Not Ideas About the Thing
But The Thing Itself

Later, in the same Robin Toner article that I linked to before:

The broader question is whether the war forges an enduring change in the Democratic Party, its stance and its credibility on national security. Many strategists are already warning that over the long haul, it is not enough to be antiwar: the Democrats need a strong, affirmative vision of foreign policy.
“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” said Matt Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. Rather, Iraq needs to be part “of a larger strategy aimed at showing how to protect America’s national security interests,” he said.

Bennett's right. But here's the thing. If Toner had called me up and asked for my view on this question, I might have said something about the Democrats' larger national security mission instead of talking about how someone should talk about this. Who's going to talk about it if not those Democrats who the newspapers deign to quote? I can talk about it. I can even link to Matt Bennett's press release about his group's "constriction" strategy against al-Qaeda. But the only way for Democrats not to be defined entirely by opposition to the war is for the Bennett's of the world to say the things they think need to be said instead of saying that someone should say those things. If not Bennett, who? If not now, when? Quotations in major newspapers are a precious commodity; there's no point in wasting that space on not-very-original meta talk.

UPDATE: Audio recording of Wallace Stevens reading the poem available here.

3/29/07 10:01AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

I suspect he did, but he also said the meta and Toner only reported the meta. The lesson is only tell them what you want said. Uber message discipline.

Posted by: crack on March 29, 2007 10:23 AM

Why is it that wanting to go to war is considered an example of an affirmative vision of foreign policy, but wanting to get out of a war is not?

There seems to be an annoying bias in favor of taking action. It doesn't matter how stupid your proposed policy is, but as long as it sounds active, it embodies an "affirmative vision".

As for a "constriction strategy" against al-Qaeda. Great, woo-hoo! Does anyone really think al-Qaeda is much of a threat to us? The only real threat they pose is goading us into over-reacting.

Posted by: Jim W on March 29, 2007 10:32 AM

Isn't Bennett just being kind of a concern troll?

Posted by: Bill on March 29, 2007 10:35 AM

What crack said. But note there's a perverse incentive. Suppose Toner called Democratic policy wonks A, B, and C, and all of them talk policy. She'll quote them on policy, making whatever choices she makes, possibly leaving some of them out. But if any of them should venture a meta-comment, that will definitely be quoted, because it will seem from her point of view to strengthen the story. The temptation for wonks to lapse into meta when the media call will be strong. (A form of the Prisoner's Dilemma, I think.)

Posted by: Vance Maverick on March 29, 2007 10:39 AM

Wallace Stevens! You surprise me, sir!

Posted by: Anderson on March 29, 2007 10:58 AM

I agree with Vance. Additionally as MY said "Quotations in major newspapers are a precious commodity" there is also an incentive for a wonk to go meta if he wants to get a quote in. I still suspect Bennett mentioned his plan, and may even have thought his chances of getting his plan in were greater if he added the meta.

I'd email him and ask, but crack.pipe@mail.ru doesn't get taken too seriously.

Posted by: crack on March 29, 2007 11:01 AM

Tell X that speech is not dirty silence
Clarified....

Posted by: Freddie on March 29, 2007 11:43 AM

Bennett's right.

No he's not. He's right only if you buy his BS any sane dem would ever believe or advocate or allow that “getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national security."

Who the hell would do that? Only a concern troll or a republican or a media star.

Posted by: db on March 29, 2007 12:29 PM

Were you standing on one foot when you asked, if not Bennett who, if not now when? I didn't know your middle name was Hillel.

Posted by: jim on March 29, 2007 02:05 PM

Leaving aside the enduring mystery of why it's necessary to "finish the job" in Afghanistan but not Iraq, my other question is why Dems aren't being more ambitious here on Defense policy. A recent NY Times editorial opined that once the Iraq war is over, Congress should increase the size of the Army by two divisions. Why aren't Democrats asking why?

Why not shrink the Army? If it's clear that Americans won't tolerate a protracted ground war where our multi-million dollar tanks and APCs are vulnerable to $100 bombs and RPGs, why spend more on this? Why add two more Army divisions? That's two more divisions of women being put at risk of sexual assault, gays forced to hide their identities, etc. Cut the Army by two divisions, like Rumsfeld originally planned instead. Start talking about what positive things Dems could do with this money: smaller class sizes in public schools, free mental health care for undocumented aliens, etc. If you want to tie this to foreign policy, you could propose using the savings to increase foreign aid? How about smaller class sizes for madrassas?

