Obama Must Take the High Road
This is from a friend on the Hill:
It has become increasingly fashionable in the blog world to take a swipe at John McCain’s wartime service. Personal attacks are unfortunately the currency of modern campaigns, but stupidity is not a virtue. The more people attack John McCain’s record, the more they remind voters what separates McCain from the rest of us. In a world where most of us are never called or tested, he has endured treatment that few of us can even imagine. Simply put he is a great American. While he may not be the right choice for President, his voice may not share the tenor of our times, but few would doubt that he has character.
Unfortunately there is nothing grand about the GOP in this light either. The only thing more repugnant than today’s slights against McCain, are the smears heaped on Max Clelland. The attacks on John Kerry for his service are just another sad chapter in our electoral history. When we honor service only when it suits our political interests and only when heroes share our political affiliation, we debase ourselves and we dishonor our country. If McCain does lose this election, as he might, Democrats and Obama in particular will rue taking the low road. Every nation needs its heroes and needs inspiration, and it comes in all forms, shapes, colors and sizes. In their shadow we see the best of ourselves, and by insulting their service we tear at the very fabric of our society. There is a school that says you have to win at any price, and winner’s remorse is better than losing. But the election is not the end, but the beginning, and the abiding lesson of this administration should be knowing the difference between serving your party and serving the country. Defeat has a price but so does every victory. George HW Bush led a public life of great service, personal grace and distinction. I doubt the ads he ran in 1988 are something he is proud of. If we believe that this country has to heal and come together, we would do well to heed that lesson.
I couldn’t agree more. McCain was certainly born into privilege, but he did not have to serve in a capacity and at a time that put his personal safety at risk. But he chose to. Moreover, he did not have to remain in captivity when the North Vietnamese offered to trade him ahead of other US POWs who’d been held longer. Instead, McCain took the high road. If nothing else, his example then and in his subsequent political career should prove that leadership is not inconsistent with principle. That must be true even today.
I’m not as discouraged by what I’m hearing on the campaign trail these days as my friend quoted above, but I think the tenor of the national security debate could be a lot better. One part of that would be for each candidate to respect the other’s unique perspective, experience, and patriotism, even if their policies are in conflict. After all, Obama has had unusual and valuable life experiences of his own, and demonstrated plenty of bravery, and McCain can recognize that. It’s my impression that both candidates, as individuals, understand the need for respectful debate on national security, and that it’s the larger political system around them that encourages destructive, negative campaigning.
Related posts:
“…the election is not the end, but the beginning, and the abiding lesson of this administration should be knowing the difference between serving your party and serving the country.”
Though hard to embrace fully in the face of the divisive politics of an election year, this statement is profoundly true at both an idealistic and pragmatic level. To be sure, we need argument. According to Madison, this country will only thrive off of such a preponderance of varied opinions that none will accede to dominance. In this sense, factionalization is a foundational element of American democracy.
However, we would be naïve to think that our founders desired this type of dehumanizing, static divisiveness. It would be a stretch to say that the author of the Federalist papers gladly anticipated attacks on the patriotism of political rivals. In short, America does well by itself and its democratic ideals to always question and always debate – but not to besmirch character by default.
But let us ignore idealism and focus on that which is solely practical. Still, Barack Obama would be wise to distance himself from jabs at John McCain’s war record (just as McCain would be smart in avoiding any dubious allusions to Obama’s race, “secret” religious identity, or patriotism). Only through meaningful dialogue – with as many participants as possible, regardless of political leaning – do we arrive at the sturdiest, most tested solutions. Bipartisanship can be much more than an ideal; it is often the quickest way to determine what is best for our entire country, the most efficient way to govern, and the surest manner in which to evade partisan groupthink.
It’s not a terribly novel idea. PSA cites the relationship between President Truman and Sen. Vandenburg and the cooperative climate that fostered the Marshall Plan. Today, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank and Republic Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have worked together – diligently, cordially – to enact several important housing bills during the current crisis. Though President Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill fought vehemently by day, they engaged each other collegially and on a personal level “after 5PM.”
Perhaps, though, now our leaders need something more inclusive and more human than “5PM” friends. This type of relationship starts with the parties’ respective leaders, and only grows if personal, character-based attacks take a backseat to issue-based debate and, at best, earnest dialogue.
Comment on July 14, 2008 @ 8:31 am
Even “5 pm” friends would be a step in the right direction. What’s going on now, Dan, is that each side is separated from the other by such a wide gulf of perceived political (and financial) interests, that neither leaders nor the rank and file feel they can afford to maintain close working relationships, much less friendships with folks on the other side.
There are, of course, some refreshing counter-examples. In fact, Obama may be one of them (look at his recent close cooperation with Sen. Lugar, and his latest collaboration with Chuck Hagel). McCain certainly has been in the past. I worry that he’s in an impossible bind in this election, where he stands to lose credibility with constituencies he needs whether he continues to play the maverick, or buckles down to the administration’s party line. But whatever the outcome of this election, the problem is not going to be solved by one person, even the President of the United States.
The key is to build on a few successful models in which bipartisan consensus has led to meaningful action, and restore a basic assumption of meaningful bipartisan dialog and consensus building to our decision making process. It’s not going to be possible, or even necessarily salutary, in every policy area. But in national security, the other option is to risk crisis and catastrophe. America simply is not strong enough to defeat the myriad threats of a dangerous world while expending most of our political energy fighting one another.
Comment on July 14, 2008 @ 9:46 am