National Review Online editor and political commentator Jonah Goldberg recently explored the apparent contrast between Senator Barack Obama, the now-presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and Senator John McCain, the still-presumptive Republican presidential nominee that will pit not only philosophical but experiential differences between these two parties as well as between these two men. His conclusion: “…Obama is locked into a position despite the facts on the ground (regarding the Iraqi war front). Obama may indeed have great (not ‘greater’) judgment, but his record shows little experience employing it.”
Can it be that the continuing presence in Iraq is going to be the sole issue in this presidential campaign while there are so many other issues the next president will have to confront? No doubt the Democrats gained a slim majority in the Congress from the 2006 mid-term elections based almost entirely on the war in Iraq (congressional ethics a distance second, it seems), but is the nation so war-fatigued that a single issue can define an entire presidential race? If this is so, Senator McCain’s experience, regardless of how it is measured, may get trumped by Senator Obama’s perceived judgment only because too many Americans are tired of it all. The question remains, however, whether judgment is a natural attribute that some are born with or if judgment is born of experience. After all, one cannot judge fire to be hot without having been burned or at least have felt the heat.
Benjamin Franklin is quoted as having once said: “Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other”, and Socrates seems to agree: “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” In other words, both seem to suggest that the only way we are ever going to gain the ability to make sound judgment calls is through experiences by which we have gained knowledge. None of this is to say that Obama lacks judgment in whatever it is that he has endured in his 46 years of life, but being a lawyer and a former state senator (and a very short-term US senator) does not equip one to deal with the issues that will face the next US president.
Since some have sought to draw parallels between Obama and JFK in charisma, charm, and relative youth, there have been suggestions during this campaign that the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war, was wrought as much by JFK’s relative inexperience in dealing with a leader like Khrushchev beforehand as by Soviet Cold War military strategy. Such speculation may be unfair without significant context, but it may also be a fair assessment and comparison in how Obama may choose to work and negotiate with Iran and Syria regarding world-wide terrorism if he is indeed serious about talking with either nation’s leaders without preconditions. It could be dangerous to enter into such discussions without a significant knowledge of history and the root causes of these conflicts, and it will be a huge miscalculation to assume that it is only “poverty”. It will be an especially dire mistake to presume that the centuries-old conflict only got “bad” during the Bush administration.
Still, who is to say that a fresh face and a willingness to try something new will not bring a new perspective? There is a lot to be said for learning from mistakes of the past, but it is unclear whether such comparisons to past conflicts can adequately inform the US within the context of the challenges we face today around the globe. There is a lot to be said for straight talk from an experienced warrior who can perhaps stare down a rogue state leader and not blink or stutter. With McCain’s experience, however, comes the knowledge of a man who has come close more than once to physical confrontations even within the Senate with those whom he has had serious disagreements with. This is a time for calm, measured, calculated responses borne from solid experience. It will not be a training ground for newbies, and it certainly cannot be a school yard brawl as when hot-headed kids lose their tempers and don’t what else to do besides lash out.
It seems that genuine experience breeds unshakable confidence and sound judgment, but judgment without contextual experience can breed arrogance or grave miscalculations. Either way, a serious and experienced adversary can and will isolate, expose, and exploit the inevitable weakness. If this is actually what happened between JFK and Khrushchev, then it can be reasonable to assume that Khrushchev backed down in Cuba as a reasonable, measured response. If a similar confrontation occurs under these contemporary circumstances with this enemy that seems willing to die for its cause no matter the total outcome, one can only guess what that outcome may be.
The reality is that we are a nation at war whether we like it or not. The “world community” has not lost respect for us. It is that they see the US now not only as a partner with Israel but also as the same potential adversary: if you hit us, we will hit you back. Somehow, the “world community” does not seem to understand this, and US citizens are coming into a new presidential contest wanting security without understanding that the US, nor Israel, can simply lay down arms and expect others to follow suit.
This enemy we now face will not simply go away nor is there a national entity with which to negotiate. Which will we choose to confront this reality: judgment without context or experience, or experience by which judgment can be made? It seems to me that the next decade, and perhaps beyond, will be determined by the choice we will make in November.
No comments:
Post a Comment