;)
Thursday
Sep122013
The Commentariat -- Sept. 13, 2013
Obama 2.0. Jackie Calmes of the New York Times: "President Obama has chosen Jeffrey D. Zients, an entrepreneur who twice was the president's acting budget director and a past candidate for two cabinet positions, to succeed Gene B. Sperling as the chief White House economic adviser.The shift, which was confirmed by several administration officials and will be announced on Friday, does not portend change in the president's economic agenda."
Kim Hjelmgaard of USA Today: "The White House is disputing a Japanese newspaper's report that former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers will be named the next chairman of the Federal Reserve by President Obama. The Nikkei newspaper, which did not publicly name its sourcing for its story, said Obama was "set to" name Summers to the position, possibly as early as next week." ...
... ** Michael Hirsh of the National Journal makes the case against Summers. If you don't have time to read it today, read it tomorrow. Hirsh essentially calls Summers a fuck-up, a liar & an arrogant SOB. And he gives examples. Hirsh's piece is the NJ's cover story.
Adam Entous, et al., of the Wall Street Journal: "A secretive Syrian military unit at the center of the Assad regime's chemical weapons program has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track, according to American and Middle Eastern officials." ...
... Robert Worth of the New York Times: "In exchange for relinquishing his chemical arsenal, [Syrian President] Assad said Thursday, he will require that the United States stop arming the Syrian opposition.... Mr. Assad outlined his demands on Thursday...."
Michael Gordon & Steven Myers of the New York Times: "Starting a second day of negotiations on Syria's chemical weapons, Secretary of State John Kerry had a three-way meeting Friday morning at the Palais de Nations here with his Russian counterpart, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy on the Syria issue." ...
... Gordon & Myers of the Times (published yesterday): "Secretary of State John Kerry and a team of American arms control experts began talks with Russian counterparts Thursday on a plan to secure and dispose of Syria chemical arsenal, and he set an early test for the Syrian leader by insisting on quick disclosure of the weapons as the country announced it had joined a treaty banning their use." ...
... The Washington Post story, by Ann Gearan & Karen DeYoung, is here. The Guardian's report, by Paul Lewis & Dan Roberts, is here. ...
... Al Jazeera America: "The United Nations said Thursday that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has signed a legal document confirming that his government will comply with an international ban on chemical weapons. But the announcement came just hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had rejected Assad's earlier pledge to sign the agreement and begin submitting data on his chemical weapons one month later, in keeping with the usual practice under the pact. Kerry said the usual rules cannot apply to the current situation, and he demanded speedier compliance." ...
... Margaret Sullivan, the Times' public editor, explains how the Times received & published Putin's op-ed. ...
... Max Fisher of the Washington Post annotates & fact-checks Vladimir Putin's New York Times op-ed, linked in yesterday Commentariat. Here's one entry: "... what rankles many analysts about this paragraph is that it ignores Putin's own role in enabling the already quite awful violence, as well as the extremism it's inspired. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It's a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point." ...
... Political scientist Erica Chenowith does the same in the Monkey Cage. ...
... J. K. Trotter of Gawker: "Conservative writers are very upset that The New York Times published an op-ed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.... 'It looks like those pro-Assad Syrians didn't need to hack the New York Times website after all,' National Review columnist Charles C.W. Cooke tweeted. 'They could have just asked nicely.' Commentary editor John Podhoretz mused this morning: 'So it's LITERALLY Pravda-on-the-Hudson.' ... In fact, Putin has placed op-eds in nearly every major U.S. paper, including the right-leaning Wall Street Journal and Washington Times." ...
... Edward-Issac Dovere of Politico: "Vladimir Putin got his op-ed on Syria in the New York Times. Now Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) thinks it's only fair for a Russian daily newspaper to run his response. The DCCC chair on Thursday submitted a rebuttal article to Kommersant, a major Russian magazine, that he's calling 'An Open Letter to the People of Russia,' to explain the situation he and other members of Congress are in as they weigh whether to authorize the military strike which Putin argued in the Times should only happen with Security Council approval -- which Russia would be able to veto." No word yet on whether or not Kommersant will run Israel's letter. Israel's full letter is here. ...
