My 2008 fantasy candidate.
No, it's not Newt Gingrich. Reading Oliver Willis -- he of the famous Brand Democrat -- tonight reminded me of who it really is. Oliver is pleased that Daschle has jumped on the Iraq-withdrawal-timetable bandwagon with Russ Feingold and John Kerry, but thinks Daschle's (heavily-hinted-at) 2008 ambitions are dead on arrival. Oliver conludes:
I’m liable to believe that no Democratic candidate whose position on Iraq boils down to “keep doing what George Bush is doing” has a snowball’s chance of succeeding in 2008, and quite frankly they shouldn’t. If you’re not serious about ending the mess in Iraq and ramping back up the fight against the increasing terror threat, you’re simply unqualified for the highest office in the land...I’ll also note that the only two Democrats of national prominence who have been 100% morally and tactically correct on Iraq and the larger war on terror since the beginning are Howard Dean and Al Gore. Governor Dean is best served working as the head of the DNC, but Gore...
...is unelectable. A lot of really, really smart liberals I read, not just Oliver but also my two very favourite commentators Ezra Klein and Eric Alterman, seem to disagree with me on this point. I wish I shared their optimism on this subject. But I don't.
That said, Gore was terrific on the war, and particularly on the real chicanery behind the push for it: the literal and figurative linking of Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. And I totally get the liberal desire to find someone who got the arguments right to begin with, who doesn't have to "flip flop" on details or on fundamentals after the fact. (I believe Kerry's new draw-down position is perfectly sincere; but I expect it's just ended his chances as a national candidate by confirming the stereotype of him as a slick but too-shellshocked-to-lead, doesn't-know-his-own-mind liberal). So what if, like me and most of the Merlot base, you opposed the War from the start, were sickened and radicalized by it into a new interest in and appreciation of politics? What if you're generally sympathetic to the use of American force in the world, that you'd support a military intervention in Darfur, for instance, leaving you somewhat reluctant to support a genuine left-realist like Russ Feingold (though Feingold's record on military issues is basically intelligent and non-dogmatic)? What if you're ambivolent about what the morally optimal thing to do is going forward; are uncomfortable with the certainty with which some liberals assert that we need to Get Out Now; but groan inwardly at the idea of supporting a candidate who signed onto the let's-pass-the-bill-and-get-back-to-prescription-drugs bandwagon back in 2002?
Then I venture there's at least one Impossible Dream Candidate who has so far been totally overlooked: Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
Levin is the ranking Dem on the Armed Services Committee. Back in October of 2002, he introduced a separate resolution to Bush and Gephardt's compromise on Iraq, that essentially called for the White House push the UN Security Council adopt a resolution to support a military attack on Iraq in the event that Saddam wouldn't comply with weapons inspections, but that would force the White House to come back to Congress if such an international resolution did not pass. In effect, Levin's proposed resolution would have definitively separated the prospects of a unilateral and a multilateral attack on Iraq, concepts the Bushies managed to blur ("coaltion of the willing" anyone?).
When his resolution went down, Levin voted against the Bush-Gephardt compromise. And three months later, here he was on the floor, arguing against the use of force until the inspectors had many more months to complete their investigations:
If we prejudge the outcome of inspections or if we don't furnish the arms inspectors with targeted intelligence, we will not be able to obtain the international support, as represented by a U.N. authorization for the use of force, that is so highly desirable and advantageous to us...In summary, January 27th is the first interim report. It is not decision day as to whether to attack Iraq. We must not prejudge the outcome of the very inspections process that we worked so hard to put in place as being highly relevant to the question of whether we launch an attack on Iraq. We must share all the information we can on suspect sites. If we don't share our information with the U.N. inspectors or if we prejudge the outcome of these inspections, we will increase the likelihood that we will go to war and increase the risks short term and long term to our troops and our nation in doing so.
More recently, Levin predated Kerry and Daschle in endorsing, if not the withdrawal option, then its (maybe more responsible?) cousin, the "benchmark option". On September 13th of this year, he laid it out on the floor:
The Administration’s position that we will stay as long as the Iraqis need us is too open-ended and sends the wrong message to Iraqis - that their failure to make the necessary political compromises won’t affect how long we stay - and makes it less likely that those compromises will be reached.
...U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, wrote in The Washington Post that one of the two standards to evaluate the Iraqi constitution is “its potential to be a national compact that brings Iraqis together and undermines the insurgency.” He went on to say that “If Iraqi voters ratify the draft overwhelmingly, it becomes a national compact. If they reject the draft, the next Assembly will negotiate anew. Under all scenarios, he continued, the United States will continue to encourage Iraqi leaders and communities to come together.” What Ambassador Khalilzad failed to mention is that there is another scenario, namely that the Sunni Arabs vote overwhelmingly against the constitution but fall short of achieving a two-thirds negative vote in 3 provinces. In such a case, the violence and insurrection is more likely to continue and even civil war could result. Moreover, the Ambassador’s words fail to display urgency that Iraqis reach a political settlement and unwisely suggest that United States forces may stay in Iraq indefinitely, until political consensus is achieved.
...This week provides a critically important opportunity for the Administration to make clear to the Iraqis that U.S. forces cannot be in Iraq indefinitely. Thus, there appears to be one final opportunity for the Administration to make clear to the Iraqis that U.S. forces cannot be in Iraq indefinitely...Speaking as one senator, again, I delivered that viewpoint to President Talabani in Senator Frist's offices earlier this afternoon. We can’t write a constitution for Iraq and we shouldn’t dictate the compromises that they need to make to achieve a political settlement. But we do control whether our troops stay in Iraq and how long they stay.
Levin's correct prediction about the constitution's fate is another point in his favour. But Levin has long been a foreign-affairs wiseman. In an article back in September of 2002, the usually caustic Michael Crowley expressed his admiration for Levin's informed skepticism on Iraq:
His basic argument is this: Until it's clear Iraq poses an imminent threat, the United States should continue to contain and deter it. The threshold for military action, Levin told NPR earlier this month, would only be "if there's evidence that [Iraq] participated in nine-eleven, or if they are on the verge of using a weapon of mass destruction, or we are persuaded that they have a nuclear weapon, for instance, and are about to use it." Saddam is concerned foremost with his own survival, Levin says, and, fearing retaliation, is thus not likely to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. That is, unless we go into Iraq with the stated intent of capturing or killing him. "We know if we attack him, he's going to use every weapon he's got, including biological and chemical weapons," Levin said on ABC's "Nightline" on September 4. "The result of our attack would be his using the very weapons we are trying to deter." What other Democrat has made this case so unapologetically?
That sounds about right. But Crowley also points out that Levin is no reflexive dove -- probably less inately dovish, when you really get down to it, than Kerry:
Although Levin opposed the 1991 Gulf war resolution--saying he feared "a broader conflagration in the Middle East with unknown results" (oops)--he is generally considered a foreign policy moderate. He is a devout internationalist, enthusiastically supported Bill Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and focuses on arms control and nonproliferation. He's also stern enough to propose, as he did in January, that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia in favor "of a place that is more hospitable." He has supported the military spending increases of the past few years but often opposes flashy new weapons systems like the B-2 bomber and national missile defense. Just four days before the September 11 attacks, in fact, Levin's committee stripped $1.3 billion from Bush's missile-defense request and redirected nearly half of the money to anti-terrorism programs.
Frankly, what's not to like, especially that last bit? (I generally think "yes" was the right vote on Gulf War I. But morally, it was a close enough call -- one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed, and there's the still unconcluded matter of Gulf War Syndrome -- that no Democrat should have a "no" vote held against him.) Levin also voted for the $87 billion -- both versions. And Levin is a great Democrat in other ways. According to Progressive Punch, he's the sixth most progressive voter in the Senate. He has an complex and interesting, if slightly protectionist for my taste, record on trade ("no" to NAFTA and CAFTA; "yes" to PNTR for China and Vietnam for instance). And for Atari-loving types like myself, he's a bureaucratic reformer that Charles Peters would love -- introducing legislation on "Whistleblower Protection" to protect civil servants from retaliation and the 1984 "Competition in Contracting Act" to reduce cronyism in government procurement.
As Crowley points out, Levin is so great because he has no real national ambitions to make him act all strategic. He's also 71 years old. So no, I guess he's not terribly electable either. But we liberals are all about swooning for impossible candidates. And so as long as we're doing our best to deny the Hillary Reality, Levin -- who also got it very right on Iraq -- deserves a share of the swooning.