Posted by: Fred on March 29, 2007 02:48 PM

Leaving aside the enduring mystery of why it's necessary to "finish the job" in Afghanistan but not Iraq

Umm, because the Iraqis are killing themselves and Americans in enormous numbers in response to the invasion? Just a guess.

Posted by: Freddie on March 29, 2007 04:01 PM

"Umm, because the Iraqis are killing themselves and Americans in enormous numbers in response to the invasion? Just a guess."

So since Afghan/Paki Pashtuns are killing themselves and Americans in smaller numbers it's important to stay in Afghanistan? Still a mystery.

Posted by: Fred on March 29, 2007 04:46 PM

... he says, talking only about talking about foreign policy ideas.

Posted by: sherifffruitfly on March 29, 2007 05:21 PM

One is mildly chagrined not have on the tip of the tongue exactly how many 100s of billions have so far been flushed into the Iraq debacle, but then again, the way the Bushies cook the books, who the hell really knows anyway?

I do recall that the UN estimated in excess of 600,000 people dead, exceeding the administration's most reluctantly extracted "worst case scenario" by a factor of at least six.

The question then becomes "Do the Democrats really need anymore justification than these nightmarish numbers to oppose a military quagmire where, last I counted, no less than 5 well-entrenched ethnic/sectarian factions were all doing their damnedest to eliminate not only the American presence but any Iraqis, as well, who were foolish enough to consort with the yanks?"

Myself, I call those reasons enough to get the flock out of there.
However, for those who insist on something resembling a "positive policy" for coping with the chaos of the region, the answer is transparently clear:

1.) A tenth of the present financial resources being burned in Iraq, spread amongst all the interested countries and parties in the region, would not only be more than adequate not only to fund each entity's individual security but also to build all the schools, hospitals, water treatment facilities and power plants they might possibly need for the next ten years. As they say, "Money walks and bullshit talks." If you don't believe me, simply ask North Korea.

2.) Apropos b.s., it is beyond ludicrous to ever imagine a respected US presence in the Middle East -- or even a moderately less reviled one -- until the American congress pulls the plug on militaristic Zionism. As long as we are blatantly underwriting a corrupt, bellicose, and religiously fanatical state ("It's all rightfully ours because God said so 3000 years ago."), only the most morally bankrupt war profiteers will remain our partners in the region.

There. Now that's not so complicated, is it?

Posted by: teknozen on March 29, 2007 06:13 PM

Many strategists are already warning that over the long haul, it is not enough to be antiwar: the Democrats need a strong, affirmative vision of foreign policy.

I don't know what they're talking about. It sounds like GOP propaganda to me. Our Democratic schlemiels have always had an affirmative vision of foreign policy. For almost a century, Democrats have led the way to securing the future for an emerging world civilization through increasingly sophisticated and effective global alliances. Naturally the Republicans have tried to ruin all this every step of the way, to pursue their strong and affirmative vision of raping and pillaging the world. It is amazing how much rich conservatives have succeeded in polluting the brains of America's chattering class, so now I have to listen to this garbage that the Democrats don't have a strong, affirmative vision of foreign policy.

Posted by: Gary Sugar on March 29, 2007 06:39 PM

Yeah, this is hogwash, all of it. "Warning" that the Democrats need a strong, affirmative vision of foreign policy is spreading Republican propaganda, pure and simple. Getting out of Iraq so we can focus directly on policing Al Qaeda and get our military and finances back in order is strong and affirmative. Iraq has made us weak and is, like, a real negative thing.

Posted by: MQ on March 29, 2007 09:06 PM

I thought Democratic national security bona fides was established by the half of the party that did not want to get into Iraq in the first place. Not fighting wars you do not need to apparently is no longer in our strategic interest.

Posted by: strategerist on March 30, 2007 02:48 AM

Charles Krauthammer also wonders why it's important to continue to fight in Afghanistan and not Iraq. I think he overstates the education and infrastructure of the Iraqis, but it is true that Iraq is the more important country strategically.

Posted by: Fred on March 30, 2007 03:30 AM

Checked with Matt, and he said that he talked to Robin Toner for about 30 minutes, and this was the half-quote she chose to use. No matter how careful you are about what you say, reporters are going to generally get the quote they want if they already have the story written and the dots connected. As you should know, Matthew!! And there's not necessarily anything wrong with that -- R Toner just thought that was the story worth telling.

Posted by: Sharon on April 2, 2007 10:26 AM

Available for download this evening?,i doubt it.More like available Friday....

