wow" factor. Whats his book about?

[carbonmotion]

Voters like Washington insiders? That's news to me.

well there are generally two camps of candidates, the camp that thinks senators and congressman can best understand their constituents (farms, dock workers) by coming from a farming background or dock working background... there's another school of thought that says the best people to run the country are ivy educated personnel with a advanced scholastic background in politics law economics and diplomacy.

Personally, I think a happy mixture between the farmer politician and the liberal internationalist scholar politician is best for the country... and by that I mean a few farmer politicans with alot of the latter.

[carbonmotion]

My main point was: Europe is doing fine with a comprehensive federal welfare system. It's stupid to say that having one in the United States is going to destroy our country. The rest of the industralized world disagrees with you.

EDIT: Care to elaborate on what your professors mean when they say that, or are you just parroting whatever they tell you? Because in almost every post you've made in this topic, you've brought up what your professors believe.


well to be honest as a lowly undergrad in the face of great scholars like woo-cummings, strange, lieberthal, and company you do tend to do a bit of hero worship. If you ask about a specific (the more specific the better) issue, I can try to do my best to explain it. But then, if I spend the time to write these things out, I hope people who read it read it with an open mind... which is something that I've been trying to do lately with arguments that I don't agree with ... like the neo-conservative writer Niall Ferguson and Rice

[Queso]

Professional politicians who know nothing of the people they represent are a sign of a democracy that's lost its way. It's all about scoring points off the opposition rather than getting results. They obsess too much about the confrontation in the political arena whilst the country falls apart.

[it5five]

I understand what you typed, re-read it a couple times over.

Just because in 100 years the welfare system will (you believe) be burdened by globalization doesn't mean that we should say "oh well, might as well not give two *****, since it's going to fail in the future".

It's wrong to deny help to so many people now just because the system might be over-burdened in the future.

[carbonmotion]

I understand what you typed, re-read it a couple times over.

Just because in 100 years the welfare system will (you believe) be burdened by globalization doesn't mean that we should say "oh well, might as well not give two *****, since it's going to fail in the future".

It's wrong to deny help to so many people now just because the system might be over-burdened in the future.

We may actually agree on this issue, I have a feeling.... However, to flush it out in more detailed, why don't you point to a specific country or case example and we'll go from there. These arguments that we're both making are both too over arching to be effective or for that matter remotely usable as points in a debate.

[carbonmotion]

Professional politicians who know nothing of the people they represent are a sign of a democracy that's lost its way.

You are 100% right in that statement.

[IJ Reilly]

well there are generally two camps of candidates, the camp that thinks senators and congressman can best understand their constituents (farms, dock workers) by coming from a farming background or dock working background... there's another school of thought that says the best people to run the country are ivy educated personnel with a advanced scholastic background in politics law economics and diplomacy.

Personally, I think a happy mixture between the farmer politician and the liberal internationalist scholar politician is best for the country... and by that I mean a few farmer politicans with alot of the latter.

Fine, but this doesn't really address my point, which has far less to do with a person's background and education and far more to do with whether they've become a part of the beltway establishment. American voters tend to be suspicious of Washington insiders, which is why so few members of Congress or the Senate have been elected to the presidency. If anything, this trend has grown more pronounced over the last few decades.

[FleurDuMal]

Personally, I think a happy mixture between the farmer politician and the liberal internationalist scholar politician is best for the country... and by that I mean a few farmer politicans with alot of the latter.

That sounds frighteningly technocratic. People want to be represented, not managed - the latter just breeds disillusionment. Its only academics (and those that aspire to be) that think the world should be run by academics, much like its only businessmen that think the world should be run by businessmen.

[carbonmotion]

Fine, but this doesn't really address my point, which has far less to do with a person's background and education and far more to do with whether they've become a part of the beltway establishment. American voters tend to be suspicious of Washington insiders, which is why so few members of Congress or the Senate have been elected to the presidency. If anything, this trend has grown more pronounced over the last few decades.

Yes I agree with you, Americans tend to want a president that's folksy... it's been true since the days of Washington. I think that's a very charming American trait. I don't think the president need to be super connected politically... certainly, I'd like him to have some experience, but more importantly his staff needs to be stellar. It's really impossible for a president to be an expert in science, economics, military affairs, and international relations all at the same time. That's why it is essential that his advisers at least on those issues be members of prestigious think-tanks or academics policy writers. Those people tend to be Washington insiders.

Certainly to get our country out of the jam that it's in Iraq will require a great thinker in international politics... someone on par with Kissinger or perhaps a team of such men and women. If our next National Security Adviser is another buffoon... like the current former soviet studies professor turned business school professor with only one respectable published article on international relations (her doctoral thesis) and virtually zero respect in the international relations - political science community, I will break down and cry for all Americans.

[carbonmotion]

That sounds frighteningly technocratic. People want to be represented, not managed - the latter just breeds disillusionment. Its only academics (and those that aspire to be) that think the world should be run by academics, much like its only businessmen that think the world should be run by businessmen.

When you read Tocqueville 's Democracy in American volume II, he say a aristocratic bureaucracy is superior to the American democracy. That was one of the three points I disagreed with Tocqueville on. So I think we are on the same page in the sense that I think high elected offcials should be a folksy (Bill Clinton), but his economics (woo) and national security adviser (lieberthal) should be political insiders with alot of experience in dealing with these issues. But my definition of politician extends to bureaucrats as well... That said, I think it would do this country alot of good if some of our representatives made an effort to educate themselves on the realities of international economics. If you look at the way we're spending, it's insanity.

One day I was on capital hill and overheard the aids of a senior republican senator's aid... i wont name names... from a souther state say that our country can just print more bills... I gave me pause.

