Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

Just to get us

Just to get us started on the North Korea question, here's an apt interchange in an interview which CNN's Miles O'Brien did with Newsweek's foreign affairs correspondent Roy Gutman on Monday ...

O'BRIEN: All right, some softening statements from the administration over the weekend. Secretary of State Powell saying, we don't want to call these negotiations, but talks. There's a lot of deciphering of the language here and maybe you can help us walk down that road. Why are they so circumspect?

GUTMAN: Well, the administration has had a very hard line approach to North Korea almost from the moment it took office. It decided not to pursue the Clinton administration's approach, which was essentially to buy off North Korea off of its nuclear ambitions, off of its missile export ambitions, and for months and months, until the middle of last year, they could not decide really how to deal with them, but they're preparing to take a hardline, then they decided late last year or the middle of last year to go back to some kind of negotiations, but it never really got started until this summer.

And I think the North Koreans realized or decided at a certain point that after they were included in the "axis of evil" and after the administration did drag its feet for a rather long time, that they were going to up the stakes and raise the ante, and now the administration finds itself in something of a crisis.

O'BRIEN: All right, but there's another shift to consider here, and that is that under the Clinton administration, it was basically an article of faith that if the North Koreans resumed processing of plutonium at that facility, that's prima facieia evidence to begin some sort of military strike against it. The administration now saying that is not the policy. When did that shift occur?

GUTMAN: I guess the shift occurred over the weekend. They realized, frankly, that their policy at the moment, which is don't talk to the North Koreans' at all, and that is the North Korean's number one aim, was not working and would probably lead to some kind of a direct confrontation which would involve invoking, or might involve invoking the Clinton administration's informal policy towards the north. That really leads directly to nuclear -- it could lead to nuclear war, but certainly to some kind of a conventional war. They thought it was getting out of control.

O'BRIEN: Is this a tacit admission by the administration for all its might, the U.S. military can't do much on the Korean peninsula?

GUTMAN: It's a tough situation, because in terms of conventional sources, the north has enough force mustered and enough artillery aimed at the south that it can cause havoc and enormous bloodshed in a very short time. So in a sense, they've got a club on our head.

Secondly, you know, the U.S. does have about 40, 000 troops there, but they're a kind of a trip wire. It can be the wrong kind of trip wire. They can be, in a sense, hostage. The options are not -- there are not a lot of good options.

O'BRIEN: Is it time, given the feelings in South Korea in particular, to begin pulling the troops out, and thus eliminate that hostage scenario, as you put it?

GUTMAN: Well, it might send precisely the wrong signal, namely that when the pressure gets turned up, the U.S. pulls its forces out.

No, I think quite how we're going to get out of this crisis I'm not sure, but I think it's going to involve some kind of talks with the North Koreans and probably some kind of a return to policies similar to what was there in the Clinton administration.

O'BRIEN: So you see it easing in the near term.

GUTMAN: No, not in the near term, because I think the administration is still following a course which is to isolate the north, to put economic sanctions on, and to reduce the conversation with them, rather than to increase it. So I don't see that -- in fact, for the next few weeks, this could be a very tense time.

More to come on this soon ...

Theres been a lot

There's been a lot of talk in the last several days about whether North Korea is a bigger threat than Iraq, whether there's an inconsistency between the policies the administration is pursuing with regard to each, and so forth.

These questions ignore the big issue, one that's being inexcusably ignored in the American press.

This entire crisis -- and it's foolish to pretend it's not a crisis -- is an administration screw-up of mammoth proportions. The administration is trying to portray this as just another crisis that happened on their watch. But that woefully understates its own responsibility for the situation we're now in. Here's how our friend Chris Nelson put it today in an email ...

[I] Will wait until next week and look at whether he's succeeded in finally climbing out of the hole Bush and the hardliners dug for US policy back in March, '01, when they dissed DJ and nixed any talks, thus enshrining the neurotic nonsense that negotiation equals appeasement.

For now, my analogy is that you can't blame the cop for trying to bust the bad guy...NK definitely is the bad guy...but you for sure can blame the cop if he blows the arrest and it gets violent. Ruby Ridge? Waco? Will Pyongyang someday find itself on that list...with obviously more consequence?

