The NYT reports that Joe Biden is going to be Obama’s running mate. From the perspective of iconography–old gray suit next to young biracial change candidate–and as a way of correcting what the mainstream media perceive as Obama’s “weakness” on national security, he is a good choice.
I don’t know enough about Biden to make much more of an informed comment, but I’d like to link to Glenn Greenwald, who is critical, I think rightly, of certain of Biden’s comments in an interview with Matt Lauer:
LAUER: [McCain's] argument — the Democratic Party itself, somewhere in the late 1960s, became weak on national security, at least perceived to be weak — we started to see a party wringing its hands and blaming American for what’s wrong in the world. Now, as we look at the upcoming election, particularly between a war hero and Barack Obama, do you think that’s going to be a major problem for Democrats?
BIDEN: I think that’s what they’re going to revive. There’s truth to that. I ran in 1972 as a young 29-year-old guy who won the Senate seat, being the guy who was viewed as a hawk, because I didn’t join in that mantra.
It was Bill Clinton — and, I might say, me pushing it — saying that you had to go to war in the Balkans to end genocide. It was John McCain initially saying, no no no you can’t do that — the Republicans voting, no no no we can’t do that.
I find this sort of response infuriating. The problem here is Biden’s claim that “there’s truth” to the idea that the Democratic party is “a party wringing its hands and blaming American for what’s wrong in the world,” a party that apparently once blamed America first as a “mantra,” before Clinton showed them the royal road of military interventionism.
And Biden’s claim is so historically accurate, too! Apparently John “Missile Gap” Kennedy and Lyndon “Carpetbomb” Johnson were wussy peaceniks, whose mantra was a flower of love for every Vietnamese civilian.
How can Biden concede such pivotal Republican propaganda points to Lauer? Will Biden back away from these sorts of attacks on his own party as Obama’s VP? Why do Democrats feel the need to show how manly and tough they are as a strategy for defeating Republicans? It only reinforces, and does little to neutralize, their talking points.
I think you damage your chances of winning the White House if you go around accepting that your own party is “wringing its hands” and “blaming America” for the world’s problems, then proudly suggesting how willing you are to go to war, proving your manliness, showing how willing you are to stand up to the sissy “antiwar” wing–who of course by 72 were being blamed for having started the Vietnam War and lost the White House to the “antiwar” Republican candidate, Richard Nixon–of your own party.
Still, all things considered, Biden may be a good choice, at least as a way of appeasing the moronic Matt Lauers of our idiotic mediasphere, until our pundit class finds another character-based smear to fire off at Obama. Obama, of course, should respond to such smears by promising to bomb some other country–not Iraq, of course–into oblivion, maybe Afghanistan, or–who knows–maybe the Balkans again, just to show the hand-wringing, America-blaming, peacenik-mantra wing of the Democratic Party how tough an Obama-Biden ticket would be.
I think it’s weighing too much on Greenwald’s article about a specific interview. That reads like one of those quintessential I knew what he meant cases.
I think Biden’s a smart choice because he will take down McCain in a way that Obama doesn’t want or simply can’t do. And since he probably won’t run in 2016 (although he’ll be only a year older than McCain is now) he has the freedom to go in guns blasting.
Comment by John — August 23, 2008 @ 9:47 am
I agree with John. Biden is a great choice because he can slam McCain in ways Obama doesn’t want to.
I also think Lee’s characterization of Biden is totally unfair. I would challenge Lee to produce any additional evidence from Joe Biden’s 30-plus year career to suggest that Biden believes Democrats are weak on national security and are “wringing their hands and blaming America for what’s wrong in the world.” Biden is an excellent spokesperson for the left.
To Lee: I share your frustration with the right-wing’s characterization of Dems as weak and with Biden’s apparent concession above, but I think you are misunderstanding Biden’s quote because you underestimate how destructive some of the anti-war rhetoric on the left was during the Vietnam era. Is it appropriate to spit on American soldiers returning home from the battlefield? Is it appropriate to call soldiers who risk their lives in service to this country “babykillers”? That’s what was going on back then, and it rightly alienated a lot of people. Part of the appeal of Obama is that he wasn’t a part of that era and intends to turn the page on the bitterness of that period.
You ask the question: “Why do Democrats feel the need to show how manly and tough they are as a strategy for defeating Republicans? It only reinforces, and does little to neutralize, their talking points.”
Let’s be clear. The American people want to feel safe. They want to know that their elected leaders are willing to do what it takes to keep us safe. This is why James Carville joked during the primary that if Hillary Clinton gave Obama one of her cajones, then they’d both have one. This is why that guy in North Carolina (I think it was North Carolina) told a crowd at a Clinton rally that Hillary has “testicular fortitude.” I find that sort of genderized “manliness” talk absolutely disgusting because it suggests our leaders should fire the nukes just to prove how tough they are — but let’s not be naive.