... CW: I'm flummoxed by the apparent naivete of certain writers who are far more expert on Russia than am I. Take, ferinstance, Steven Myers, the New York Times' Moscow bureau chief, who writes that Putin has "boxed in" President Obama. Or Russia specialist & Moscow-born Julia Ioffe of the New Republic, who concludes, "... if you're keeping score this week, here's the tally: Putin 2, Obama 0." Really? The U.S. begs Russia for a year to do something it doesn't want to do. So the U.S. threatens to use force. And Russia says, "Well, okay then, have it your way." (Meanwhile, as of Monday this week, Assad wouldn't even acknowledge that he possessed chemical weapons & his government was one of the few holdouts refusing to sign the international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons; as of Thursday afternoon, his regime acknowledge possession of the chemicals & Assad signed the treaty.) You're not seeing Putin outsmarting or dominating Obama. You're seeing the way a strongman blinks. It's true that Putin's blink may be a feint, but even if it is, it's a welcome one because Assad has desisted from gassing Syrians & won't likely embarrass his benefactor Putin by doing so again in the near future. How can "experts" be so blind to a blink? ...
... Here's why Stewart & Colbert are important -- they highlight ignorance & hypocrisy that gets past people who don't read stuff. Contributor Barbarossa links to Colbert's piece -- which ran Monday -- on "Hypothetical Reagan":
... National Memo: "The reality is the United States didn't even impose sanctions on Iraq -- likely because the Reagan administration sold Hussein chemical weapons throughout the 1980s as part of an alliance to prop up Iraq against Iran. But that was the real Reagan -- not hypothetical, contemporary Super Reagan, who is headed to Syria right now on his raptor."
** Paul Krugman: "... whatever is causing the growing concentration of income at the top, the effect of that concentration is to undermine all the values that define America. Year by year, we're diverging from our ideals. Inherited privilege is crowding out equality of opportunity; the power of money is crowding out effective democracy."
Nicholas Confessore of the New York Times on the Koch brothers little campaign-money-laundering scam, Freedom Partners. Oh, what a surprise: it's a tax dodge for many of the "partners." CW: The real scandal: it's all legal. Maybe. "The center faces an inquiry by California election officials over allegations that it broke disclosure rules in funneling millions of dollars into state ballot initiatives in 2012." And here's a funny thing: Court stenographers Jim Vanderhei & Mike Allen of Politico, who first reported on Freedom Partners (linked in yesterday's Commentariat), didn't mention the tax dodge part.
I had to be very candid with [John Boehner] and I told him directly, all these things they're doing on Obamacare are just a waste of their time. Their direction is the direction toward shutting down the government. I like John Boehner. I do feel sorry for him. -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ...
Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times: "In meetings with Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders on Thursday after a session with Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew on Wednesday, Mr. Boehner sought a resumption of negotiations that could keep the government running and yield a deficit-reduction deal that would persuade recalcitrant conservatives to raise the government's borrowing limit.... But a bloc of 43 House Republicans undercut the speaker's deficit-reduction focus, introducing yearlong funding legislation that would increase Pentagon and veterans spending and delay President Obama's health care law for a year -- most likely adding to the budget deficit.... Mr. Lew and Congressional Democrats held firm that they would no longer negotiate on raising the debt ceiling.... And they made it clear to the speaker that they would never accept Republican demands to repeal, defund or delay Mr. Obama's signature health care law." ...
