To really buy into the idea that John Edwards can be a transformational candidate, you have to buy into the idea that he himself has transformed. And while he has certainly shown signs of rethinking his approach to politics, and in particular dropping the centrism that once characterized his persona, he's not there. On January 23, he gave what can only be characterized as a militant and aggressive speech on Iran. After seeing the fallout, he walked back his rhetoric, but I've been talking to friends in the national security community and they have brought up some worrisome points.
Yglesias points them out here.
I do know, however, that between then and now Edwards hired Michael Signer to be his national security policy guy for campaign purposes and that Signer falls in the same ideological neighborhood as the aforementioned crew. Except for Beinart, these names aren't well known in the progressive blogosphere, but the others aren't folks with netroots-friendly views, either. O'Hanlon, in particualr, is well to the right of the New Model Beinart and I wouldn't at all be enthusiastic about the prospect of an administration in which he was given a high-level position.
Michael O'Hanlon is particularly awful. A year ago, O'Hanlon was denying the reality of a civil war in Iraq while paradoxically encouraging American troops to involve themselves in one to quell violence. This is why Edwards and his recent statement that he would consider troop deployment in Iraq for humanitarian missions is so problematic. As recently as a few days ago, O'Hanlon was on the Hugh Hewitt show, Hugh Hewitt, to discuss a recent piece he authored on Iraq in which he argued as follows.
However, even if Mr. Bush began this war, America as a nation is now fighting it. And Americans, along with our allies and with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want a peaceful life, will be the ones to lose it to a collection of thugs and ruthless killers if we withdraw. National pride should not of course keep us in a war we have indeed lost. But we should give the surge a chance, and consider a number of "Plan Bs" if it fails, before giving up this important fight to this heinous foe in this crucial part of the world.
O'Hanlon's interview on Hewitt's show is nauseating for its unrealistic tone and deference to neoconservatives. He lauds Fred Kagan's strategic sense, Kagan being the architect of the surge, and repeatedly expresses respect for McCain and his ilk. O'Hanlon is very influential among the more hawkish members of the party, the Joe Biden-types, and that he is a complete careerist who will blow with the wind. His judgment is certainly defective, as is his willingness to dismiss the antiwar movement and his tendency to swallow military propaganda wholesale. It's people like O'Hanlon that are encouraging Democrats to compromise with Bush on the supplemental, because they want to retain their perceived influence within neoconservative circles or are genuinely hawkish themselves.
In other words, I'm not sold on John Edwards's transformation. Yglesias is right to question his judgment when he has such people around him. I question it as well. Edwards might have apologized for his vote, and he may have tentatively denied the war on terror. But I get the sense that he's still reaching for his movement voice, that he's a bit off-key, that he doesn't believe that he was actually wrong for the same reasons we think he's wrong. He doesn't feel genuinely betrayed, because if he did, he wouldn't listen to people like O'Hanlon.
Anyway, I want to see him jettison his foreign policy advisors, and perhaps reach out to Anatol Lieven, or Steve Clemons, or other and more responsible foreign policy people who have credibility. I just don't see him as well-served by his hawkish advisors. They can't credibly represent him to the Democratic primary base as an antiwar candidate because they aren't particularly antiwar themselves. And it shows. He's willing to talk about a new direction, he's even willing to deny the Global War on Terror. But not loudly, not coherently, and while pandering to extremist groups like AIPAC. So what, exactly, is his transformation about?
I'd like to know more, since he's taken steps in both directions at once. And thankfully, we have a whole political campaign to help us see where he takes us.
Update: In general, I provide links so you can find more evidence if you want it. Edwards is on record talking about O'Hanlon influencing his thinking, and there's more at the Yglesias post I link to about his advisors. Some of you people need to grow up and stop the reflexive dismissive tones at any discussion of your candidate. And frankly, this isn't really anything more than a 'here's why Edwards hasn't convinced me yet but he could' blog post. You do your candidate a disservice by claiming that I am trashing him and by not taking the simplest of steps to verify information before calling me wrong. It's really quite irritating.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 99 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
