Bacevich on politics

Andrew Bacevich describes himself as a distant observer of politics.  He admits to being a conservative.

Nevertheless, the former Army colonel, West Point graduate, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, decided in 2006 to vote for every Democrat possible on the promise of the Democrats ending the war in Iraq.  

As we know, they failed to deliver on that promise.  Instead, as Basevich puts it, the Democrats

"... absolutely, totally, completely failed to follow through on their commitment. Now, there was a lot of posturing. But, really, the record of the Democratic Congress over the past two years has been - one in which, substantively, all they have done is to appropriate the additional money that enables President Bush to continue that war."

Congress has in effect "thrust power and authority to the executive branch" and abdicated its responsibility to advocate for the "common good".  Congress has become a thoroughly dysfunctional branch of government:

"The Congress exists primarily to ensure the reelection of members of Congress."

Will it be different under an Obama presidency?   In response to Bill Moyers question about whether he expects either John McCain or Barack Obama to "rein in the imperial presidency", Bacevich replied:

"No. I mean, people run for the presidency in order to become imperial presidents. The people who are advising these candidates, the people who aspire to be the next national security advisor, the next secretary of defense, these are people who yearn to exercise those kind of great powers. They're not running to see if they can make the Pentagon smaller. They're not."

Nevertheless, Andrew Bacevich will vote for Obama (and here) come November solely on the grounds that Obama "...has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq."  But, as he wrote in the Boston Globe, Obama must go further:

"The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict."

As a progressive, I for one am not convinced that Obama will go further, that he has in fact learned the lessons of preemptive war.  He has already announced, for example, that he wants an expanded military, that he wants to send more soldiers to Afghanistan, that he will leave some combat troops in Iraq.  And he has threatened the use of military force against Iran.  

A vote for Obama, by the standards Bacevich lays out, requires a long leap of faith.

Comments

[46to62]

We all owe a profound debt of gratitude to Andrew Bacevich for his contribution to our understanding of war, politics and democracy. I grieve with him on the loss of his son. What bothers me more is that the sacrifices that have been and are still being made are often not understood -- and thus, seldom appreciated.

Politic had become a plethora of promises, programs, plans and panaceas that have little or no connection to reality. We can't seem to handle the truth anymore. We didn't listen to President Eisenhower when he warned us about the 'military-industrial complex,' and we didn't listen to Jimmy Carter when he warned about the consequences of doing nothing to lessen our dependence on oil. In Carter's case, not only did we not listen, but we mocked and ridiculed and vilified him, much as Obama was mocked, ridiculed and vilified by the Republicans during their 2008 convention.

Like McCain, we cling to our militaristic past and tout it as our salvation for the future without the recognition that the world, warfare --and we, ourselves -- have changed.

We have become a nation of entitled consumers, a nation of such 'dumbed-down" consumers of "news" and information that lies, distortions and half-truths are swallowed whole and without question by an increasingly ideological, uneducated and manipulable public.

The Fox News,' Rush Limbaughs, and increasingly, Lou Dobbs, immediately come to mind -- and yes, even some of the CNN news-persons and analysts like Wolf Blitzer and John King -- who SEEM above partisanship, but who more subtly, but consistently favor John McCain. While a few others seem to have somewhat of an affinity for Obama, they mostly stick to the facts and are less inclined to "spin" their presentations.

There are many other considerations, including race, gender and partisanship, the abdication of responsibility by Congress, the increasingly imperial presidency, the influence of moneyed interests, but this note would never end.

It has become impossible -- as the case of President Carter clearly shows -- for a politician to tell the truth to the American public during a political campaign, for no matter how well-intentioned one may be, it is always easier to persuade, influence and guide the public from within the Oval Office than it is from the space outside the White House fence.

I would never expect John McCain to speak truth from the White House since it proved so elusive to him on the stump.

Yet I, perhaps foolishly, have the hope that Barack Obama will, after becoming the first "real" black President, stand up, speak the truth -- and give us all a chance to hope again.