... Today's Crime Spree Brought to You by the GOP. Michael Schmidt of the New York Times: "After months of agonizing about how to deal with the effects of government spending cuts, senior F.B.I. officials in Washington have decided how they will reduce the bureau's spending: they will shut down its headquarters and offices across the country for roughly 10 weekdays over the next year. The F.B.I.'s plans mean that on those days, the bureau will have only a skeleton crew on hand, which raises questions about how effectively it can respond to crime."
Julia Preston of the New York Times: "More than 100 women were arrested on Capitol Hill on Thursday after they blocked a busy intersection to press the House of Representatives to move on immigration legislation in a protest that rallied national women's groups to the cause."
Another Wingnut Governor Sees the $$$. Karen Shuey of the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Intelligencer Journal: "Gov. Tom Corbett intends to announce he will accept federal funds to expand medical coverage to an estimated 682,000 more Pennsylvanians in a Medicaid-like program, according to sources close to the governor. The Republican was among a small group of governors resisting calls to expand the federal-state health entitlement for the poor under the Affordable Care Act." ...
... Josh Barro of Business Insider: "Corbett, who faces his own uphill battle for re-election, seems to understand that he can't afford to take the blame for needless hospital closures next year. The remaining question is whether Republicans in the state House of Representatives will allow him to move to safer political ground."
Obama 2.0. Christine Haughney of the New York Times: "Richard Stengel, the managing editor of Time magazine, is leaving to become under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs at the State Department, according to people with knowledge of the appointment."
Local News
Kate Taylor & Michael Barbaro of the New York Times: New York City "Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said on Friday morning that he had decided not to make an endorsement in the general election for mayor, a surprise announcement in a campaign that has become something of a referendum on his legacy."
Judd Legum of Think Progress: "Police Chief Steve Bracknell, who is responsible for the Florida town where George Zimmerman resides, agreed in a series of emails that Zimmerman is a 'ticking time bomb' and another 'Sandy Hook' waiting to happen." CW: look for Zimmerman to file a defamation-of-character suit on this one. Not sure who will represent him since his trial lawyer quit -- um, except for representing him in a defamation suit against NBC.
News Lede
New York Times: "The investigation into what sparked a devastating fire that destroyed dozens of businesses along one of the most famous boardwalks on the Jersey Shore has not yet determined a cause, Gov. Chris Christie said on Friday." The New Jersey Star-Ledger has extensive coverage of fire-related stories here.
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (16)
http://www.nationalmemo.com/conservatives-defend-hypothetical-contemporary-super-reagan-from-colbert-on-chemical-weapons/
So, a hypothetical Reagan wouldn't stand for Assad using chemical weapons? Never mind that the real Reagan did nothing about Saddam using them. People who live in a fantasy world are deranged.
For those wondering why the Right still idolizes a mythical Reagan, Michael Tomasky in the current issue of The New York Review of Books has an (the?) answer.
In a review titled "Our Town" Tomasky refers to a recent study of the Tea Party, who it is, what it believes and what animates its Congressional mouthpieces. "A recent analysis by Alan I. Abramowitz, the distinguished political scientist from Emory University, presents a fascinating finding that explicitly illuminates, for the first time so far as I’ve seen, why compromise with Obama in particular is nearly impossible. In his new book, Abramowitz performs a multivariate analysis of the factors that are likely to make a citizen a Tea Party supporter. Conservative ideology matters most. But next—ahead of demographic factors like age, gender, and income, ahead of church attendance and even party identification—are 'racial resentment, and dislike of Obama.' " He goes on to quote from Abramowitz:
"These results clearly show that the rise of the Tea Party movement was a direct result of the growing racial and ideological polarization of the American electorate. The Tea Party drew its support very disproportionately from Republican identifiers who were white, conservative, and very upset about the presence of a black man in the White House—a black man whose supporters looked very different from themselves."
So...the not-very-surprising answer is: Saint Reagan was white, something he didn't have to work very hard to be.