The same inimitable style -- and I think he's got it about right.

There are two points to focus on here. One is that the situation we're now in isn't so much a matter of an over-focus on Iraq, or even the pursuit of too belligerent a policy. It's really the product of the administration's inability over the course of two years to figure out what its policy on North Korea was. It's flip-flopped back and forth between Powell's policy of engagement (which was essentially a continuation of the Clinton policy) and the hawks' policy of confrontation. In so doing it's let the whole thing spin out of control.

Point two: One of the most important rules of foreign policy is not to let yourself get pushed around. An even more important rule, though, is not to make threats or issue ultimatums that you either can't or won't follow through on. That not only makes you look weak. It also makes you into an object of contempt. That's just what the administration has done in this case.

The White House called the Clinton policy craven and dishonorable. That policy was essentially to pay the North Koreans to behave and hope that in the medium-term a better solution -- perhaps a soft landing in the North -- would arise. Not pretty certainly, but it was a difficult situation.

The Bushies told the North Koreans that they either had to shape up or we'd take them out. Now the North Koreans have called our bluff. And the administration -- as signalled by Powell's comments over the weekend -- has caved, enunciating a policy which is now substantially more dovish than the Clinton policy.

Tough talk sounds great until your opponent calls your bluff and everybody sees there's nothing behind the trash talk. Then you look foolish. That's where we are right now with North Korea. As Nelson says, no doubt the NKs are the bad guys. And this is an extremely complex problem with no easy solutions. But the Bush administration has pursued a keystone cops policy on the Korean Peninsula for two years now, mixing think-tank braggadocio with feckless inconstancy. Now we're all going to pay the price.

They shouldn't get a pass on this.

More details soon.

Schroeder in Germany Lula

"Schroeder in Germany, Lula in Brazil, now Roh's victory in S. Korea…latest 'wake-up call' to U.S., but not clear what's being heard." So read the headline summary little more than a week ago in the Nelson Report, the news and gossip sheet of choice for DC's Asia policy hands and trade policy mavens. (Yes, such a thing actually exists and it's an extremely entertaining and informative read.)

In his inimitable style, Chris Nelson was pointing to an increasingly clear trend which has yet to garner much notice in the mainstream press: the growing number of elections around the globe in which the winning candidates ran on some variant of anti-Americanism.

Each of the cases Nelson noted have deep local determinants. Germany has a deep-seated -- and quite welcome, thank you -- anti-militarist tradition dating back to the de-nazification period. And Schroeder cleverly played to this sentiment in pulling out a devilishly thin margin of victory. Brazil -- like most of Latin America -- is in a deep economic crisis. And it only makes sense that as the boom years of the 1990s were tied to the free-trade and open currency market mantras coming from Washington that much of the bust would be credited -- rightly or wrongly -- to America too.

The Roh victory in South Korea (ROK) is perhaps the most sobering, as Roh is the first Korean head of state since the partition to be elected on a platform which called into question key aspects of the US-ROK security alliance, which has been a linchpin of America's position in East Asia for half a century. An Asia hand TPM spoke to said Roh had gotten elected "by playing the Schroeder card." There too there was a recent incident of American soldiers acquitted for criminal acts against South Korean civilians.

So, yes, in each case, the roots of the election result were multi-causal. But add these and other election results up and you start to see that hostile reactions to America's newly strident and confrontational stance in the world are becoming an important force in world politics and an important force in the domestic politics of many of our allies.

Think of it this way: when was the last time one of our friends -- or someone friendly, rather than unfriendly, to our current policies -- won an election in a major country around the world?

Does this matter? Is it our fault? These are difficult questions to answer, certainly. It would be wrong to say or assume that just because people don't like what we're doing that we shouldn't be doing it. What's more, much of this is clearly in response to our policy toward Iraq. And as I concluded -- quite to my own surprise -- last June, I think military action against Iraq probably is necessary -- if it is done in the right way.

The point here, I think, is in that last clause. If it is done in the right way. Much of what we've done in the last eighteen months since 9/11 has been absolutely necessary. The question is how we've gone about it. And I think the election results noted above are some of the first signs that there are costs to how we've gone about it, for the petulant unilateralism, the mania to tear up every global treaty which might possibly constrain us in any way.