I’m liable to believe that no Democratic candidate whose position on Iraq boils down to “keep doing what George Bush is doing” has a snowball’s chance of succeeding in 2008, and quite frankly they shouldn’t. If you’re not serious about ending the mess in Iraq and ramping back up the fight against the increasing terror threat, you’re simply unqualified for the highest office in the land...I’ll also note that the only two Democrats of national prominence who have been 100% morally and tactically correct on Iraq and the larger war on terror since the beginning are Howard Dean and Al Gore. Governor Dean is best served working as the head of the DNC, but Gore...
...is unelectable. A lot of really, really smart liberals I read, not just Oliver but also my two very favourite commentators Ezra Klein and Eric Alterman, seem to disagree with me on this point. I wish I shared their optimism on this subject. But I don't.
That said, Gore was terrific on the war, and particularly on the real chicanery behind the push for it: the literal and figurative linking of Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. And I totally get the liberal desire to find someone who got the arguments right to begin with, who doesn't have to "flip flop" on details or on fundamentals after the fact. (I believe Kerry's new draw-down position is perfectly sincere; but I expect it's just ended his chances as a national candidate by confirming the stereotype of him as a slick but too-shellshocked-to-lead, doesn't-know-his-own-mind liberal). So what if, like me and most of the Merlot base, you opposed the War from the start, were sickened and radicalized by it into a new interest in and appreciation of politics? What if you're generally sympathetic to the use of American force in the world, that you'd support a military intervention in Darfur, for instance, leaving you somewhat reluctant to support a genuine left-realist like Russ Feingold (though Feingold's record on military issues is basically intelligent and non-dogmatic)? What if you're ambivolent about what the morally optimal thing to do is going forward; are uncomfortable with the certainty with which some liberals assert that we need to Get Out Now; but groan inwardly at the idea of supporting a candidate who signed onto the let's-pass-the-bill-and-get-back-to-prescription-drugs bandwagon back in 2002?
Then I venture there's at least one Impossible Dream Candidate who has so far been totally overlooked: Senator Carl Levin of Michigan.
Levin is the ranking Dem on the Armed Services Committee. Back in October of 2002, he introduced a separate resolution to Bush and Gephardt's compromise on Iraq, that essentially called for the White House push the UN Security Council adopt a resolution to support a military attack on Iraq in the event that Saddam wouldn't comply with weapons inspections, but that would force the White House to come back to Congress if such an international resolution did not pass. In effect, Levin's proposed resolution would have definitively separated the prospects of a unilateral and a multilateral attack on Iraq, concepts the Bushies managed to blur ("coaltion of the willing" anyone?).
When his resolution went down, Levin voted against the Bush-Gephardt compromise. And three months later, here he was on the floor, arguing against the use of force until the inspectors had many more months to complete their investigations:
If we prejudge the outcome of inspections or if we don't furnish the arms inspectors with targeted intelligence, we will not be able to obtain the international support, as represented by a U.N. authorization for the use of force, that is so highly desirable and advantageous to us...In summary, January 27th is the first interim report. It is not decision day as to whether to attack Iraq. We must not prejudge the outcome of the very inspections process that we worked so hard to put in place as being highly relevant to the question of whether we launch an attack on Iraq. We must share all the information we can on suspect sites. If we don't share our information with the U.N. inspectors or if we prejudge the outcome of these inspections, we will increase the likelihood that we will go to war and increase the risks short term and long term to our troops and our nation in doing so.
More recently, Levin predated Kerry and Daschle in endorsing, if not the withdrawal option, then its (maybe more responsible?) cousin, the "benchmark option". On September 13th of this year, he laid it out on the floor:
The Administration’s position that we will stay as long as the Iraqis need us is too open-ended and sends the wrong message to Iraqis - that their failure to make the necessary political compromises won’t affect how long we stay - and makes it less likely that those compromises will be reached.
