Friday, August 26, 2011

Cheney's Legacy

Yesterday morning (while sitting at LAX waiting for a flight) I posted in Politico's Arena on the question: Will memoir improve Dick Cheney's image?



I haven't seen the memoir yet, just the excerpts discussed in The New York Times, but that doesn't stop a pundit for punditing...



Seriously, as a student of the vice presidency, I had to jump on this one. But, rather then comment on the specifics, I tried to place the memoir in historical perspective and relate it to the evolution of the office. My response was:
It is difficult to imagine Cheney's memoirs changing many minds in the short-term. He is a polarizing figure who is loved (occasionally) and hated (quite often.) In the long-run it is difficult to say what his legacy will be. Hopefully, the seeds of a new Middle East are emerging - but the region has an infinite ability to disappoint.



A fascinating aspect to this is the relevance of the vice presidential memoir. Long considered historical footnotes, vice presidential memoirs were minor niche publications. Calvin Coolidge's VP Charles Dawes kept a diary which is available online. Dawes was, prior to the vice presidency, an enormously accomplished man (Nobel laureate, best-selling song-writer, WWI general, and founder of the Budget Office). His memoirs only confirm the office as a constitutional appendix (Arthur Schlesinger's term.)



Nixon's memoir of his vice presidency, Six Crises, kept him in the public eye and helped propel him to the presidency. Still, the attention paid to Cheney's memoirs shows how the office has emerged as a major power center within administrations.



Additionally, since obtaining influence (in the Carter-Mondale administration) vice presidents have been very cautious about getting involved in the public aspects of policy fights. Cheney broke from this tradition as well and his writing a score-settling memoir - while understandable - indicates the vice presidency is evolving into just another presidential advisor.
Some additional notes, the figure of Charles Dawes is fascinating. His accomplishments were legion and his public service continued after the vice presidency. His diary of that period, perhaps the least accomplished in his incredible life emphasizes what a backwater the vice presidency was.



Part of this was self-inflicted, Dawes feuded with Coolidge. He refused to attend cabinet meetings and mismanaged the Presidents affairs at the Senate). He also attempted to actually run the Senate, and lectured Senators on the need to reform antiquated procedures. Students of Senate history will not be surprised to learn that this went poorly.

Still, Dawes was one of the most active, well-known, and popular vice presidents until recently. He was an active campaigner for Coolidge in 1924.



Dawes had some similarities to Cheney. He made a fortune in business (although Dawes did this before his public service) and like Cheney had held several key executive positions. Unlike Cheney, Dawes' first elected office was the vice presidency, whereas Cheney served in the House. But, unlike Cheney, Dawes eschewed any executive responsibility as VP. His refusal to attend cabinet meetings is particularly interesting. Coolidge had attended Harding cabinet meetings as VP and this was considered an enormous advancement in the vice president's status. But Dawes told Coolidge that he was happy to give the president advice and would personally like to attend the meetings, but felt it was a dangerous precedent. The cabinet consisted of the President's confidants, and it was possible that a future vice president who was not loyal to the president would betray this confidence.



It was also Dawes who, as Budget chief called the cabinet the president's natural enemy, because each department head was effectively a vice president of spending.



Much to think about there.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Aaron Mannes in Politico on Obama's Libya Mission

Your faithful blogger has been busy and is currently on vacation in LA, but I did find time to craft a reply to the Politico Arena query of the day as to whether or not events in Tripoli vindicated Obama's approach to the crisis. I wrote:
Qadhafi's relatively quick collapse is a political blessing for President Obama. He allowed himself to be backed into a commitment to support Qadhafi's ouster by the Europeans (one day the Libyan intervention will be a case study on incrementalism.) Given that scenario the intervention has gone about as well as could be expected - so far. How events in Libya will develop, what kind of regime will emerge, and whether a humanitarian crisis will result are all open questions.

Barring disaster on these fronts, Obama will be able to portray this is a foreign policy success. But looking deeper, this affair is a disturbing reminder of how - as little as we would like to believe it - presidents are driven by events.
I wrote this quickly (and before I had coffee) but realistically what were the President's options. A President McCain might have voice more active support, but American resources are limited. A bit more bombing would not have made up for the initial military failings of the rebels. A more isolationist President might have tried to avoid involvement, but placing the US on the side of a particularly vicious Arab dictator would have opened the President to enormous criticism. Failure to support NATO allies (particularly considering their contributions in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere - not as much as we'd like perhaps - but substantial all the same) would also have been untenable.

Finally, events on the ground matter. That the people of Libya were willing to rise up against Qadhafi is the historic achievement. Same in Egypt and Syria, without that aiding the overthrow of dictators by means short of invasion is a Sisyphean endeavor. Two quotes from British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan come to mind:
No Middle East leader is so bad that his successor can't be worse.

When asked about the greatest challenge facing statemen he replied:
Events, my dear boy, events.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

VP Brainstorms

This is what I've been doing today.


I don't know if it gets me any closer to my proposal, but I like using different colored markers.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Friday, July 1, 2011

An American Celebrates Canada Day

Like many USArs I like joking at the expense of Canada. But they are just jokes. On Canada Day, it is well worth celebrating a great country, and the U.S. is lucky to have such a great neighbor!

Canada is a great country. First, this blogger has a certain bias towards liberal democracies that do not systematically oppress their citizens. Such has been all to uncommon in human history and the survival and prosperity of this system (the least bad) should be celebrated wherever it occurs and not taken for granted.

But, Canada has the very mixed blessing of bordering the United States. It is a blessing, the power and prosperity of the U.S. has brought innumerable material benefits to Canada (Canada has also brought plenty of material benefits to the USA). At the same time, the U.S. is an overbearing super-power, but as overbearing super-powers go it at least tries not to be too pushy. It is easy to criticize the US, but considering the power differential between the US-Canada, which is probably comparable to say the Soviet Union and Poland or Syria and Lebanon, the Canada's relative freedom from U.S. political influence is actually remarkable.

But countries need a certain sense of greatness or uniqueness to thrive. Even small nations develop a narrative that points to their special place in the world. For Canada this is a challenge. Australia gets to play great power (at least modestly) in East Asia. But Canada, which has a larger economy, territory, and population cannot do so overshadowed by its enormous neighbor. Nonetheless, Canada has played a role on the world stage, that the role is modest does not mean it is insignificant. Canadian troops are doing real fighting in Afghanistan. One of the Canadians celebrated at the opening of the Winter Games in Vancouver was Canadian Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire who strove mightily (if unsuccessfully) as UN forces commander in Rwanda to prevent genocide.

Historically too, Canadians bled in the trenches of World War I and were fighting in World War II before the Americans joined in. Canadian troops landed at Normandy and liberated a corridor of towns and cities across France and the Benelux countries. (The picture is the monument to Canadian soldiers who liberated Antwerp.) There was a particular Canadian contribution to D-Day, the failed raid on the port city of Dieppe in August 1942. Churchill initiated and ordered a poorly conceived raid in which over 3000 (mostly Canadian) soldiers were killed and nothing was accomplished. The raid caused resentment in Canada which felt its soldiers lives had been tossed away. Yet, the failure led to improved amphibious assault strategies and tactics by the Allies and German over-confidence that the allies would not try such an assault again.

Canada also shares much of its culture with the United States, further confounding their quest for national identity. But two of my favorite novelists, Robertson Davies (who wrestles with the question of developing a Canadian culture) and W.P. Kinsella, who's book Shoeless Joe Comes to Iowa became the movie Field of Dreams were Canadian. And my knowledge of arts and literature is not deep.

Aristotle writes that in a true friendship, anything that benefits one friend benefits the other. In that spirit, "Go Canada!"

Saturday, June 25, 2011

NY Times reports Biden wins Iraq

The New York Times reports that the drawdown in Afghanistan shows Biden's increased influence in the White House, it also mentions that Biden is a fierce advocate for the President's priorities (as though the VP has any choice).

Biden's influence is not news, there were some stronger bits of evidence, for example the Vice President's schedule which in a typical week shows numerous high-level meetings both with the President and key officials or, perhaps most significantly, the West Wing floor plan.

I still think what is striking about the policy process around Afghanistan is the way Biden played a public "devil's advocate" role when the traditional VP role has been to exercise influence quietly.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Friday, June 24, 2011

In Politico on Withdrawing from Afghanistan

The Politico Arena ran my response to the question: Can Obama Split the Difference on Afghanistan?:
is a classic, multi-level decision in which the president must mollify multiple constituencies. Afghanistan hawks will be frustrated with the withdrawal, which threatens their fragile gains - but if they complain too loudly they call attention to the reality that if Afghanistan is so fragile then perhaps their mission is hopeless.

The anti-war faction of the president's own party will not be happy, but are they unhappy enough to undercut Obama and risk losing control of the White House (particularly with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives)?

According to Stephen Skowronek's classic "presidential time" Obama is a president practicing the politics of pre-emption. Clinton and his triangulation tactics was the archetype of this sort of presidency. Obama, despite his many stylistic differences with his democratic predecessor is substantively similar. Splitting the difference is standard operating procedure and in general it works pretty well.

One question that must be asked is, "What of Afghanistan?"

By serving as the rock on which the Soviet Union foundered the Afghanis did a favor for all of mankind. For all of the monstrousness of al-Qaeda and its radical Islamic ilk, they are nothing compared to the evil of the Soviet Union. But the Afghanis didn't ask for this place in history and have suffered terribly for it. Are they owed something for this?
Expanding on my remarks, I don't know what the right policy for Afghanistan should be. The cost of this war is draining, and it is not clear how our large presence in Afghanistan is helping Pakistan which is a potential nightmare on an unimaginable scale. Could we scale down to a smaller presence which allows a reasonably well-behaved government and Kabul while also allowing us to smack-down concentrations of terrorists? Perhaps.

I cannot surrender the moral question of, "What about the Afghanis?"

Yes, it is a tough place to nation build, but starting with a tough, isolated location, the tender ministrations of the Soviets for over a decade and then the Taliban - little wonder. A social worker friend observed that families of is clients are often frustrated when he can't resolve problems with a few weeks of therapy. "But," he tries to explain, "it took years to develop the problem."

Also, take a look at Arena newcomer, but old hand at international affairs, Ilan Berman's analysis, which argues that a withdrawal will devastate what remains of US credibility with both allies and adversaries.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:In Politico on withdrawing from Afghanistan

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Gore: Another Edition of VP vs ex-VP

Answering the Politico Arenaquestion Does Al Gore have a legitimate gripe with Obama? I wrote:
Al Gore is completely right and completely wrong at the same time. He is right that environmental issues have taken a back seat in the Obama administration. With multiple shooting wars, an economy in a continuing state of free-fall, and a hostile House little wonder that Obama is not devoting his time to the issue.

Ironically, Gore was an extremely influential VP in his day. His personal relationship with President Clinton was critical, but so was Gore's knowing which battles to fight. In the Clinton administration economic issues were front and center, everything else was secondary. As VP Gore did not push environmental issues when the president wasn't interested. As an elder statesman Gore is not constrained by political realities.

VP influence has relied on making sure there was limited public space between the views of our government's two principles. The VP has no bureaucratic power base of his own and Presidents don't need freelancers in the White House. But as an ex-VP, the only influence comes from reaching out to the public. One thing that is fascinating as that anyone cares what an ex-VP says. Throttlebottom would be amazed.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad