The flap over Michael Steele's comments on Afghanistan has
got me thinking about the challenge of being a responsible opposition in wartime.
How can we hold the administration accountable and fairly evaluate
administration policies yet do so in a way that does not worsen U.S. prospects
in the war?
Debates about foreign policy will not and should not be suspended just because
the country is at war. Nor will the broader partisan political process go
on hiatus. The question is not whether there will be debate and
disagreement. The question is whether or not it will be done responsibly.
I would offer a few easy-to-declare-but-hard-to-live-up-to standards for
evaluating the responsibility of the opposition:
- Is the opposition
fact-based or is it myth-based? This might seem obvious, but it
is remarkable how many foreign policy critiques hinge on a crucial "fact"
that turns out to be not so.
- Is the opposition
rigorous or is it caricatured? Does the opposition hinge on a claim
that the Bush administration's Phase IV planning contained overly
optimistic assumptions and did not adequately hedge against those
assumptions proving false (a rigorous critique)? Or does the opposition hinge
on the claim that the Bush administration's national security strategy
consisted entirely of a vainglorious effort to democratize at bayonet
point every country that annoyed the president (a complete caricature that
I have heard seriously offered by well-paid, if not well-informed,
critics)?
- Is it ad rem or ad
hominem? (Ed. note: Despite four years of high school Latin from the
inestimable Miss Fay, I confess I am relying on the Internet, specifically here for
this Latin phrase. Miss Fay, forgive me if I have mangled the
Latin.) Does it deal with the substance of the
policy or does it focus on emotional arguments aimed at questioning the patriotism
or bravery or intentions of the policymakers? Worse, does it
seek to criminalize foreign policy disputes (cf. The Plame Affair)? It is
fine to point out the consequences of a bad policy (as in "setting an
inflexible and arbitrary timeline will encourage the Taliban" or "invading
Iraq will provide a rallying cry for Al Qaeda") but I think it crosses the
line to accuse backers of those policies of rooting for the enemy.
Doubtless there are some partisans who do so, but far fewer than the
heated rhetoric on the question would suggest. By the way, a rule of
thumb: if the critique deploys the phrase "chicken hawk" or asks policy
opponents to look at pictures of wounded soldiers, it is probably going to
flunk this particular test. And, in my experience, a critique that
contains a heavy dollop of ad hominem usually falls short of the
other standards, too.
- Is it constructive or
merely critical? It is easier to be a pigeon than
a sculptor -- it is easier to dump on something than it is to make it better.
Does the critique include plausible, viable, realistic alternative
courses of action or does the critique content itself with vague "just
come home America and our problems will be more manageable" platitudes
that cannot withstand serious scrutiny? Or worse, does the critique
consist of a slash-and-burn denunciation of the existing policy followed
by a series of policy proposals that are essentially the same existing
policy?
Based on these standards, the last decade of opposition has amassed a pretty
mixed record, some of which I detail in a chapter on "Domestic Politics and the Long War" in a
recent edited volume. Too much of the Democratic critique of Bush was
based on myths, caricatures, and ad hominem attack that offered no
serious constructive alternative. Too much of the Democratic critique
consisted of questioning the patriotism of the Bush administration and then
complaining, often without cause, that their patriotism had been
questioned when the consequences of their policies were subjected to critical
scrutiny.
For the past 18 months, Republicans have had the "responsible opposition"
portfolio and thus a chance to rise above the standard set by the Democrats.
Grading on this curve, I think they (we) have done pretty well so far, but
it is early and the electoral season is a daunting test looming before us.
Alas, there is at least one ominous harbinger, which brings me to the Michael
Steele flap. Over the weekend, RNC Chairman Michael Steele gave
apparently unscripted remarks at a fund-raiser in
Connecticut. In so doing, Steele managed to violate most of my standards
for responsible opposition. Of greatest concern: He based his critique on
some outright whoppers, claiming that the Afghanistan war is a "war of Obama's
choosing," and "This
is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage
in."
Now a responsible opposition can question whether Obama's Afghanistan strategy
is on a trajectory towards success (leave aside the opposition, a significant
fraction of the Obama administration, not to mention the Democratic party, has
questioned this point). A responsible opposition can even argue that it
is time to cut our losses and seek "lesser evil" outcomes. (I don't agree
with this position, not yet anyway, but my old colleague Bob Blackwill has
offered a well-argued version of this position).
A responsible opposition can even argue that the lion's share of the
fault for failure must rest with this administration rather than with the inheritance,
as Tony Blankley did recently.
But it is simply not responsible to claim that the entire war, and thus all of
the problems in Afghanistan, is Obama's fault from start to finish. And
beyond irresponsible, it is a blunder. That claim is so preposterous that
making it wounds one's own side far more than it wounds the target.
(Which may be why Steele is getting some support from hyperpartisan corners on the other side).
If this is a sign of things to come, then I fear Republicans could fail the
"responsible opposition" test. Fortunately for the country, this sorry
episode had a few silver linings. Within hours of Steele's remarks
hitting the airwaves, serious Republicans in Congress and in the think-tank community rose up to
admonish Steele and correct the various distortions. Steele, for his
part, has offered something of a clarification, though well short of a full
"Jimmy
Swaggart apology. I hope in the days to come he will prove
more responsible, and that those of us in the bleachers will likewise hold
ourselves to a higher standard.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE