Jane left this comment on I would like to thank everyone for commenting on...:
Thanks for posting this. You have affirmed much of who I assumed you to be....as fine a person as I suspected, having read your blog since its nascent days.My concern today though is your having repeated (from an earlier post) the phrase "pandering" about John Edwards and his campaign. That's painful for me as I admire you both, as much if not more, than anyone in the current political, public sphere.
You have a lot in common as people and I had thought about trying to connect you two (Elizabeth's a personal friend.). Your stories about possibly losing Em and their having lost their son Wade is what originally prompted that thought back when you were living in RI. However, am now not sure you would be open to any dialogue with him.
John obviously lacks the military connections/sensibilites you bring to the table. Am not sure you know that Elizabeth grew up as a Navy brat who lived in Japan for years and her dad won the DFC as a pilot. She's very sensitive to the military's SysAdmin role and I sense you could tie this all together for John from the integrated perspective you so ably present in your books and in your Powerpoint presentation.
You two are the only really bright, accomplished guys I see who are willing to publicly articulate what their families mean to them. You both also have passionate visions about who/what America can and should be to the rest of the world. Any possibility of some common ground, room for discussions here?
Jane,Perhaps I am being too harsh on Edwards this early in the campaign, but his stridency on globalization and China disturb me greatly. My sense is that he's running to the hard left for the nomination, which certainly will distinguish him from Clinton and Obama (both, more centrists), but it carries great risks for himself, the party, and the country. If he succeeds, then I think he becomes a highly damaged general election candidate. If he were to succeed there, then I'd be very afraid for the country as a whole. My guess is that he won't succeed in the nomination, but merely damage the party's unity by playing up the protectionist angle, feeding its isolationist wing. In the end, that charging of the base only dilutes the Dems' strength and makes a GOP win that much easier.
In short, it's the same problem I had with Nader both times with Clinton. Indulging in fear to me is pandering, because it basically says to people, "you're right to be afraid and let that drive your thinking."
As somebody who sells grand strategy, I sell hope first and foremost. I believe Edwards did that in 2004, by and large, but that's he's abandoned that approach this time as his perceived best chance to dislodge the front-runners.
As such, I wouldn't see much point (for him) to interact with me at this stage in the process. I don't think there's anything I can tell him that he'd want to hear.
| Permalink |
Comments (8)
Re:Edwards
Lawyers, especially very good litigators, which Edwards was, are professionally trained to ignore the big picture and longitudinal effects of any course of action, no matter how big a potential disaster, that might marginally help their client for the moment. And then to fight like mad to win on that point.
Not the best preparation for global statesmanship, in my view.
Posted by zenpundit![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
February 18, 2007 10:41 AM
Very good point ZenPundit, speaking as a child of two lawyers and sibling to a pair. When I want to shoot down arguments, I go to them, but when I want to build up the big-picture ones, I typically avoid.
Still, people change and grow. My older brother, a lawyer, typifies someone who's risen above that mindset, which is why I seek his counsel regularly.
The question hanging out there on Edwards is, will he grow in this process or only see the near-term victory of the nomination. Last time he could run for VP at same time (Obama's luxury this time), but once accepted, that's not really an option for him this time, thus I fear his sense that he either runs hard left or doesn't get a serious look.
I will try to lay off swiping Edwards (and McCain) this early in the process. Few things force growth like a presidential campaign. Minds can always be changed. Everyone's got a role to play.
Posted by Tom Barnett | February 18, 2007 10:54 AM
Tom, Thanks so much for your very clear, reasoned response to my post. I don't disagree with your view of John's positions --- but that's why you are the visionary. My idea of having you two interact was more of my wish for him. Given some similarities in our life experiences, I understand why/how he has these beliefs. However, I agree with your ideas for our country's longterm best interests on the international stage. I long for the day when we have both candidates and an administration who seek the best and brightest to consult ..... and who then actually listens.
Posted by Jane | February 18, 2007 11:15 AM
I don't expect Edwards to win, but with Clinton coming out yesterday for a reduction in force in Iraq withing 60 days, and Murtha, a central figure now in the House leadership, openly stating that it is their job to "undermine the President's Foreign Policy," I don't see anybody emerging from the Dems who is serious about our Foreign Policy.
This means our best hope is Guliani or Romney.
Posted by Bill Millan | February 18, 2007 11:43 AM
Ooh!
I played CB in a public high school too.
Tougher than that, I was a very successful gunner on punts.
But neither indicates I'd be a good lawyer.
Posted by Tom Barnett | February 18, 2007 12:43 PM
Jane,
I can only imgaine your quandary; Edwards is in left field when he could be a good center fielder. My family campaigned for him in 04--I respect him but he is not where he should be at this moment.
It would take a real leap for him; only a series of face-to-faces could persuade and that would be a serious logistical challenge. I'd say his handlers would be outraged, but look where the competition has moved.
Posted by JRRICHARD | February 18, 2007 1:06 PM
"Nothing happens during legal training that diminishes intellectual capabilities or horizons"
sonofsamphm1c, no one is suggesting that Edwards isn't smart, competitive or successful. Just that the zero sum, adversarial, analytical-reductionist way that lawyers approach problems is a perspective that is ill-suited to geopolitical strategy and diplomacy.
Nor is anyone suggesting that Edwards could not move beyond that perspective, just that, so far, has has not given any evidence of having done so in his foreign policy statements.
Posted by zenpundit | February 18, 2007 9:15 PM
"Now a multi-millionaire, he apparently landed on his feet. He has an abundantly adept intellect."
And it's that intellect that seems to have gotten him into a spat of trouble here. He's taking a cheap and easy path, one cold political calculation tells him is the path to the nomination it would seem, by playing a populism only strategy. He could do better. But he's not.
He can change. If he does before the primaries we've got something. If not?
Well, good thing it looks to be a large field on both sides of the aisle.
Posted by ry | February 18, 2007 10:46 PM