[IJ Reilly]

Yes I agree with you, Americans tend to want a president that's folksy... it's been true since the days of Washington. I think that's a very charming American trait. I don't think the president need to be super connected politically... certainly, I'd like him to have some experience, but more importantly his staff needs to be stellar. It's really impossible for a president to be an expert in science, economics, military affairs, and international relations all at the same time. That's why it is essential that his advisers at least on those issues be members of prestigious think-tanks or academics policy writers. Those people tend to be Washington insiders.

I think you are missing my point. "Folksy" is not the issue; not even nearly. American voters tend to elect presidents who are not experienced Washington types, particularly if they have lengthy Congressional voting records which can easily be attacked. As for staffing, no matter who is elected (assuming a Democrat or a Republican), they will inevitably draw extensively from the cadre of experienced technocrats within their own parties. But this is an entirely separate issue from what amount of Washington experience the American voters prefer in their presidents. As little as possible, based on the indicators. This is why state governors have a leg up in these races -- they can demonstrate executive experience and are untainted by having voted on hundreds of bills in Congress.

[Queso]

Certainly to get our country out of the jam that it's in Iraq will require a great thinker in international politics... someone on par with Kissinger or perhaps a team of such men and women. If our next National Security Adviser is another buffoon... like the current former soviet studies professor turned business school professor with only one respectable published article on international relations (her doctoral thesis) and virtually zero respect in the international relations - political science community, I will break down and cry for all Americans.
Oh dear. I see it's not just the professional politicians that care more about trashing the opposition than getting the job done. You'll go a long way.

Unless of course you become totally disillusioned with the entire political process, like so many have before you.

[carbonmotion]

Oh dear. I see it's not just the professional politicians that care more about trashing the opposition than getting the job done. You'll go a long way.

Unless of course you become totally disillusioned with the entire political process, like so many have before you.

Well I don't think that's a fair statement to make without knowing anything about me.

[Queso]

Well I don't think that's a fair statement to make without knowing anything about me.
Not attacking you. I wish you all the best, but I've seen a lot of people in Westminster that knew the theory, made the contacts, then gradually got beaten over by money grabbing superiors. Watch your back if you're playing that game, even if you think you're playing by their rules.

Ah, don't listen to me. I'm just thoroughly disillusioned with the lot of them.

:rolleyes: <-at me, not you

[carbonmotion]

I think you are missing my point. "Folksy" is not the issue; not even nearly. American voters tend to elect presidents who are not experienced Washington types, particularly if they have lengthy Congressional voting records which can easily be attacked. As for staffing, no matter who is elected (assuming a Democrat or a Republican), they will inevitably draw extensively from the cadre of experienced technocrats within their own parties. But this is an entirely separate issue from what amount of Washington experience the American voters prefer in their presidents. As little as possible, based on the indicators. This is why state governors have a leg up in these races -- they can demonstrate executive experience and are untainted by having voted on hundreds of bills in Congress.

Well... whether or not that's true is debatable...
Since World War too...
Roosevelt (Washinton Insider)
Truman (Washington Insider)
Eisenhower (Washington Insider)
Kennedy (Washington Insider)
Johnson (Washington Insider)
Nixon (Washington Insider)
Carter (not insider)
Reagan (not insider
Bush ((Washington Insider)
Clinton (not insider)
G.W. Bush (Washington Insider)

I guess you can make the argument that in the last 20 years, there has been a trend of Americans wanting non-insider presidents. I've had a political science - theory professor make the same argument, I don't buy it though. There's really not enough data to tell.


in anycase, if Obama gets elected and appoints some quality people with some quaity centrist polices, then I'm happy. If he listens to his advisers, I'm even happier. If he starts to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, I'm going to start saying the "I told you so." If we pull out of Iraq before stablizing it, i will bet you money that the country will become a extremist regime

Here's My Views on Iraq, By the Way

We shouldn't have invaded the country
There are no WMDs.
But if we leave now, there will certainly be an repressive Islamic fundamentalist revolution like in Iran, perhaps even sponsored by Iranian State Intelligence. Then Iraq will be on a long list of countries with people saying how the US has forsaken them totalitarianism. Which would be bad.

[carbonmotion]

Not attacking you. I wish you all the best, but I've seen a lot of people in Westminster that knew the theory, made the contacts, then gradually got beaten over by money grabbing superiors. Watch your back if you're playing that game, even if you think you're playing by their rules.

Ah, don't listen to me. I'm just thoroughly disillusioned with the lot of them.

:rolleyes: <-at me, not you

I'm not going to pursue a career in politics. I do need to be well connected with Politicians and the global political and economic climate, though in order for my future Career to be successful.

[IJ Reilly]

Roosevelt (Washinton Insider) [former governor of NY, never held national office]
Truman (Washington Insider) [elected while serving as president]
Eisenhower (Washington Insider) [never held any elected office]
Kennedy (Washington Insider) [second-term Senator, what you might call "too inexperienced"]
Johnson (Washington Insider) [probably the most inside of any recent president, but elected while serving as president]
Nixon (Washington Insider) [out of public office for eight years at the time elected]
Carter (not insider) [check]
Reagan (not insider [check]
Bush ((Washington Insider) [elected while sitting vice president]
Clinton (not insider) [check]
G.W. Bush (Washington Insider) [former governor of Texas, never held any national office]

[FleurDuMal]

Certainly to get our country out of the jam that it's in Iraq will require a great thinker in international politics... someone on par with Kissinger or perhaps a team of such men and women.

You're kidding, right? Kissinger was the archetypal neo-con adviser before the term was even invented. Dominated over a foreign policy that recognised no other legitimate end other than the image and prestige of America. Could only see politics in the abstract, but applied politics to bare life with the most horrific consequences. Saw international relations as a game of chess devoid of ethics and principle. Condemned Vietnam to a needless (not recognising the prestige of the US as a legitimate end) continuation of a brutal war, and bombing a nation not even participating in hostilities, destabilising Cambodia leading to a revolution that put in charge one of the most ruthless and perverted regimes witnessed in the 20th century.