It sounds like you want this election to be between the tough manly Republicans and the sensitive, thoughtful, feminine Democrats. Maybe a campaign like that would be gratifying at some level, but we would lose, lose, lose!
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
I just finished reading the Glenn Greenwald piece cited in Lee’s blog above. It’s not something I want to be associated with, and it frankly makes me nervous that we have a link to his stuff on our front page. (The decision to put Greenwald on our blog roll was made by Lee with no input from me, as I recall.)
Glenn Greenwald plays directly into the right-wing’s hands when he frames his argument in terms of American hypocricy. Greenwald is basically blaming America for what’s wrong with the world. He isn’t interested in supporting a candidate who has any chance of winning an election.
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
“It sounds like you want this election to be between the tough manly Republicans and the sensitive, thoughtful, feminine Democrats.”
It sounds like Republicans have successfully framed the distinction between conservatism and liberalism for you. It’s amazing how effectively their propaganda captures the minds of even liberals.
In short, I don’t accept the dichotomy you are trying to impose on my argument. It is a wrong dichotomy.
How many times do I have to say that Obama needs to hit harder? How many times do I have to say that conceding–perhaps I should say in a “weak,” “feminine,” “thoughtful” way–Republican talking points just makes the case for Republicans.
That is why Obama is not winning by a bigger margin, because he has not been “tough” and “manly” enough in hitting McCain hard.
Being tough and being a militarist are different things. The left is in such a sorry state that we forget that the anti-war protesters were highly effective, and all we remember are stupid HIGHLY EXAGGERATED anecdotes like that everyone was spitting on soldiers in the 60s.
Another example of how the right has captured the mythology of the 60s–in even your mind. If we want to fight this bullshit propaganda, we should not, as you do, accept the myth, but kick the right in the ass.
You don’t need to be thoughtful or nuanced to say that the neoconservatives are savage warmongers. There’s no nuance or arugula there, just red meat truth.
I will work on a little research project on Biden and write a post giving my view on whether Biden is an “excellent spokesperson for the left.” It sounds like a fun challenge.
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
P.S. I should say, in the interest of fairness, I LOVE arugula.
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
I would say you should read Glenn’s postings on a regular basis if you want to condemn him in a blanket way. He is really an excellent commentator–and more of a libertarian than a leftist. I can remove the link if it makes you too “nervous.”
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
I am “nervous,” and I would appreciate it if you would remove the link. Thank you.
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
My point in referring to the “manly Republicans” and the “feminine Democrats” is to point out the frame YOU use, not me.
It was you who wrote, “Why do Democrats feel the need to show how manly and tough they are as a strategy for defeating Republicans?” To suggest that somehow I am contributing to this frame is the utter opposite of what I was saying. You are the one imposing the dichotomy on the argument by suggesting that Democrats should avoid demonstrating their manliness and toughness.
You were the one who characterized Biden’s views of foreign policy as an effort by Biden to show how “manly” he is — an unfair attack that allows you to attack him personally without actually explaining why Biden is wrong.
The fact that you’ve urged Obama to hit harder has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate we’re having. Of course you and I both want Obama to campaign effectively. It sounds to me like you either aren’t thinking clearly, or else you just attack people’s motives whenever you disagree with them.
As for the “HIGHLY EXAGGERATED” “anecdotes” about the anti-war movement of the 1960, I think you need to do some more research into that period in our history. You are simply ignorant of what went on then. It wasn’t “mythology” — that’s just your way of rewriting history to suit your argument.
I think it’s interesting that you refuse to weigh in on the question of whether it was appropriate for anti-war protesters to call returning soldiers “babykillers,” or to spit in their faces. Was it? Are you capable of answering that question honestly?
I am. It wasn’t.
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Regarding the “manliness” issue, I will reiterate: Americans want to feel protected by the government. What Lee calls an effort to display “manliness” (as though the goal is just to exude machismo and oppress women) is actually an effort to display a willingness to protect this country from its enemies.
I also want to protect this country from its enemies, and I’m not afraid to talk about my commitment to that objective. Maybe someday someone will accuse me of trying to show how “manly” I am for wanting to defend this country, but I don’t care.
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
About manliness, maybe you two should fight it out to see if the Greenwald link is included.
Comment by John — August 23, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
To John: If we are going to fight it out, I think we should use farming tools. That would be kick-ass, I think. Do we know of a fight scene in a movie where the weapons are farming tools? I call the ho.
Regards my being “nervous,” I don’t mean to imply that I don’t respect Glenn Greenwald, or that he shouldn’t be listened to, or that he’s somehow someone we shouldn’t associate with in a general way. There was nothing technically untrue or “unpatriotic” about his post. It’s just that I’m trying to be so careful about my rhetoric, and I don’t think I agree with the way Greenwald frames his arguments. I’m happy to restore Greenwald to our blogroll, but I might want to add some other folks to the list as well…
Comment by Ian — August 23, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
The fact that you claim that I “refuse to weigh in on the question of whether it was appropriate for anti-war protesters to call returning soldiers ‘babykillers,’ or to spit in their faces” suggests to me that the intention of my original posting was not clear.