... CW: I'm pretty flummoxed by the apparent naivete of certain writers who are far more expert on Russia than am I. Take, ferinstance, Steven Myers, the New York Times' Moscow bureau chief, who writes that Putin has "boxed in" President Obama. Or Russia specialist & Moscow-born Julia Ioffe of the New Republic, who concludes, "... if you're keeping score this week, here's the tally: Putin 2, Obama 0." Really? The U.S. begs Russia for a year to do something it doesn't want to do. So the U.S. threatens to use force. And Russia says, "Well, okay then, have it your way."
...You're seeing the way a strongman blinks. It's true that Putin's blink may be a feint, but even if it is, it's a welcome one because Assad has desisted from gassing Syrians & won't likely embarrass his benefactor Putin by doing so again in the near future. How can "experts" be so blind to a blink? ..."
My belief in the difference between "thinking" intelligence and "emotional intelligence" explains to me this paradox. People who have much experience in the world--and access to a large amount of actual and factual data--do not necessarily have intelligent perceptions about what is actually going on between people. In fact, they often do not. Does not matter where they have lived, or the jobs they have held.
Emotional intelligence requires a keen intuition and a sense of what is "really" going on--as opposed to what seems to be happening. It is painful to me how few of our leaders possess a high degree of emotional intelligence. I have wondered about Obama, and I am still not sure. After all, this could be "luck" rather than a purposeful strategy. Not sure.
What I do know is that Obama's predecessors had embarrassingly little emotional intelligence. Dubya said he saw Putin's "soul in his eyes." Huh? And both Darth Cheney and Rummy thought the Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" after we bombed their country and killed their people with "shock and awe!" Yikes.
Bill Clinton has innate emotional intelligence--which is probably why he survived his scandals and remains popular. Hillary--not so much. Alan Grayson is amazing. He can read people between the lines like few other politicians. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert the same. I think one key is having a keen sense of irony and knowing that people are not as they seem--and that almost everyone you deal with has a hidden agenda, which may not be the one you suspect. And realizing that you may be wrong in what you think you know! Doubt is important here. (This does not apply to Bill Clinton, who is a phenomenon, and incredibly narcissistic--which may cancel the doubt.)
I am not saying I believe that people with high emotional intelligence always make the best leaders. Some obviously are not at all interested in governance--perhaps most--and lack other necessary skills. However, we are imperiled by electing leaders who lack a high degree of this important--and all too rare--quality!
@Ken: I read Tomasky's piece yesterday and I, too, thought to write about it. It's been clear to me that Obama's race has colored the political landscape in a major way and Alan A.'s analysis is exactly right.
@Kate: I want to respond to your interesting comments, but will have to do it later. But did want to mention that Tomasky's piece was essentially a review of "The Town" which you had mentioned some days ago. Tomasky wished that Leibovich had written a far more serious and in depth book instead of the "light read" he did give us.
"...technological changes have challenged the long-held definition of what the Washington establishment is and how much influence it now has. this shifting of power relationships is an interesting or even fascinating story, and the telling of it would shed some useful light on why we get the political and policy outcomes we do in today's Washington. That book would be serious and valuable."
Re: Putin's thrift store 11 AM opening; Putty the counterman;
"And for you, my favorite American friend, I have something so special I've saved it from shelves to show you first. Look! an entire year's supply of the very best chemical weapons money can buy. I can let you have it, my very best American friend, for pennies on the dollar. I tell you where I get such a deal, I will have to kill you; Ha, Ha, Ha, We Russians and Americans are so much alike. Funny, huh? I give you great deal on the whole supply, you, take it all; yours, pennies on the dollar. Hey, I sweeten the tea, buy now and I throw in a couple of theater tickets; good show; girls; you like girls? No homos, there is no homos in Russian theater; no homos in Russia. So, We have deal? You buy it all, there is no more. You have it. Cash, enjoy show."
Same Moscow storefront ten minutes later; Putty the counterman,
"Come in, my favorite American friend, I have deal for you. New, in box chemical weapons for lifetime, only for you my favorite American friend, cheap...."
