Peggy Noonan has a great read up on the Wall Street Journal. In it she expresses in slightly more artful terms, exactly what I was trying to express yesterday.
William Safire, himself a memoirist of the Nixon years, said to me, a future memoirist of the Reagan years: “The one thing history needs more of is first-person testimony.” History needs data, detail, portraits, information; it needs eyewitness. “I was there, this is what I saw.” History will sift through, consider and try in its own way to produce something approximating truth. …
[T]he purpose of the book is a serious one. Mr. McClellan attempts to reveal and expose what he believes, what he came to see as, an inherent dishonesty and hypocrisy within a hardened administration. It is a real denunciation. …
He scores President Bush’s “certitude” and “self-deceit” and asserts the decision to invade Iraq was tied to the president’s lust for legacy, need for boldness, and grandiose notions as to what is possible in the Mideast. He argues that Mr. Bush did not try to change the culture of the capital, that he “chose to play the Washington game the way he found it” and turned “away from candor and honesty.”
Mr. McClellan dwells on a point that all in government know, that day-to-day governance now is focused on media manipulation, with a particular eye to “political blogs, popular web sites, paid advertising, talk radio” and news media in general. In the age of the permanent campaign, government has become merely an offshoot of campaigning. All is perception and spin. This mentality can “cripple” an administration as, he says, it crippled the Clinton administration, with which he draws constant parallels. [emphasis mine]
This is exactly what I tried to say yesterday in my post here.
My point to Sam, and the point to my Twitter comment last night, was that Scott has written a book about the nastiness of politics in general and the notion of the permanent campaign specifically, that is right on the money. The excerpts I have read of the book make a very salient and very meaningful point – this town and the culture of constant political battle, do great harm to the process of actually governing.
It also echoes the point Jon Stewart made in his now classic appearance on the soon-after cancelled Crossfire.
It’s not so much that it’s bad… as it’s hurting America. So I wanted to come here to say… Here’s what I want to tell you guys… Stop. Stop hurting America and come work for us. It doesn’t pay well, but you can sleep at night.
A point made in humor, but one that speaks volumes about society. Our political system is fundamentally broken. When our idea of a serious debate over policy issues is two people on opposite sides of Chris Matthews’ table trying to shout over each other, is it any wonder that the people have lost faith in our institutions? When our elected officials – rather than actually leading – appear on O’Reilly or Matthews or Olbermann to dance like some trained monkey to the organ grinder’s tune, we must question the way we are led.
I fundamentally believe that McClellan’s book simply tries to make the point that this Washington mindset is damaging our nation. You can question his assertions about Rove or Libby, and you can argue he was not in the room during a particular meeting, but I don’t think anyone can question his larger message.
It’s a point we need to take seriously.
Yet when a Presidential candidate like Fred Thompson came out and refused to play the typical campaign game he was mocked for not having the “fire in the belly.” Serious, substantial ideas didn’t matter as much as how he sold them.
No one questions the larger message, Turk. It is what this entire election has been about for the past year (Washington is broken theme). It is what any of us who watch politics see. Who needed a book to tell us that?
I’m still suspicious of McClellan’s book for reasons I stated in an earlier post. And, I generally do not read “tell all” books of this nature. People can make their own mind up about any facts or proof McClellan outlines. And, maybe when Rove or Bush write their own books there can be balance.
There is also nothing wrong with factoring in McClellan’s motives or influences in writing this book (including publisher coaxing and Soros connections). It is part of an honest eveluation. When I first heard about Turk’s agreement with McClellan I looked up his biography, and read a history of articles on his blog to get a feel for his credibility (honest reflection or partisan game player). I judged Turk to be a centrist conservative with thoughtful posts and did not dismiss his judgement on McClellan for that reason. However, I’m suspicious of McClellan for the same reason.
I also do not think Bush went to war with Iraq for political gain. Nor do I think Congress authorized it for political gain. Nor do I think the Clinton Admininstration almost taking us to the brink of war with Iraq in 1998 was for political gain. How it was talked about and framed in discussions and debates, etc (by both parties) did have a political overtone, definately. I’m not sure how that could have been avoided. All it takes is for one attack, and the other would have to be defensive. Not sure what the best way to get around that would be.
I also don’t see any relief from the process unless we do away with political parties…..run as individuals….and have term limits. The only other process I see would be for Americans to just reject it. I see absolutely no signs of that happening. Sad.
Frogg –
I understand your point on pre-war intelligence being bad, and the long history with Iraq being a thorn in our ass, but what is continually left out of that discussion is the question Janet Jackson asked so pointedly – What have you done for me lately?
Every independent study indicated that our intelligence service failed us, but that there was no operational link between Iraq and those that attacked us. There were casual connections but there was little to suggest that they were in cahoots with al qaeda the way the Taliban was.
Iraq was a convenient target. I firmly believe the Bush administration was looking for another quick win on its way to realigning the Middle East (which would have been fine with most people in 2003). Afghanistan was a walk in the park. Iraq was a pushover in 1991, so they figured a further weakened nation would be no challenge at all.
The thing they never counted on was this little pissant country would become such a headache. it distracted us from finishing the job in Afghanistan (which is largely ignored anymore, despite the fact that the bad guys are still hiding there).
I’m not one of those who claims I saw the writing on the wall in 2003. I don’t claim that I was really opposed to it. There are more than a few people that were counted in those 60% support numbers that now claim they weren’t. I’m not one of those.
What I am is a guy who realizes now that this was a colossal blunder and terribly mismanaged. When most of the country knew that, Rumsfeld still had a job. When most of the country knew that, the Administration was still claiming that things were going great.
What I, and others, wanted to see was an administration that was willing to recognize that things were not all roses and sunshine over there. What we got instead was a “permanent campaign” mentality that refused to admit error and instead made mistake after mistake, pouring tens of billions into a botched policy rather than admitting the original miscue.