Posted by: chat on July 27, 2007 11:59 PM

Siir Chat Sohbet arkadas Liseli Kızlar chat Mirc Chat Kızlarla Sohbet Sohbet

Posted by: Chat Odaları on July 28, 2007 12:51 AM

Radyo Guzel Sozler Sarkı Sözleri Sohbet Eğlence E-kart sohbet sohbet Sohbet Chat Sohbet Odaları Chat Forum Sinema Şiir Rüya Tabirleri PortaL FaL Kral Oyun Pagerank Toplist Sohbet Chat Odaları Forum Chat Odaları Sohbet Odaları Chat Sohbet

Posted by: Almanya Sohbet on July 28, 2007 01:02 AM

thanks all

Posted by: Chat on August 7, 2007 06:20 PM

There’s also a fine line to tread here for Bennett in terms of credibility. James Carville might show up on The Situation Room and talk about what Democrats need to do, and he might even cheerlead a little and suggest that’s what they seem to be trying to do. But simply trying to make Democratic policy on the air presents a couple of big problems. One, he isn’t the one actually making the policy, so it seems somewhat ridiculous for him to assert policy as though he does. But equally important, he has to maintain that thin veneer of “analysis” that keeps him in his job. Most of Fox’s anchors aside, most networks don’t want to hire a commentator who is nothing more than a talking head for his or her party. In other words, the spokesperson must carefully craft his or her comments so that they put the party in the best possible light, perhaps suggest to those in the party how they could best help themselves, yet remain at least on the surface, neutral.

Posted by: cheap mobiles on August 9, 2007 11:40 PM

veryy Good site.

Posted by: sohbet on August 20, 2007 12:28 AM

Thanks You!

Posted by: chat on August 20, 2007 12:29 AM

hi All..

Posted by: arkadaş on August 20, 2007 12:29 AM

sex porno

Posted by: PORNO on August 25, 2007 08:28 AM

cinsel saglık

Posted by: FANTAZİ on August 25, 2007 08:29 AM

seks arkadaslık

Posted by: SEKS ARKADASLIK on August 25, 2007 08:30 AM

Cinsellik üzerine merak ettikleriniz parner arkadaşlıklar partnerinizden uyarıcılar geciktiriciler cinsel güç arttırıcılar penis büyütücüler erotic iççamaşırlar deri giyim seksilaçları sexmalzemeleri
sexshop sex shop erotikshop erotik shop

Posted by: porno arkadaslık on August 25, 2007 08:31 AM

+18Büyükler için seksoyuncakları erotik iççamaşırlar deri kıyafet sado-mazo giyim seksilaçları

Posted by: SEKS ALETLERİ VE ÜRÜNLERİ on August 25, 2007 08:32 AM

.......

Posted by: redtube on August 25, 2007 10:23 PM

sex seks

Posted by: sex on August 25, 2007 10:27 PM

porno porn

Posted by: porno porn on August 25, 2007 10:32 PM

Arabam
Güzel Sözler
porno
sex
Oyun
Oyun
sextube
89
mobilya
sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
Site ekle Site Ekle
arkadaş
Mirc
türkce mirc
Sohbet
Sohbet
amerikan kapı
tosya ahsap
Pimapen
Oyunlar
Oyunlar
forum
Resimleri
redtube
Sohbet Odaları
Bol Sohbet
arabam
pornotube
Aşk
Ahşap
Arkadaş
Aşk mesajları
Sevgi mesajları
Bayan Arkadaş
kapı
kapılar
PORNO tube
thank you grup

Posted by: sohbet on September 30, 2007 07:15 AM

thanks

Posted by: chat on October 8, 2007 02:34 PM

merhaba

Posted by: sohbet on October 8, 2007 02:35 PM

türkiyenin iş teknolojisi, buluşma adresimiz, iş portalımız, ekonomi, haber, finans, uluslararası ilişkiler, işadamları, işkadınları, iş adamı, iş kadını, yenilikler, sektörler, haberler, sektörel haber, ürün tanıtımı, ürünler, kobi, şirketler, bültenler, patronlar, patroniçeler, türkiye, dünya, iş adamları, buluşma, adresi, internet, portalı, destek, proje, yardım, paylaşım, güven, ambalaj, bilgisayar, demir, çelik, deri,

Posted by: ömer on November 13, 2007 08:25 PM

Posted by: omer on November 13, 2007 08:26 PM

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar