True story from Sunday's game at Lambeau.
We go up 13-0 and everyone's happy. As we fall behind 20-13, one guy in the "tourist seats" (not season tix, but buy from block reserved--allegedly--for Brown County residents, although a lot of guest teams' fans usually sit there, which can make for some testiness now and then) starts reaming out the team non-stop, booing every chance he can at every failure.
The regulars start gettinng down on him. He starts yelling back that he's paid his money and he's entitled to bitch all he wants. More harsh words back and forth.
Then the Pack comes back to tie and through that whole sequence, here's this probably lifelong fan forced to sit on his hands out of pride: he's made his choice of opposition, so when things go well, he can only fume. His whole access to the game depends now on his beloved Packers losing.
It's a weird corner to paint yourself into. Here's this guy who's maybe at his first game in years and he can only feel connected to events if the Packers do badly.
To me, it's the microcosm of the danger one faces in being the negative futurist (only bad things will happen in the future) and the super-critic of the current administration (you're constantly forced to discount any success; subsequently, when your team is in power, you feel the need to excuse any failure).
I've painted myself into such corners early in my career, where I didn't present the big picture that spoke to the larger positive trends. I'd find myself actively hoping things would go bad, especially for America, because that would "prove" my point/criticism/etc., and you know what? I hated that. I just hated always betting on losing. It poisoned both my content and my delivery, plus it made me a dime a dozen, because, quite frankly, that sort of "realism" is just so easy to crank out--thus the great numbers in that camp.
By choosing the path I choose, I get to play with whatever team's in power. When the Right's in power, I'll be accused of being a Neocon (or whatever they call them next time), and when the Left's in power, I'll be accused of being a Neolib (a title I accept, but only in the sense of 19th-century "liberal"). By doing this, I consistently open myself up to charges of opportunism, naive optimism, and scurrilous patriotism (I always try to make America "right"). But it also means my criticism receives far more widespread intepretation, because my overall vision doesn't cut me out of two-thirds of the population's ability to hear me (something that happens when you live on the fringes).
So yes, I'm a bit vague and ambiguous on certain things, and I infuriate when I zig on Iraq and zag on Iran, but I like to stay in the game because life is short and I always like cheering the home team on, no matter who's the coach right now. Plus, I just can't sit on the sidelines, much less my hands (like that poor fellow).
But most to the point, and I've made this argument repeatedly: true grand strategy isn't about any one administration or party, so it needs to be centered on something simple, like containment was (we hold the line, they rot from within) in the Cold War. To me, in this era, it's connectivity, not containment. We help connect states, usually non-kinetically but sometime with violence (to be followed by a rapid re-connect). I know some will say "engagement" is better, but I find that word too often means all talk and no action, and I do believe in action under certain circumstances (as in, sometimes history needs a push).
I know that in this amazingly partisan world we now live in that such line-straddling is considered tantamount to intellectual cowardice ("stand up for what you believe in!"), but quite frankly, the only wisdom I've found in life is locatted in that middle territory, and so I believe that is where serious grand strategy is found.
So I will continue to be "just a bit too Democratic" to ever be accepted among hard-core Republicans and "just too conservative" to ever be accepted among hard-core Dems--and I like it like that.
| Permalink |
Comments (8)
Tom-
Umm, yes and no .
It's not that "The Truth" is in the middle--sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Rather, it's that _your_ Truth is in the middle--it's your fulcrum and lever, with which you can move the world. You _are_ standing up for what you believe in!
There are other Truths out there--some of them even as valid as yours.
May you have much success, in your middle.
Posted by Doug Weinfield | September 19, 2006 3:26 PM
Welcome to the world of "Democrats who care about national security, and actually know something about it." I met a charismatic NSD recently, Anthony Brown, who's running for lieutenant governor of Maryland. Former Army helicopter pilot, Harvard Law, a Reserve JAG with some time in the "Sandbox." We need more like him.
Posted by Ralph Hitchens | September 19, 2006 4:35 PM
Thomas,
Your honesty is much appreicated. It is not popular to be deemed a "Fence-Straddler" these days.
I am a 27 yr old optomist and recent immigrant to the states. I have been labled many things since my arrival here, some of which include..Commie, Pacifist, Zionist, Neo-Con, Anarchist, Dem, Rep and even once called
"the mistress of Eva Braun". Surviving in todays partisian world is not easy. I have strong beliefs but do not strickly conform to either of the party lines. I receive pats on the back or a symphatic squeeze of the hand and am told that I'm young and I will grow out of my ideas. This I get from supporters of both parties.