The Kissinger myth is a deadly one that repeats itself. He was an idiot and a war criminal (regardless of how many papers he had published in respected journals).

[mactastic]

You're kidding, right? Kissinger was the archetypal neo-con adviser before the term was even invented. Dominated over a foreign policy that recognised no other legitimate end other than the image and prestige of America. Could only see politics in the abstract, but applied politics to bare life with the most horrific consequences. Saw international relations as a game of chess devoid of ethics and principle. Condemned Vietnam to a needless (not recognising the prestige of the US as a legitimate end) continuation of a brutal war, and bombing a nation not even participating in hostilities, destabilising Cambodia leading to a revolution that put in charge one of the most ruthless and perverted regimes witnessed in the 20th century.

The Kissinger myth is a deadly one that repeats itself. He was an idiot and a war criminal (regardless of how many papers he had published in respected journals).
Thank you... you saved me from having to type it out.

Kissinger, while brilliant, is no model to be followed for foreign policy.

[takao]

Kissinger, while brilliant, is no model to be followed for foreign policy.

i think that pretty much sums the case Kissinger up...

regardless who wins the next election, what the US foreign policy would need is somebody as talented (not doing the same stuff obviously ;) ) as him

[carbonmotion]

Definition of Washington Insider, someone who has great political clout in Washington DC or can utilize people and resources to generate such clout

Roosevelt (Washinton Insider) [former governor of NY, never held national office] - UnderSec. of the Navy

-- lobbied to build the great white fleet while holding that post and made numerous political connections which were crucial in getting him elected. Also, he came from a powerful political family in the US.

Truman (Washington Insider) [elected while serving as president] - US Senator

Eisenhower (Washington Insider) [never held any elected office]
--Was CINC of the Allied War Effort, you have to be a Washington Insider to be that good at lobbying. Anyways, if you don't believe me, read his biography

Kennedy (Washington Insider) [second-term Senator, what you might call "too inexperienced"] --Kennedy came from a powerful and well connected family.

Johnson (Washington Insider) [probably the most inside of any recent president, but elected while serving as president]

Nixon (Washington Insider) [out of public office for eight years at the time elected]
--He was a Washington insider... look at all the office's he's held in Washington, watch his biography on A&E

Carter (not insider) [check]
Reagan (not insider [check]

Bush ((Washington Insider) Bush and his family is perhaps one of the most well connected families int he history of the US. He served as the Director of the CIA and ambassador to PR China.

Clinton (not insider) [check]

G.W. Bush (Washington Insider) [former governor of Texas, never held any national office]
--Bush came from a powerful and well connected family.

[carbonmotion]

You're kidding, right? Kissinger was the archetypal neo-con adviser before the term was even invented. Dominated over a foreign policy that recognised no other legitimate end other than the image and prestige of America. Could only see politics in the abstract, but applied politics to bare life with the most horrific consequences. Saw international relations as a game of chess devoid of ethics and principle. Condemned Vietnam to a needless (not recognising the prestige of the US as a legitimate end) continuation of a brutal war, and bombing a nation not even participating in hostilities, destabilising Cambodia leading to a revolution that put in charge one of the most ruthless and perverted regimes witnessed in the 20th century.

The Kissinger myth is a deadly one that repeats itself. He was an idiot and a war criminal (regardless of how many papers he had published in respected journals).

Lol. Well, I don't want to write a lengthy explanation, unless I sure you can understand it. So, if its not too much trouble, can we see if you're on the same page in terms of definitions? Thank you in advance.

[ ] Neo-liberalism (US Politics)
[ ] Neo-conservatism (US Politics)

[ ] Liberal Internationalism
[ ] Realism
[ ] Hegemonic Stability Theory

[ ] Mercantilism
[ ] Globalization (Economic)

---------Optional------------
[ ] Ben Barber
[ ] Niall Ferguson
[ ] Chalmers Johnson
[ ] Sam Huntington
[ ] Susan Strange
[ ] Henry Kissinger
[ ] Zbigniew Brzezinski
------------------------------

I want to apologize in advance for asking you these questions and I want to say that they're not intent on trying to sound elitest. I just want to make sure we have the same core definitions of some basic concepts. You sound like a pretty well versed academic, I might even venture to say with a background in law? While I was at the LSE, I met some very bright students and professors, so my opinion of the British Education System is fairly good.

[IJ Reilly]

Definition of Washington Insider, someone who has great political clout in Washington DC or can utilize people and resources to generate such clout

Well I guess if you control the definitions of the debate, you can prove anything you like.

A president has great political clout. Period, full stop. They don't need connections or family to get it. It comes with the office. Whether they manage it wisely or squander it is up to them.

The question is whether the voters prefer to elect presidents whom they regard as Washington insiders. The answer clearly is no. Even sitting presidents running for reelection, particularly in recent years, run as though they are trying get out of Washington instead of remaining in it.

[carbonmotion]

The question is whether the voters prefer to elect presidents whom they regard as Washington insiders. The answer clearly is no. Even sitting presidents running for reelection, particularly in recent years, run as though they are trying get out of Washington instead of remaining in it.

Where's your evidence. Do you have statistics? Can you point to a scholarly article that says this? Or are you yourself an American Politics expert? Your claims require proof, I can back up everything I've said so far from citations from research texts that you can check up on lexis nexis or some such software.

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Speech performance really is the ability for the man running to relate to the common man. Bush had that folksy charm that the working people of American just loved! His first opponent was Albert Gore, who at the time had zero charisma. His second opponent was John Kerry, who while being a decent speaker, comes from too much of an elite family background to be taken in with comfort with the American people.

Very, very well said. This is absolutely true.

[yojitani]

Lol. Well, I don't want to write a lengthy explanation, unless I sure you can understand it. So, if its not too much trouble, can we see if you're on the same page in terms of definitions?

You are belittling ol' Charlie Baudelaire's argument. Your response seems to be that since you can't agree on what 'neo-con' means, you can't process the rest of his point. The point is not whether Kissinger was a neo-con, but the fact that Kissenger is not a model for foreign policy. He's also making the point that Kissenger as a good foreign policy statesman is a myth. Would you care to counter that?

[carbonmotion]

You are belittling ol' Charlie Baudelaire's argument. Your response seems to be that since you can't agree on what 'neo-con' means, you can't process the rest of his point. The point is not whether Kissinger was a neo-con, but the fact that Kissenger is not a model for foreign policy. He's also making the point that Kissenger as a good foreign policy statesman is a myth. Would you care to counter that?

I don't think so, I thought I put things rather politely. Anyways, why don't you let him respond to that.

[yojitani]

I don't think so, I thought I put things rather politely. Anyways, why don't you let him respond to that.

Not intending to be combative, but this is a public forum, that is why i responded. Whatever explanation you give, or don't give, is not just going to contribute to a conversation between you and charlie.

I wasn't commenting, at any rate, at your level of politeness. I didn't find your phrasing to be endearing by any means, but that's just me.:)

[FleurDuMal]

Lol. Well, I don't want to write a lengthy explanation, unless I sure you can understand it. So, if its not too much trouble, can we see if you're on the same page in terms of definitions? Thank you in advance.

[ ] Neo-liberalism (US Politics)
[ ] Neo-conservatism (US Politics)

[ ] Liberal Internationalism
[ ] Realism
[ ] Hegemonic Stability Theory

[ ] Mercantilism
[ ] Globalization (Economic)

---------Optional------------
[ ] Ben Barber
[ ] Niall Ferguson
[ ] Chalmers Johnson
[ ] Sam Huntington
[ ] Susan Strange
[ ] Henry Kissinger
[ ] Zbigniew Brzezinski
------------------------------

I want to apologize in advance for asking you these questions and I want to say that they're not intent on trying to sound elitest. I just want to make sure we have the same core definitions of some basic concepts. You sound like a pretty well versed academic, I might even venture to say with a background in law? While I was at the LSE, I met some very bright students and professors, so my opinion of the British Education System is fairly good.

You can perpetually dance around your labels and classifications if you want, but the fairly obvious point is that Kissinger was the brain behind a foreign policy that only viewed humanity as merely means and never an end in itself. A brilliant man for getting what was asked of him done, but a pretty lousy person if you consider that human civilisation had supposedly developed for 1000s of years before his flirtation with power and influence.

Whether Kissinger was a 'neo-con' or a 'neo-liberal', you can call a shovel a spade, they're both used to dig *****.

Please, feel free to enlighten us. And use as many theorists and concept structures as you like - I'll ensure I have my 'Dictionary of Political Science' next to me to help me get my little head around any response.

[biturbomunkie]

i like barack a lot, and i really wish that he'll get nominated and win in the end. however, it basically boils down to a (half?) black man named obama vs. a political shark clinton. my gut feeling is telling me that hillary is going get nominated.

Still, Obama is having an effect I have never seen in my short time in the US - he is interesting to young people. Apparently one of the hottest reads around campus among undergrads is his autobiography! Whether that translates into votes, we'll see, but since we're talking Iowa here, I'd say it's a good sign for him.

very true. obama is very charismatic and i can't help myself from reading more about him. he just seems so fresh, righteous and honest, which aren't exactly the ideal qualities for today's politician (or should i just say he seems naive?).


p.s. reading all the responses makes me want to switch to poli sci major. :)

[carbonmotion]

You can perpetually dance around your labels and classifications if you want, but the fairly obvious point is that Kissinger was the brain behind a foreign policy that only viewed humanity as merely means and never an end in itself. A brilliant man for getting what was asked of him done, but a pretty lousy person if you consider that human civilisation had supposedly developed for 1000s of years before his flirtation with power and influence.

I don't even understand what your trying to say here. Are you saying that Kissinger was the first man to "flirt with power and influence" in the thousands of years of human history? What do you define as "flirt with power and influence"... these are non-technical terms that define nothing and have no explanatory power.

Whether Kissinger was a 'neo-con' or a 'neo-liberal', you can call a shovel a spade, they're both used to dig *****.

It's very import to know what a man's core ideals are when you judge his policies. There are major differences between neo-conservative and neo-liberal as they are they two major competing ideologies for FP in one of the world's strongest nations.

Please, feel free to enlighten us. And use as many theorists and concept structures as you like - I'll ensure I have my 'Dictionary of Political Science' next to me to help me get my little head around any response.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here... but I own a Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science which I had to purchase for my Political Science 103: Introduction to Political Science. I have long since outgrown the dictionary. Some of its flaws are that the definitions and ideas are simplistic and often times inaccurate. It also has a tendancy to have a biased opinion, like many dictionaries including Wikipedia. If you want to know scholar A's position on a topic, you have to read his policy research /recommendation. Then you read the opposing views. I find the journal Foreign Affairs is a great place to start.

Seeing if you're on the same page with someone is pretty standard affair in political science. I really can't know that you'll truly understand my argument unless you have a solid foundation international politics. This is pretty standard affair, my mates at the LSE were fine with it. People can agree to disagree, but disagreeing based on a flawed and/pr lack of understanding of core concepts is a horrible thing.

I'm always open minded enough that if the argument is good enough, my mind can be changed, in fact a student at the LSE changed my mind about mercantilist practices in post ww2 reconstruction japan. However, you really have to know what you're talking about in order to engage in debate on a field as specific as international relations and US Foreign Policy.

If you don't understand important concepts in IR and global politics, there's really nothing to talk about. I mean the Kissinger argument is absolutely true if you hold very idealistic views about the world. But IR is virtually never idealistic in practice. It's about making value maximizing actions for your home nation. Kissinger was brilliant because even though he was a conservative scholar, he was a big proponent of realpolitik (American variant). He was a genius because at time when everyone was phobic about communism, he proposed making better relations with China. His genius also prevented the US from staying in Vietnam for another 5 years and he won a Nobel peace price for his efforts.

The problem with IR and politics in general is that the layman's perception is purely based on what few political science class they took in college and personal opinions of right and wrong. Anyone who has seen how policy is written will know that the real world is far more complicated. More often then not, you have to resolve a conflict that you didn't start (the previous administration did) with many variables that you can't control.

[carbonmotion]

i like barack a lot, and i really wish that he'll get nominated and win in the end. however, it basically boils down to a (half?) black man named obama vs. a political shark clinton. my gut feeling is telling me that hillary is going get nominated.



very true. obama is very charismatic and i can't help myself from reading more about him. he just seems so fresh, righteous and honest, which aren't exactly the ideal qualities for today's politician (or should i just say he seems naive?).


p.s. reading all the responses makes me want to switch to poli sci major. :)

Becareful labeling people. Most scholars will tell you that the African American democratic currently supports Hilliary more as they don't think Barrack is black. The term "black" has a strong political connotation for the African Americans in that to be an American Black, you have to be a descendant of slaves. Barrack is not, thus the community does not relate to him. The blacks in America supports Hillary Clinton.

Also, in Politics, everyone's a Shark.

[carbonmotion]

Not intending to be combative, but this is a public forum, that is why i responded. Whatever explanation you give, or don't give, is not just going to contribute to a conversation between you and charlie.

I wasn't commenting, at any rate, at your level of politeness. I didn't find your phrasing to be endearing by any means, but that's just me.:)

Point taken. You're right, I should put things more diplomatically.

[skunk]

What do you define as "flirt with power and influence"... these are non-technical terms that define nothing and have no explanatory power.... It's very import to know what a man's core ideals are when you judge his policies.Talking of "non-technical terms", what, technically-speaking, are "core ideals", and how do you assess them?

[carbonmotion]

Talking of "non-technical terms", what, technically-speaking, are "core ideals", and how do you assess them?

how one believes the international political economic system works/ should work

For example Feminist IR Scholars believe that current IR is a machine too focused on the interaction between nations, where as it should focus on and become more sensitive to the happiness of individuals within those nations. Feminist IR scholars would say that this is an over simplification though.

[Swarmlord]

Yeah, since Europe has been destroyed with a comprehensive federal welfare system.

Wait a second. :rolleyes:

What this country really needs is a leftist as the next president, so all of the ******** that has come from this administration can be fixed as fast as possible. America is the land of right wing extremism, and only a leftist can pull us out of it.

Perhaps you're not following what's happening with Hugo Chavez and his socialist policies already. His price controls are already causing food supplies to dry up and he's had to confiscate sugar supplies because suppliers don't want to sell at a loss.

Socialism fails - always. It's never a matter of if, only when.

[skunk]

Perhaps you're not following what's happening with Hugo Chavez and his socialist policies already. His price controls are already causing food supplies to dry up and he's had to confiscate sugar supplies because suppliers don't want to sell at a loss.

Socialism fails - always. It's never a matter of if, only when.Right. It's a straight choice between Chavez and Bush, isn't it?

[skunk]

how one believes the international political economic system works/ should work

For example Feminist IR Scholars believe that current IR is a machine too focused on the interaction between nations, where as it should focus on and become more sensitive to the happiness of individuals within those nations. Feminist IR scholars would say that this is an over simplification though.I wasn't actually asking for an explanation, merely pointing out your substitution of one questionable subjective judgment with another.

But thanks, anyway. :)

[IJ Reilly]

Where's your evidence. Do you have statistics? Can you point to a scholarly article that says this? Or are you yourself an American Politics expert? Your claims require proof, I can back up everything I've said so far from citations from research texts that you can check up on lexis nexis or some such software.

My evidence comes from being alive and paying attention.

[obeygiant]

My evidence comes from being alive and paying attention.

Hmm, I'm going to file that one away to use later.

[IJ Reilly]

Hmm, I'm going to file that one away to use later.

Be my guest. Some things are quite readily observable, even by non-scholars.

[FleurDuMal]

If you don't understand important concepts in IR and global politics, there's really nothing to talk about. I mean the Kissinger argument is absolutely true if you hold very idealistic views about the world. But IR is virtually never idealistic in practice. It's about making value maximizing actions for your home nation. Kissinger was brilliant because even though he was a conservative scholar, he was a big proponent of realpolitik (American variant). He was a genius because at time when everyone was phobic about communism, he proposed making better relations with China. His genius also prevented the US from staying in Vietnam for another 5 years and he won a Nobel peace price for his efforts.


I apologise but I didn't have time to respond to the superfluous stuff above, so I'm only replying to the interesting bit (the above).

On one level, it's ironic that you criticise others for only evaluation the actions of a politician according to subjective principles - or what you dismiss as 'very idealistic views about the world' - but then go on to establish your own criteria - 'value maximising actions' - which, for sure, is fraught with subjective moral, ethical and policy assumptions. Better than me second-guessing what you mean by 'value maximising actions', I'll hope that you explain it to me. And before you invoke the 'These are academic concepts you don't understand' defence, bear in mind (something you must have learnt by now) that mere reference to academic support is not a confirmation of the objective certainty of any such concept, nor a justification in and of itself. Everything has to be defended on its own terms. Telling me that one of your tutors said it is as meaningful to me as telling me God told you.

If you believe that IR is an objective domain void of ideals, you are wrong (yes, my wee laymans brain came up with that). Nothing transcends evaluative assessment. The manner in which power is exercised is always reducible to some assumption of knowledge as to right and wrong. Take your Kissinger example: "His genius also prevented the US from staying in Vietnam for another five years". I assume (I lied when I said I wouldn't second-guess what you meant by 'value maximising actions') you say this because it was the best result for the US in the long term - in terms of US lives saved and its international prestige. That in itself is fraught with assumptions as to knowledge of right and wrong - it assumes that judging someones track record as to what is best for the US is a morally justified. On the other hand, it makes the assumption that judging what is best for the US is more morally justified than assessing Kissinger according to how he best protected human health and dignity (regardless of nationality), which he blatantly did not do. Now that is the biggest type of moral assessment that you engaged in whilst maintaining that it was a weakness of us laymen that fell into that trap.

The very limits of power and justice meet to such an extent that at the point of exercising power, they are both indistinguishable. The power-bearer claim to have knowledge of right and wrong in its exercise. I believe this to be universal to the workings of power, and the study of IR, which is essentially an discipline of power at a certain level, can't transced this. Layman or no layman.

I sincerely look forward to your response, but please don't dance around genuine debate by invoking more exclusion clauses!

[skunk]

I prefer to think of Kissinger as the model for Dr Strangelove, which reportedly he was.

[IJ Reilly]

I prefer to think of Kissinger as the model for Dr Strangelove, which reportedly he was.

Where so? Unlikely IMO, as "Dr Strangelove" was filmed in 1963 and Henry Kissinger would not be Secretary of State until 1969. I believe the character was based primarily on Dr. Wernher von Braun.

FWIW, Peter Sellers based the Strangelove accent on the German crime photographer Arthur Fellig, who worked on the set as the film's still photographer.

[calculus]

My evidence comes from being alive and paying attention.

You're not trying to suggest that people are able to think for themselves are you?:eek:

[IJ Reilly]

You're not trying to suggest that people are able to think for themselves are you?:eek:

Not me, certainly. But others are capable, I expect.

[Swarmlord]

I have to admit that I'm going to enjoy watching Hillary's political machine turn its sights on him rather than the usual crop of wannabes. He's got a lot of fundraising to catch up on, that's for sure.

[carbonmotion]

I apologise but I didn't have time to respond to the superfluous stuff above, so I'm only replying to the interesting bit (the above).

On one level, it's ironic that you criticise others for only evaluation the actions of a politician according to subjective principles - or what you dismiss as 'very idealistic views about the world' - but then go on to establish your own criteria - 'value maximising actions' - which, for sure, is fraught with subjective moral, ethical and policy assumptions. Better than me second-guessing what you mean by 'value maximising actions', I'll hope that you explain it to me. And before you invoke the 'These are academic concepts you don't understand' defence, bear in mind (something you must have learnt by now) that mere reference to academic support is not a confirmation of the objective certainty of any such concept, nor a justification in and of itself. Everything has to be defended on its own terms. Telling me that one of your tutors said it is as meaningful to me as telling me God told you.



The manner in which power is exercised is always reducible to some assumption of knowledge as to right and wrong. Take your Kissinger example: "His genius also prevented the US from staying in Vietnam for another five years". I assume (I lied when I said I wouldn't second-guess what you meant by 'value maximising actions') you say this because it was the best result for the US in the long term - in terms of US lives saved and its international prestige. That in itself is fraught with assumptions as to knowledge of right and wrong - it assumes that judging someones track record as to what is best for the US is a morally justified. On the other hand, it makes the assumption that judging what is best for the US is more morally justified than assessing Kissinger according to how he best protected human health and dignity (regardless of nationality), which he blatantly did not do. Now that is the biggest type of moral assessment that you engaged in whilst maintaining that it was a weakness of us laymen that fell into that trap.

Well thanks for getting to the heart of the issue. I don't believe that the world as is is capable of developing a system where each nation is performing actions for the betterment of mankind. Each nation must act in it's own best interest, which at many juctures includes the long term best interest of other nations... but at other junctures do not. Kissinger's policies maximized the benefits the United States reaped from it's actions while minimizing the American cost. Were those actions universally fair and just? No, far from it. But International Relations has never been about universal fairness or justice, and perhaps something like that can never be achieved until the formation of a one world goverment, as discribed by Ben Barber and Susan Strange.

The current international system and the goal of each nation's policies is about maximizing one's own gains, which in the era of globalization is and should be the encouragement of liberal democracies and globalization. Thus, according to game theory, it is beneficical for each government to act in ways that preserve international peace stability (which goes a long way to help encourage liberal democracy and free trade. While we are on the topic of peace and stability, let's talk about the role of the United States. The United States is an International Bully. Sometimes. Other times it takes initiatives that are genuinely in line with the above stated goals. Thus in international relations, the United States is often discribed as a Hegemony or Hegemonic Empire. Liberal Internationalists think that the United States 'status as a Hegmonic Empire will end as the world becomes more multi-polar and should prepare for such a time by making pragmatic policies now. In many ways much of Kissinger's writings went a long way to influence Liberal Internationalist thoughts. Many of my Brit peers at the LSE subscribed to the Hegemonic Stability Theory which states that the world needs a Hegemon or Hegemons in order to preserve international order and promote the said "good" traits of liberla democracy and free trade. I'm not completely sold as I believe while the Hegemonic Stability Theory describe the world conditions today, I still hold out hope for the world to transition in to global governance one day...

In International Relations after the cold war, has generally been about pragamatism. I'd like to keep it that way. It's too bad that the current Administration is all about the ideology and that has hurt American credibility abroad. In my opinion, American FP should be about maximizing american gains in the international arena through the promoting american culture, american credibility, american safety, and american resources by all means nessary. These have been the clear goals of every administration since Roosevelt. Clearly, the current administration's Neo conservative interpration of these goals places over whelming importance on some of the goals while ignoring the others. This has resulted in the loss of international respect and prestige, which in the long run is very detrimental to the American Hegemony.

Thus in the case of Iraq... the United States went in for the stability of natural resrouces under a false pretense, and now there's massive political blowback. Now the politians are arguing withdraw or troop surge, as if those are the only two options. Well if they are, then they're certainly bad option. If they withdraw, the Iraq WILL NOT develop in to an economically healthy liberal democracy and will likely devolve in to a region of tribes wherepeople who hate Americans... some for invading and the rest for leaving. If this balkanization happens the United States will likely loose face in international community and on top of that the government must explain to her people why she spent so much of her people's money with little results.

Alternatively, if the US increase troops, the cost of US intervention will soon outweigh the loss in international prestige and possible future gains in oil, natural gas, and area for possible military base.

Thus, what we need is a pragmatic third option, so that we can maxmize the value of all the money and resources already spent. I'm not smart enough to tell you what that is, but the next National Security Advisor better be. The Progressive Policy Institute, a liberal think tank in DC where I used to work is drafting a third way policy as we speak. Although I personally think its not very good, but then again, I only read the draft.

[carbonmotion]

I have to admit that I'm going to enjoy watching Hillary's political machine turn its sights on him rather than the usual crop of wannabes. He's got a lot of fundraising to catch up on, that's for sure.

I do like the guy, I meet him once and thought he was really smart. And while I'm not going to support him in the primaries, if by some chance he wins, I will support him in the general election.

Every thinks HRC is a political bitch, but you know what? All the times I've personally meet her, she was really warm to me. I guess if a woman wants to be taken seriously in politics, she sometimes over compensates by being ultra manly.

I'd love to have an african american president or a female president...

If Barrack gets elected, we'll see a president with the middle name of Hussien

If HRC gets elected, we'll see Bill as the first man.... that would just be too great.

[skunk]

Where so? Unlikely IMO, as "Dr Strangelove" was filmed in 1963 and Henry Kissinger would not be Secretary of State until 1969. I believe the character was based primarily on Dr. Wernher von Braun.I'd heard it was while HK was at Harvard, before he became Sec of State.

[carbonmotion]

I'd heard it was while HK was at Harvard, before he became Sec of State. well i also think it was werner because of the implied nazism. Kissinger's parents barely escaped the holocaust so I think that would be kind of wrong. that and Kissinger always perfered realpolitk over machtpolitk... the character in the film was definately werner.

[skunk]

From a site on Kubrick, just for the record:
http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q06.htmlJust who WAS Dr. Strangelove, really?

Strangelove is such a potent character -- twisted, coldly rational, his
mechanical arm likely to spring into a SEIG HEIL at the slightest
provocation -- that many people have speculated on who Strangelove might
be "based" on.

At one point in the film, Turgidson asks if "Strangelove" is a "Kraut"
name. Stains, Muffley's assistant, reports that it had been changed from
"Merkwerdichliebe." I checked the syllables against a German dictionary
back in high school, and came out with "strange-love" (merwerdich-
liebe).

Nelson reports that the name is actually "Merkwuerdigichliebe," which
translates into "cherished fate."

Several critics have found similarities to Strangelove in the character
Rotwang in Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS. Rotwang is a mad scientist with a
mechanical hand who brings down ruin on nearly everyone. Kubrick has
disavowed any intentional similarities.

But anyway, there are several major guesses as to who provided the basis
for Strangelove. The favorite seems to be Henry Kissinger, a former
Harvard professor who served as Secretary of State for Presidents Nixon
and Ford. At the time of STRANGELOVE's production, Kissinger was at
Harvard, and had written at least two books on nuclear war by 1960. (One
was published by the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a Book-of-
the-Month selection.) In his books, Kissinger argued for various
"strategies," including limited nuclear war, tactical nuclear weapons,
etc.

The case FOR Kissinger: he's German by birth, and the accent is very
similar, which seems to be the main reason for linking Kissinger with
Strangelove. Kissinger's subsequent career -- which journalist
Christopher Hitchens compared to the pathology of a serial killer --
certainly matches Strangelove's ruthlessness. (Suggested reading:
Seymour Hersh's THE PRICE OF POWER.) And given Kissinger's minor
prominence and Kubrick's thorough research, one could argue it's likely
that Kubrick thought of Kissinger.

The case AGAINST Kissinger: Frankly, he was far too obscure a figure to
be "parodied." One would want to parody a widely-known personage, and at
the time, Kissinger was one of many theorists of the unthinkable.

The second favorite is clearly Werner von Braun, the former Nazi rocket
scientist who quickly turned his services (and those of his underlings)
to the U.S. after the war. In the Cold War, von Braun's expertise in
rocketry was more important to the U.S. than prosecuting him for
administrating slave labor at Peenemunde and Nordhausen. His books were
written with a view to the future (I AIM FOR THE STARS), but it was a
theme in humor at the time to note Von Braun's earlier work (cf. Tom
Lehrer's song about him, Mort Sahl's subtitle to his book ". . . but
Sometimes I Hit London.")

The case FOR Von Braun: He was famous. He was German. He had been a
faithful Nazi. He promoted a self-image of coldly rational theorization
of pragmatic scientific realities, untempered by such human issues as
compassion, morals, or values.

The case AGAINST Von Braun: Very little, apart from the fact that he
wasn't a nuclear scientist, nor a theorist of nuclear deterrence.

A third runner-up is Edward Teller, the Hungarian physicist who worked
on the atomic bomb at Los Alamos, and whose theoretical work was
instrumental in developing the H-bomb. Teller was also willing to
denounce Robert Oppenheimer as a security risk, thus ensuring his
reputation among liberals as a scoundrel. He was also the man who
convinced Ronald Reagan that the Strategic Defense Initiative was a
workable concept. Even historian William Manchester, in the Oppenheimer
passages in THE GLORY AND THE DREAM, said that, eventually, Teller would
be savagely parodied as DR. STRANGELOVE.

The case FOR Teller; His role in the Oppenheimer affair. His promotion
of the development of the H-bomb. His continued role in promoting
nuclear weapons development (he was the head of Lawrence Livermore labs
for many years). He had a foreign accent that, to an untrained ear,
might sound German.

The case AGAINST Teller; Teller was Hungarian, and FLED the Nazis when
they overran his country.

I think the best case can be made that Herman Kahn was the best source
for Strangelove. Kahn was one of the earliest employees at the RAND
corporation, which had been set by by Gen. "Hap" Arnold to study nuclear
war. According to THE WIZARDS OF ARMAGEDDON by Fred Kaplan, Kahn was
notable for developing the linguistic trick of referring to potential
casualties with the "only" word, as in "only two million kiled."
"Alluding almost casually to 'only' two million dead was part of the
image Kahn was fashioning himself, the living portrait of the ultimate
defense intellectual, cool and fearless, asking the questions everyone
else ignored, thinking about the unthinkable." Indeed, his book ON
THERMONUCLEAR WAR (1960), SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reviewed it as "a moral
tract on mass murder; how to plan it, how to commit it, how to get away
with it, how to justify it."

The case FOR Kahn: Dr. Strangelove himself refers to a study he
commissioned from the "Bland Corporation," a clear play on Kahn's old
haunts. The similarity to Kahn's own ideas in Strangelove's
pronouncements -- including the mine-shaft and ten-females-to-each-male
stuff -- is uncannily similar to Kahn's brand of futurism. And since
Kahn was the most famous nuclear war theorist at the time, Kubrick must
have been thinking of his work.

The case AGAINST Kahn: Kahn, despite his name, was American-born, and
was never a Nazi. Kahn was once asked about STRANGELOVE, and his reply
was: "Dr. Strangelove would not have lasted three weeks at the
Pentagon.. he was too creative."

My Best Guess is that Kubrick wanted to satirize the works of nuclear
intellectuals such as Herman Kahn. Kahn was clearly the most famous,
though it is not inconceivable that Kubrick was aware of Kissinger's
work in the field. In order to give an extra spin on the ultrarational,
"pragmatic" pose, Kubrick added allusions to Von Braun's Nazi past. The
wheelchair and the physical infirmities were added to give Strangelove a
bizarre, grotesque appearance. But personally, I believe that Herman
Kahn was the single greatest influence on the creation of Dr.
Strangelove.

[carbonmotion]

i think its safe to assume that its a satrizing of prevailing attitudes of the time

[mactastic]

Hmm... we might need to define "prevailing attitudes" and "satirizing" first though before we safely assume any such thing.

[biturbomunkie]

ummm... you mean be_careful when labeling people, mister poli sci. ;)

and besides, i know that most blacks support hilliary. someone else pointed that out already. also, as i've said, i've been reading about barrack in my free time.

knowing how you like defining terms and such, i'll not get technical with you since i'm a health sci major. however, i know my basic writing skills better... ummm i mean, it is my opinion that some people would only see a young black newcomer vs. the experienced (hence, shark) clinton.

Becareful labeling people. Most scholars will tell you that the African American democratic currently supports Hilliary more as they don't think Barrack is black. The term "black" has a strong political connotation for the African Americans in that to be an American Black, you have to be a descendant of slaves. Barrack is not, thus the community does not relate to him. The blacks in America supports Hillary Clinton.

Also, in Politics, everyone's a Shark.

[carbonmotion]

ummm... you mean be_careful when labeling people, mister poli sci. ;)

and besides, i know that most blacks support hilliary. someone else pointed that out already. also, as i've said, i've been reading about barrack in my free time.

knowing how you like defining terms and such, i'll not get technical with you since i'm a health sci major. however, i know my basic writing skills better... ummm i mean, it is my opinion that some people would only see a young black newcomer vs. the experienced (hence, shark) clinton.

bah, i'm writing this while i code css at work on this sticky keyboard so i should get special credit for my multi tasking talents =-p

I pretty sure I'll change my mind ten times before primaries so who i say i'll vote for will likely not be the person that i'll vote for. At this point though, I sort of have the anyone but bush mentality

[leekohler]

Don't want Hillary, won't vote for her if she gets nominated. She's business as usual. Plus the Republicans are salivating over a Clinton nomination. We don't need to be giving them any gifts.

[Swarmlord]

Don't want Hillary, won't vote for her if she gets nominated. She's business as usual. Plus the Republicans are salivating over a Clinton nomination. We don't need to be giving them any gifts.

I like her as a candidate. She's the great unifier we've been waiting for. Both men AND women dislike her. :)

[IJ Reilly]

I'd heard it was while HK was at Harvard, before he became Sec of State.

If the main reason for linking Kissinger to Dr. Strangelove is the accent, then it's a non-starter because Sellers said he copied the accent from the German photographer who was working on the set. Nevertheless, it's probably fair to say that the Strangelove character is an amalgam of "our Nazis" (recalling the line from The Right Stuff, "our Nazis are better than their Nazis"), including von Braun.

But we drift. ;)

[carbonmotion]

General Elections are a long ways off right, anything can happen between now and then. For me, I'm basically only interested in the candidate's position on Iraq, Globalization, and domestic economic health.

I guess I'm sort of a "single issue" voter.