Reread my original posting, and Biden’s response to Lauer. When I say Democrats feel the need to seem manly, I do not mean that they feel the need to address national security concerns. I meant that they accept the tacit association between “manly” militarism with “strength” on national security.
This is precisely the conjunction of terms that I think Democrats should be working to destroy forever.
In his interview with Lauer, Biden accepts that “there’s truth” to the claim that Democrats are “a party wringing its hands and blaming American for what’s wrong in the world,” then holds up as a proud counterexample of how tough the Democrats are that Clinton wanted to bomb Bosnia but McCain was weak for saying “no no no you can’t do that… no no no we can’t do that.”
Biden is not talking generally about antiwar activists–the spitters I am apparently unwilling to condemn–but HIS OWN PARTY. Did Democratic politicians in 72 spit on soldiers and call soldiers baby-killers? The answer, as far as I know, is no.
I demonstrated in my original posting that Biden made a historically inaccurate statement by pointing out that Kennedy and Johnson were anything but peaceniks. They started the Vietnam War, which “Not a Crook” Nixon continued after campaigning as an antiwar candidate. Am I wrong in that historical assessment or is Biden wrong?
Biden is moreover apparently proud of the fact that Clinton, with him pushing, went to war in the Balkans. Maybe Biden believes this is the right thing for Clinton to have done, but he is certainly wrong if he thinks that Clinton was some precedent-setting Democrat willing to go where no Democrat had gone before. Clinton went where basically every Democrat in modern times has gone before.
Moreover, Biden seems to conflate a willingness to bomb with strength on national security, and McCain’s hesitation to bomb Bosnia as a sign of weakness. If that’s what we mean by protecting our national security–a generic willingness to bomb other people, apparently apart from the facts–then I think Biden is wrong.
Sometimes–I would say overwhelmingly often–our national security is best served by not bombing others into oblivion. To conflate a willingness to bomb with strength on national security is a huge mistake in my opinion, both strategically and morally.
Am I wrong to say that Biden does just this in his interview?
Comment by Lee — August 23, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
I certainly do not believe Biden intended to conflate a willingness to bomb other countries with strength on national security.
In my opinion, when Biden said, “there’s truth to that,” he wasn’t saying it’s true that Democrats in general or Democrats today are weak on national security or that they are wringing their hands and blaming America for everything that’s wrong in the world.
Lauer was referring to the way Democrats are perceived, based on how Democrats were effectively characterized during the Vietnam period — which came after Kennedy and largely after Johnson. That’s where the “babykiller” talk came in for me — the people spitting in soldier’s faces may not have been Democrats but they influenced Democratic politics and allowed Republicans to characterize Democrats as unpatriotic and passivist.
It’s true that Democratic politicians of that period weren’t spitting in soldier’s faces, but the perception among many Americans was that Democrats were beholden to an anti-war left that identified itself in terms of criticizing America on moral grounds and opposing use of the military under almost any circumstances.
That’s why Biden talked about how he was “viewed as a hawk.” He and Lauer are both talking about perceptions, which have more to do with electoral politics than with policy. Was Biden a “hawk” in 1972? Or was he just perceived that way because his veiws seemed hawkish back then to many Democratic voters who were radically dovish as a result of Vietnam-era polarization?
I don’t think it’s fair to accuse Biden of conceding propaganda points just for acknowledging what everyone knows to be the case: Democrats were smeared as “weak” on national security as a result of the politics surrounding the Vietnam war. Ronald Reagan exploited this when he called the Soviet Union the “evil empire,” contrasting his criticism of the “enemy” with the left’s criticism of America.
I strongly believe Biden would not have said anything to suggest that Kennedy or Johnson were weak or were perceived as weak, or that Kennedy or Johnson were unwilling to project military power. Kennedy and Johnson are NOT characterized that way by conservatives (except maybe a few whackos) — to do so would be ridiculous, as you correctly point out — and that’s not what Lauer was referring to in his interiew.
Biden’s point was that Democrats’ willingness to go to war in the Balkans showed that Democrats aren’t always opposed to using military force — and this may have reassured some voters that Democrats aren’t afraid to use the military in general.
I don’t believe Biden supported war in the Balkans because he thought such a war would make Democrats look tough to voters. Maybe I’ve being naive, but I don’t think that’s what motivated Biden in that case. But if there’s evidence to suggest that, I’m open to it.
I do believe that Hillary Clinton talked about “totally obliterating” Iran during the primary in order to show how tough she was — and that’s one big reason I’m thrilled she wasn’t picked to be Obama’s running mate.
In general, this whole debate (a heated one at times, and for that I feel sheepish) reflects the big risk with Biden: he says things that can be misconstrued.
Comment by Ian — August 24, 2008 @ 12:09 am