Over on NBC News they write: "Poll: 44 percent of Americans oppose raising debt ceiling"—By Domenico Montanaro, Deputy Political Editor, NBC News
"Americans overwhelmingly do not think Congress should raise the nation’s debt limit as President Barack Obama and Congress prepare once again to wage battle over the issue, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll."
Where the hell is the Secretary of 'Splaining Stuff in order to get out a credible message making this understandable to those whose just assume this mean more spending —as opposed to what has already been committed. We go through this stupid routine time-after-time. We definitely need
the general (voting) populace to grasp what this means once and for all. Ditto, on Obamacare. (Maybe the latter will be more highly favored once it goes into effect and the belittling Fauxes arguments fall by the way.)
Krugman's column today (to which CW linked) has many great comments, particularly from my favorite 'Greek' philosopher there, Socrates of Verona, NJ. The income disparity issue is shameful as Socrates further shows. Then, of course, I come to this site for the musings of my other favorite Greek, Akhilleus to weigh in on other critical topics!
@Kate Madison. I really appreciate your comments about emotional intelligence. Good take on Clinton, he has always set off my bullshit meter but I can't deny his effect on much of the population( cough...gag). The confluence of the emotional intelligence, his considerable thinking intelligence and his risk taking personal behavior make him an anomaly.
I think Obama also has a great deal of emotional intelligence. Don't think a black man could have been elected X2 without it (see @ Ken). However, I think he is outer directed and uses his intuitive read of others to advantage "the greater good". Not to say that any President, including Obama, doesn't have a healthy dose of ego, but I read Clinton as being almost entirely about Clinton, the narcissism you referenced.
More ridiculousness, so sublime!
"Boehner is desperately trying to combine two separate issues: negotiating over budget policy and negotiating over whether Congress should trigger a default on the national debt." For more on his dumb argument, read Chait over at New York magazine: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/boehner-to-obama-can-i-please-take-you-hostage.html
Some days ago I linked the first of Julia Ioffee's reaction to the Syria situation in which she painted Putin hoodwinking Obama. What?, I thought, that's not how we were seeing this at all, but I also thought perhaps we weren't seeing it as clearly as someone like Julia who is so well versed in everything Russian. Then yesterday I read a piece in the aforementioned NYRB by Amy Knight who is also well versed in everything Russian and has written quite a few books on the subject. Although her piece was apparently written before the actual Syria showdown she does give us a vivid picture of Putin as someone who feels the intense pressure from his people to change the system. His regime is reacting with harsh measures to the efforts of its critics by jailing protesters, instigating raids on nongovernmental organizations, etc. Putin, she says, appears to be trying to exploit elements of chauvinism and anti-Americanism among ordinary Russians so as to enhance his image. But he is losing ground and will be unable to stop the huge change in Russia's political atmosphere. In other words, this little man is trying hard to be the tough KBG guy he thinks he still is and believes he has the upper hand. If the Obama administration can cut a deal with the Russians by stroking Putin's puny penile needs, make him a savior of sorts, I'd like to think we are big enough to do that. Isn't that what diplomacy is all about sometimes?
Which brings me to Kate's post and her coining of "emotional intelligence" differing from "thinking intelligence." I think she has it exactly right. We have countless examples of this in our political history where really smart people made disastrous mistakes refusing to listen to those other smart people who could understand the situation in a deeper and more nuanced way.
I also agree with Kate's assessment of Clinton who I thought set an example in this vituperative age of showing little malice. It is hard to remember a single harsh word that he has uttered against his many enemies. I see him as a flawed human being but a reasonably good president who has risen to good standing among the Democratic party who use him well as the guy who "splains" things more clearly than anyone.
And one last thing: Ted Cruz––his adulation of Jesse Helms in a speech he gave yesterday is unbelievable. "We should have a hundred more here in Congress just like him" said Cruz. Now let's see what happens with this little gem.
