Defining the Debate

Further thoughts on my last post.

One of the big problems we progressives have had for quite a long time now is that we let the opposition get away with defining the boundaries of each debate. Take the current experience debate, and its current boundaries. With the Palin pick, Democrats said that the 'experience' issue was off the table. This has led the Republicans to argue that Palin is actually as experienced or more so than Obama and the debate is off. The terms of the debate, however, are years in public office, time and range of executive responsibilities and so on. What I pointed out in my previous post is that these issues are not the best ground for us to fight on, rather we should argue that Obama has the experience and has gone through an intense vetting process, which Palin has not. That point seems oddly missing from the debate. And the reason it is missing, it seems to me, is only because the Republicans have not brought it up. But of course they're not going to bring it up. We need to make it part of our rebuttal.

Now I agree that on a pure debate of national issue experience Obama will win. But we will do better to argue on easy ground rather than on more difficult ground. To understand what I'm gettig at follow me for a moment on a bit of a degression. We'll get back to the election soon enough.

If, on a clear day, you look up into the daylight sky you will see a uniform field of blue (we'll look away from the Sun for now). If, on a clear night, however, you look up, you will see bright points of light here and there, against a black background, stars and the night sky right. But if you think about this for a minute, this might seem odd. After all, when you are looking up in daylight the stars are still there. In the daylight sky there should be bright points of light, pluss the blue background here and there and just the blue backgrouhd in between, so the stars should be visible day and night, right? But that's the thing, it is very hard to distinguish a small difference between large values. In the day, the blue background is very much brighter than the stars. The small difference between star + blue sky and blue sky alone is generally impossible for the human eye to tell. The equally small difference between the star and no background, however, is easily distinguished. The general problem of small differences between large values is an issue in the design of much scientific equiptment.

Ok, now back to the election. For most of your neighbors the foreign policy experience of any of the candidates is a lot more than what your neighbor has. Thus the difference among the candidates becomes a small difference between large values and we could spend hours trying to persuade one undecided voter that Obama really comes out on top. On the other hand, to argue that Obama and Biden have been thouroughly vetted by the American people over their careers and the campaigning they've done, versus the complete lack of vetting of Sarah Palin is a difference that is easy to see.

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens - Times Online

Link to US says it has right to kidnap British citizens - Times Online

This is beautiful. The United States is now claiming that it has a right to "kidnap" citizens of Great Britain if we suspect them of any crime at all. One amazing part of this is that in the early 19th century Great Britain was ceasing American citizens which was one of the primary pretexts for the United States to declare war on Great Britain starting the War of 1812. How times change yet remain the same.

Exit Strategy

From Senator Mitch McConnel with Wolf Blitzer talking about the ineffefctiveness of the Iraqi government

BLITZER: And if they're not going to do what they need to do, what happens then?

MCCONNELL: Well, the Iraqi government is a huge disappointment. Republicans overwhelmingly feel disappointed about the Iraqi government. I read just this week that a significant number of the Iraqi parliament want to vote to ask us to leave.

I want to assure you, Wolf, if they vote to ask us to leave, we'll be glad to comply with their request.

So the Republican leader in the Senate is saying that the disposition of American troops overseas is in the hands of this Iraqi parlament. The attitude of the Republican leadership is to hand over the decision making regarding the disposition of our armed forces to the Iraqi government. With the current conservative administration and leadership the military forces of the United States of America are left jumping to the commands of the Iraqi government, coming or going at their command. How low this crowd can bring the mighty.

Cuba

Nothing would more quickly or more effectively change Cuba for the better than if the US would open up trade and travel between our countries.

Nancy Pelosi in Syria

Ok, I haven't had anything to say on this absurd controversy in part because it is so absurd, and also because other folks have covered this story so well. Josh Marshall has been all over this story and has provided a wealth of information. There is a great video blog post on the Israeli denial that Speaker Pelosi carried a message to Assad. Also this commentary on Richard Holbrooke's appearance on Hardball. There is plenty more at TPM. The whole controversy can be summed up with this from Holbrooke

I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by a deliberate ambush plan by the opposition, in this case the Republicans, and frankly, exploited by journalists who are just looking for a fake controversy. There is no issue here. Congressman Wolf, a major Republican, was in the region a few days earlier. Republicans were on her trip. There's no issue. None.

There is no issue. None.

But one other thing about the conservative view of our times and our nation is highlighted by this whole controversy. Our system of government makes plentiful use of critical review to reach policy decisions. There is a constant process of debate and discussion on all aspects of policy. That includes foreign affairs and national security. This can be seen in the fact that every Speaker of the House for the past thirty years or more, has been involved with foreign policy, has made trips abroad and has spoken with foreign leaders. This discussions have not always, perhaps not generally, been in complete harmony with the White House. This is the way our system works, and while it is at times awkward, it is in fact a strength. A great strength. We are not weaker because of this open debate, we are stronger, much stronger because of it.

Now there may well be times when a single, clear, unchallenged position is necessary if a nation is to overcome the dangers it faces. We today, however, are not in such a time. The Russians at Stalingrad, the battle of Britain, Washington at Valley Forge. These are not like what we face today, for all the conservative histrionics to the contrary. We are vastly safer, vastly more secure than any of these situations, indeed than almost any people at any time in history. We are, beyond doubt, not in the kind of desperate situation that would preclude the normal state of affairs where a Speaker of the House of Representatives can freely go and speak with foreign leaders.

Foreign Relations

Looking at Bush's reception in South America it becomes powerfully clear how thoroughly this administration has trashed the image of America overseas. It is true that we cannot be slavishly devoted to foreign opinion, but at the same time alliances and the good will of others around the world is of great value. Alliances mean that you have more resources to handle whatever troubles might arise, and having additional resources can only help. Also, while it is sometimes the case that everyone around you believes you are wrong even though you in fact see things more clearly than anyone else (they laughed at Galileo after all). However, generally the reason that everyone else thinks you are wrong is because you are, in fact, wrong. For this reason too, it is well to keep up the good opinion of other nations. Abandoning that good opinion should only be done for something of great value. But for what valuable thing has Bush squandered our good name? Iraq? I cannot see that this nation is gaining anything from that adventure, certainly nothing as valuable as the good relations we once had with the rest of the world.