I am finding it incresengly difficult to have intellegent conversations with friends, family and co-workers these days because I feel that they have been poisoned by someone elses ideals. They regurgitate the same rhetoric that I heard from some "insider" on CNN/Fox 20 min. earlier. The tradgedy is that I sometimes feel that I am loosing my optomism and hope of peace in the world for a new global economy.
Knowledge empowers me, it feeds me and I question everything. The knowledge I have gained in my 27 years has setforth my beliefs today. Unless there is a complete re-structuring in todays political society I don't think I will ever be a one party kinda gal.
Your post today has left me feeling welcome in an incresingly bi-partisan society and quite frankly provided me with a little hope. Good luck in your endevors and I am looking forward to studying your new work.
Posted by Sheri | September 19, 2006 9:42 PM
Dr Barnett: I could relate to this post. I was there in the US late last year. For all its openness America’s politics could be a bit puzzling. It seems like the there are only two types of people out there: one could either be a liberal (pro-government intervention, against invasion of Iraq, pro-choice) or a conservative (for “small government,” advocate of bringing “democracy” to the world, pro-life). There seems to be no neutral ground. It’s a bit intellectually stifling because in reality any person could usually have both liberal and conservative views. Retired Supreme Court judge Sandra Day O’Connor supposedly has conservative views on the economy and liberal ones on social issues. Yeah, i find your approach refreshing.
Posted by Dave Llorito | September 20, 2006 12:58 AM
Ever since I discovered "the brief", crystalized a lot of the stuff I had been thinking about before and put it in much greater context than I ever could on my own, I've actually found it much easier to talk foreign policy to people, whether left or right. You just have to start with what you agree on, and then lead them slowly to a fuller vision. (It's very "Dale Carnegie"...)
So with left wingers, you start out with some of the touchy-feely aspects of the sysadmin role: working with the international community, protecting women's rights (they LOVE this), etc. They get a little squeamish about multinational corporation's role, but you can finesse it a bit by pointing out that "multinational" increasingly means companies based in and owned by Indians, Chinese - people with appealingly non-white skin. Then you show how you can't have any of this kumbaya stuff without the leviathan in the background, ready to enforce the rules. Some just can't make the jump, but they usually at least see where you're coming from.
Right wingers usually love the idea of the leviathan going in and smashing things up, but are skeptical of any "foreign entanglements" (the more literate ones will quote John Adams to you) The model I've been using recently is New York under Guliani: for most of the 70s and 80s, the NYPD followed a strategy of essentially ceding portions of the city to criminals and concnetrating resources on defending the other sections. It was unworkable, though, since the criminality in those sections inevitably bled over into the "good" sections. When Rudy came in, the NYPD used a combination of state-of-the-art information technology and a lot of "boots on the street" to establish that the rules applied everywhere, not just on the upper east side. If you can show that in the age of the internet and jet airplanes we are "entangled" whether we want to be or not, and that we need to police those "bad neighborhoods" for our OWN good, not for them damn "furriners", you're most of the way there. Righties will go along with all sorts of touchy feely nation building stuff if they can see where it fits in to the securuty picture.
Posted by Jim Baird | September 20, 2006 5:38 AM
And it is exactly this open coalition you seek to build based on an idea(your economic integration or connectivity being the containment theory of our day) that makes neo-cons like me flock to your banner. The chit flinging you typically avoid while focusing on winning the game of life for as many people as possible.
We're down with that. We neo-cons are down with that. We'll help push the pile on that issue.
Just don't call us evil slime while we're doing it(which you have nearly never done), okay?;) Thanks.
Posted by ry | September 20, 2006 5:59 PM
Dave Llorito
You seem somewhat confused by American politics and I suppose that's only natural. Here's a short description.
We have two parties - the stupid party and the evil party. I am a proud member of the stupid party.
Sometimes both parties get together to pass legislation that is both stupid and evil.
We call that bipartisan.
Posted by Mark in Texas | September 20, 2006 9:26 PM
actually, you are standing up for what you believe in. It's believing in the same thing as the throngs and going on their heyrides that you're not.
YOu ask the one fundemental question: Does it feed the bulldog(or does it move the pile?)?
YOu ask that without caring who's sacred ideological cow this tips into a chip. That's a good thing. (Even if I'm still a bit miffed about you linking to your brother's hateful diatribe about the vileness of neo-cons and cons in general, but I'll get over it.).
Posted by ry | September 22, 2006 12:20 AM