Think how much time and diplomatic capital might have been saved if the White House had figured out three, or six, or even nine months earlier that it's guns-blazing-screw-the-UN policy toward regime change just wouldn't work.

The standard answer to this on the pacifist left would be to say that clearly we're doing something wrong if everybody's getting so pissed at us. On the right, you'd have another knee-jerk response about blame-America-First, appeasement and various and sundry other yadas. But clearly there should be some thoughtful middle-ground. It's one thing to be a hawk and have your hawkishness rooted in a cold-eyed realism and a willingness to use force, quite another to have it stem from emotional impulses arising from the fact that you grew up as a pencil neck and constantly had your lunch money stolen from you by the cool kids.

I can't give you the precise lunch money victimization statistics for various civilian political appointees at the Pentagon, for staffers in the Office of the Vice-President, Richard Perle or even Frank Gaffney. But I suspect most folks who are familiar with these guys will know what I'm getting at. This isn't about blaming America first. It's about making sure America is as smart as she can be in her own interests, about managing the realities of the unipolar world system in ways that most benefit our long-term interests rather than simply doing what we can force through in the near-term. What we're learning is that there's a price you pay for telling everyone else in the world they can #$%& themselves and trying to govern the globe by sporadic applications of blunt force.

Flip open your average

Flip open your average conservative magazine or website this week and you'll read the a slew of articles arguing that the Democratic party is today the real party of race politics. The GOP is clean on the issue, the argument goes, with the notable and now dealt-with exception of Trent Lott. (Call this the conservative commentariat's mopping-up operation after Lott's defenestration.)

We'll be saying more about the particular fooleries, dishonesties and tendentiousness involved in these arguments. But for the moment, let's note a broader assumption that underlies almost all of them. That is the premise that there is a basic equality between appeals to racism and charges of racism. It's a equation which is as morally vacant as it is logically flawed.

Of course, when Republicans play race politics conservatives seldom even concede that that's what's being done. But for the sake of argument let's assume more conservatives were candid enough to admit that George Bush's visit to Bob Jones University was a play to race politics. That would be playing the race card. And Democrats calling him on it would also be playing the race card.

This doesn't mean that Democrats can do no wrong on race or that they can't on sometimes egregiously step over the line. (Stephen F. Hayes has an example of Jesse Jackson doing this, in a new article in the Weekly Standard which, I'm sorry to say, wholly buys into the equation above.) They can. And false or overstated charges of racism are wrong and damaging. But calling people on their bias, their playing to racist sentiment, or their indifference to the consequences of racism isn't 'playing the race card.' If it is, then the phrase is meaningless.

For conservatives who have a hard time grasping the difference, try the HRASST, the Honest Republican's Anti-Semitism Substitution Test. If a certain politician makes an anti-semitic statement or appeals to an anti-semitic constituency and then the ADL calls them on it, are both sides playing the anti-semitism card? Of course, not. Only the foolish and the immoral would say so.

Or as long as we're taking the HRASST topic out for a spin, if a given politician gives an interview to a magazine known to espouse anti-semitic views, is that okay? Is it a sufficient answer to say that you don't happen to agree with their anti-semitism but you give interviews to a lot of magazines? I doubt that would cut it.

Try the HRASST out. It's great at cutting through a lot of malarkey.

I want to get

I want to get into some other questions on the race issue. But first, Mickey Kaus.

I've been watching Kaus's posts on the Frist matter pile up. And to me it looks like another distressing case of Mickey's BOBL -- bend-over-backwards-liberalism, the curious but telling desire on the part of the afflicted to turn over every stone and spare no effort to find excuses for or rationalize the behavior of the right. One can certainly find better examples of it in recent weeks. But this one definitely fits the symptomatology.

The question with Frist is not whether excuse-making conservatives and Mickey can retroactively shoehorn his comments back into respectability by bringing up the fact, as he does today, that Barry was himself born, raised and educated in Memphis, Tennessee. Not even the fact that his then-opponent Jim Sasser sat on a subcommittee charged with overseeing the District.

The best evidence here is Frist's own defense of his use of Barry at the time. When Sam Donaldson asked him what Barry had to do with a Senate campaign in Tennessee, Frist said: "Not very much, but Marion Barry symbolizes a lot about what people think about politics today."

Mickey's retroactive excuses had never even occurred to Frist. Or if they had, he knew they wouldn't pass the laugh test under actual questioning. The essence of Mickey's argument, as I myself argued earlier, is that a politician can't be barred from bringing up a legitimate political issue relating to a black politician simply because that reference might also be interpreted as having a racial overtone.

As I said earlier, this matter of Frist and Barry is very much a close-run thing. But Frist couldn't even seem to come up with what his legitimate political issue was. And that brings me back to the common sense understanding of Frist's use of Barry, which is that he was an uppity-you-know-what who got videotaped in a hotel room smoking crack. That doesn't mean Frist is a racist. I doubt he is. It just makes him cynical and willing to use race, albeit subtly, when convenient.

Barry proved a convenient way to marry together a legitimate, if extremely obscure, issue of the subsidy the federal government rightly pays the District of Columbia -- bear in mind that Tennessee is one of those states that receives back more in programs and subsidies than it sends to the federal government in taxes -- and an appeal to unflattering views of blacks.

One of Mickey's great claims to fame was forcing Democrats to stop their excuse making for one of their favored constituencies and start getting them to confront their problems. Now Mickey has a favored constituency of his own. And they could use the same sort of help.

Mickey Kaus takes issue

Mickey Kaus takes issue with my post questioning Bill Frist's use of Marion Barry in his 1994 campaign stump speech, and says: "Does Marshall know that in the early '90s Sasser [Frist's opponent] was chair of the Senate subcommittee in charge of the District of Columbia -- at a time when Congress exercised considerable control over the District's budget (and when federal taxpayers picked up the tab for a large chunk of that budget)?"

To this I would say, yes, I know that. But does Mickey remember that Sharon Pratt Kelly won election as Mayor of Washington, D.C. in November 1990 and didn't leave office until early 1995 -- a couple months after Frist won election.

(Click here for more details.)

Barry was mayor of DC from 1978 to 1990 and then again from 1994 to 1998. In other words, the four years prior to Frist's campaign were the only four years out of twenty when Barry wasn't mayor of DC.

Its a whitewash I

It's a whitewash, I tell you!!! Well, no, really, it really is. It seems after North Carolina Congressman Cass Ballenger got in trouble for describing his "segregationist feelings" (why does this remind me of Jimmy Carter's 1970s admission to Playboy that he'd lusted in his heart?) he knew the scrutiny was going to get punched up a few notches. So on Friday he had the black lawn jockey in his front yard repainted white. “It was painted with the knowledge that he was attacked in the past for it, and it was likely to come up again,” Dan Gurley, Ballenger's chief of staff, told the Hickory Daily Record.

Does Bill Frist have

Does Bill Frist have issues? No, not some comment he made on the hustings back in 1994. Not anything to do with his positions on abortion. Let's get to where the real action is: the online CV. Check out how long this thing is!!! Do we need to know about the "William Martin Award for best all around boy in the school, Montgomery Bell Academy, Nashville, Tennessee" from 1970? Or how about "United States House of Representatives, Intern, Congressman Joe L. Evins, Tennessee (1972)"? What's up with this guy? Okay, okay, you've done a lotta stuff. Sheesh!

With Jesse Helms and

With Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond signing off the Senate airwaves in a few weeks, Democrats will look in vain for many more Senate Republicans who have the same good-ole-down-home racial philosophies as Trent Lott. But there's at least one out there who fits the bill pretty nicely. And I've been wondering when someone would turn their attention to him. Now someone has. Don't miss Sarah Wildman's new article on the gentleman from Alabama: Jeff Sessions.

In recent days Ive

In recent days I've gotten a slew of emails asking, or accusing me of saying that the Republican party's a racist party. Or accusing me of saying that the only reason Republicans control the South is because of racial politics. And there have been a bunch of other similarly structured charges or questions, all of which muddy or confuse the question by framing it in ... well -- what else can you call it? -- black and white terms.

Like the Democratic party, the Republican party is far from a monolith. There are neo-conservatives, social-issue conservatives spread around the country, money-Republicans, libertarians. Some of these groups have views on racial matters which liberals or Democrat don't like. But they're all different in kind from the latter-day Dixiecrat wing of the party which is so potent in much of the South.

The closest analogue I can think of is to the Democratic party in the early and middle 20th century and their dominance of many of the corrupt party machines in the big cities of the North and Midwest.

A few readers have told me that my thinking on this is all wet because racism or racialist thinking just isn't part of conservative 'thought'. But whether this is true or not is irrelevant. This is about getting votes, not 'thought'. Ballot-box-stuffing wasn't part of Democratic 'thought' either in, say, the thirties. Many Dems found it abhorent. And most didn't practice it. But the party as whole benefited from it when it happened in Chicago because it kept Democratic congressmen or senators in Washington. (Needless to say, Republicans controlled corrupt machines too; just not as many. And election fraud never had anywhere the impact of the Republican absorption of Southern Dixiecrats.)

So just as we might say with the Democrats of 70 or 80 years ago, the issue isn't one of 'thought' or whether the whole party is 'corrupt' or 'racist'. These are false questions, either imprecisely posed or meant to obfuscate.

The question is whether the party as a whole benefits from the use of racism or race-tinged wedge issues in certain parts of the country and whether the party as a whole makes any efforts to say such behavior won't stand. In the case of Republicans and race the answer to the first question is clearly 'yes' and the answer to the second question is 'not nearly enough'.

The Democrats of course used to have this problem. For several decades of the last century they were the party of both the most liberal Northerners and the most reactionary Southerners -- liberal and reactionary on the issue of race in particular. Eventually, the strain just became too great. And Democrats outside the South began pushing for the national party to take a stronger stand on civil rights. That led -- among other things -- to the 1948 Dixiecrat break-away led by Strom Thurmond -- something you have heard of recently.

In any case, the latter-day Dixiecrats are an important part of the Republican party. Though many Republicans are repelled by its frequent appeals to race-politics, the party as a whole nonetheless benefits from it. So they have to take responsibility for it, even though Trent Lott-types have little to do with Wall Street Republicans or neo-conservative intellectuals. Republicans can't be the party of black opportunity and anti-black resentment no matter how big the tent. The Democrats tried it; it didn't work.

Now another point.

Earlier today I posted a line from Bill Frist's 1994 stump speech in which he said. "[Jim Sasser is] sending Tennessee money to Washington, to Marion Barry ... While I've been transplanting lungs and hearts to heal Tennesseans, Jim Sasser has been transplanting Tennesseans' wallets to Washington, home of Marion Barry."

Now I gave a lot of thought to whether I should post that or not. Marion Barry, as I said in the post, was a rotten mayor. Corrupt, drug-using, the list goes on and on. And one can't get into a situation where one can never criticize a black politician for fear of being tarred as using a racial code word. But look at the line and tell me what on earth this had to do with a Senate race in Tennessee. I think the answer is obvious: nothing.

Now, I don't think Bill Frist is a racist. Nor do I hope or expect he'll end up like Trent Lott. One reader -- flopping around like a fish-out-of-water making the case for Frist -- sent me this link about how Frist goes to Sudan to operate on African children. So how could he hate black people? How could he be a racist?

This misses the point. I doubt Frist is a racist. But this almost makes the point more clearly. Even some of best Southern Republicans seem incapable of resisting the temptation to dabble in racial code words and appeals on the stump. (In Frist's case, perhaps it was a rather notorious campaign consultant who worked for him that year and has a rep for such ugly tactics.)

I think the Bush family is a very similar case. I don't think this President Bush or the last one were racist in any way. Nor do I think either of them liked dabbling in racial politics. But in a pinch, when the chips were really down, both have been willing to do so. For this President Bush you need look no further than the South Carolina primary fight in February 2000.

The issue here isn't what's in your heart or what your party's 'thought' is. It's what you're willing to profit from, where you're willing to draw the line, what you do and don't look at and say 'I'm not going to put up with that in my party.'

On that count, the GOP falls really short.

Neo-conservative Republicans are very different from Dixiecrat Republicans. So why won't they stand up to them more often? Maybe they should try ...

TPMLivewire