Interesting point, Kate, about the different kinds of intelligence and their effects on behavior...and in a President on their behaviors' effectiveness.
Will say at the beginning that I've always (from Gardner's multiple intelligences onward) found the identification and assessment of various "intelligences" a bit squishy and remember having that sense confirmed when some years back Time magazine featured emotional intelligence on its cover as if the idea that different people had different abilities and proclivities had just been discovered. When Time magazine does psychology, I can't help but think it is reporting something faddish, not fundamental, but that may be my proclivity toward snobbishness (not necessarily a sign of emotional intelligence) whispering in my ear, as it often does.
That said, three other comments: Yes, Clinton had an ability to convey a personal charm that hit ten on the sincerity scale, unlike any other person I have ever met. I watched him do it and he did it to me. If that talent/ability/capacity derived from his store of what you mean by emotional intelligence, he had tons of it, but retrospect warns me that kind of ability carries its own freight of fright. Would hate to see it in a President so gifted, who is also given to abusing it outside of his or her personal life.
As for Stewart and Colbert, whom I know only through their TV personas, they do not strike me as scoring high on an emotional intelligence scale. Their undeniably bright humor, ironic and sarcastic as it is and as much as I enjoy it, does not I suspect speak to everyone. Irony and sarcasm place their practitioners outside events and their delivery from an implied superior position strongly suggests that those being lampooned don't get it because they're just too dumb. For this reason, sarcasm is always offensive to many and I cannot imagine either Stewart or Colbert running a successful political campaign, no matter how smart they are or how much they understand about the world and its complexities, if they were to speak to the masses in the tones they use on their shows.
Finally, I just finished a fine book on FDR, assembled from the writings and musings of Robert H. Jackson, a man who knew him well. Good book, BTW. In it Jackson specifically warns against the use of humor in politics; its dangers, he says, outweigh the possible benefits; humor is too likely to be misunderstood. FDR, of course, did not avoid humor entirely, but in his public utterances it was seldom acerbic and Jackson's reminiscences suggest that FDR was so at ease and sure of himself (unlike the obviously damaged Bush II and many on the Right) that he did not resort to anger or meanness even in his personal and professional relationships (the book does not mention his relationship with his wife, Eleanor).
Which all makes me think that what we mean by emotional intelligence may be no more or less than that displayed by someone with a sure sense of self who is not so sure about its own primacy that it crowds out an equally sure sense of others' desires and needs. A genuinely nice person, in other words, who heeds a clear moral compass and whose social or political purpose is to do what he or she can to make life better for everyone.
Don't know of any Presidents who had the whole package, but some, as you say, have a lot more of it than others. Bless them and the electorate when they have the intelligence--of whatever kind--to elect them.
All-
Thanks for your interesting "takes" on emotional intelligence. I obviously gave a rather hurried comment last night--did not say much of what I now wish I had. Unfortunately, I have a full "work" day today and will not be able to think about or write more. I hope this topic comes up again, so I can write a fuller, more thoughtful comment.
You are a very sharp bunch, and I enjoy our back and forths.
Kate
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/a-brilliant-mess/?_r=0
Tim Egan in the Gray Lady on Syria: How is Assad (1) Giving up his chemical weapons (2) Admitting to posess them (3) Signing the CW Ban a bad thing regardless of how it came about.? Events move too fast to plan everything in advance. Egan agrees that it's Putin who now has to put up or shut up.
Good take down of Summers by NJ's Hirsh. Should be required reading in the Oval. Summers is obviously a pig.
But going to the NJ was fraught with nostalgia. It's first ever cover story was about banning DDT. I wrote it.
@James Singer. And apparently academics are still finding your article useful after lo these many years. That's quite a testiment.
Marie
Wow! Thanks for the cite, Marie.
Wow! back to you, James Singer–––and thank you!!!!