...U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, wrote in The Washington Post that one of the two standards to evaluate the Iraqi constitution is “its potential to be a national compact that brings Iraqis together and undermines the insurgency.” He went on to say that “If Iraqi voters ratify the draft overwhelmingly, it becomes a national compact. If they reject the draft, the next Assembly will negotiate anew. Under all scenarios, he continued, the United States will continue to encourage Iraqi leaders and communities to come together.” What Ambassador Khalilzad failed to mention is that there is another scenario, namely that the Sunni Arabs vote overwhelmingly against the constitution but fall short of achieving a two-thirds negative vote in 3 provinces. In such a case, the violence and insurrection is more likely to continue and even civil war could result. Moreover, the Ambassador’s words fail to display urgency that Iraqis reach a political settlement and unwisely suggest that United States forces may stay in Iraq indefinitely, until political consensus is achieved.
...This week provides a critically important opportunity for the Administration to make clear to the Iraqis that U.S. forces cannot be in Iraq indefinitely. Thus, there appears to be one final opportunity for the Administration to make clear to the Iraqis that U.S. forces cannot be in Iraq indefinitely...Speaking as one senator, again, I delivered that viewpoint to President Talabani in Senator Frist's offices earlier this afternoon. We can’t write a constitution for Iraq and we shouldn’t dictate the compromises that they need to make to achieve a political settlement. But we do control whether our troops stay in Iraq and how long they stay.
Levin's correct prediction about the constitution's fate is another point in his favour. But Levin has long been a foreign-affairs wiseman. In an article back in September of 2002, the usually caustic Michael Crowley expressed his admiration for Levin's informed skepticism on Iraq:
His basic argument is this: Until it's clear Iraq poses an imminent threat, the United States should continue to contain and deter it. The threshold for military action, Levin told NPR earlier this month, would only be "if there's evidence that [Iraq] participated in nine-eleven, or if they are on the verge of using a weapon of mass destruction, or we are persuaded that they have a nuclear weapon, for instance, and are about to use it." Saddam is concerned foremost with his own survival, Levin says, and, fearing retaliation, is thus not likely to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States. That is, unless we go into Iraq with the stated intent of capturing or killing him. "We know if we attack him, he's going to use every weapon he's got, including biological and chemical weapons," Levin said on ABC's "Nightline" on September 4. "The result of our attack would be his using the very weapons we are trying to deter." What other Democrat has made this case so unapologetically?
That sounds about right. But Crowley also points out that Levin is no reflexive dove -- probably less inately dovish, when you really get down to it, than Kerry:
Although Levin opposed the 1991 Gulf war resolution--saying he feared "a broader conflagration in the Middle East with unknown results" (oops)--he is generally considered a foreign policy moderate. He is a devout internationalist, enthusiastically supported Bill Clinton's interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, and focuses on arms control and nonproliferation. He's also stern enough to propose, as he did in January, that the United States withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia in favor "of a place that is more hospitable." He has supported the military spending increases of the past few years but often opposes flashy new weapons systems like the B-2 bomber and national missile defense. Just four days before the September 11 attacks, in fact, Levin's committee stripped $1.3 billion from Bush's missile-defense request and redirected nearly half of the money to anti-terrorism programs.
Frankly, what's not to like, especially that last bit? (I generally think "yes" was the right vote on Gulf War I. But morally, it was a close enough call -- one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed, and there's the still unconcluded matter of Gulf War Syndrome -- that no Democrat should have a "no" vote held against him.) Levin also voted for the $87 billion -- both versions. And Levin is a great Democrat in other ways. According to Progressive Punch, he's the sixth most progressive voter in the Senate. He has an complex and interesting, if slightly protectionist for my taste, record on trade ("no" to NAFTA and CAFTA; "yes" to PNTR for China and Vietnam for instance). And for Atari-loving types like myself, he's a bureaucratic reformer that Charles Peters would love -- introducing legislation on "Whistleblower Protection" to protect civil servants from retaliation and the 1984 "Competition in Contracting Act" to reduce cronyism in government procurement.
As Crowley points out, Levin is so great because he has no real national ambitions to make him act all strategic. He's also 71 years old. So no, I guess he's not terribly electable either. But we liberals are all about swooning for impossible candidates. And so as long as we're doing our best to deny the Hillary Reality, Levin -- who also got it very right on Iraq -- deserves a share of the swooning.
1 Comments:
I completely agree with you about Levin. He's one of my heroes, always has been. He was my Senator when I was growing up in Michigan. He and I even went to the same undergrad college (Swarthmore). I spent some time a while campaigning against the death penalty in DC, and he was always our best ally.
Post a Comment
<< Home