Colin Powell’s endorsing of Obama is significant in that he is the highest ranking Republican to support Obama in this presidential election. Powell is high-profile with respect to not only the White House but also the military. A popular Secretary of State in the eyes of the people, Powell clashed often with other members of Bush’s cabinet during his first term, more so than ordinary citizens knew until his public falling out with the rest of the cabinet near the beginning of Bush’s second term. The falling out was made all the more ironic because Powell is seen to differ from the neoconservatives who populated Bush’s cabinet (Rumsfeld and Cheney to name a few prominent examples), yet one of the sharpest moments in Powell’s legacy is his speech before the UN attesting to the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in an effort to convince the international community of the need for military action against Saddam Hussein. This memory is a tarnishing mark upon the record of such a distinguished individual, and the irony lies in the strong possibility that Powell was pushed to make his impassioned case for war based on the opinions of more hard-lined neoconservatives in the cabinet, who held wider influence and were more adept than Powell at political manipulation and “playing the game.”
Indeed, Powell’s falling out with the neoconservatives highlights an important difference between the neoconservatives and moderate conservatives. Powell is noted for some “liberal” positions (compared to the positions that hard-liner conservatives take), for example regarding abortion and gun control. He also disagrees with the way the Iraq War was waged and initially attempted to persuade the President not to invade Iraq. Based on these deviations from what can be seen as “standard” positions of conservatives, Powell might even fit the description of a RINO, a disparaging term used by Republicans to deride fellow liberal-leaning members of the GOP as “Republican in Name Only.”
It seems, as a result, that Powell and McCain have something in common, as McCain was often labeled as not a true Republican before receiving the 2008 nomination; he has always been seen as a maverick who has opposed party lines on issues, which is why he received so much support in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Although one may accuse McCain of bowing to pressure based on his newfound support for off-shore drilling and support for the Bush tax cuts, one should not mistake the positions he take that happen to be in accord with Bush’s as positions he takes because they are in accord with Bush’s. Sure, McCain might be trying to appeal to core party supporters in terms of extending the tax cuts, but he was also trying to appeal to core party supporters (albeit really core party supporters) when he was adamantly in support of the surge in Iraq, but no one can deny that supporting the surge was a mark of a maverick. Being a maverick does not necessarily always mean opposing one’s party; it can also mean opposing the overall popular sentiment of the time—in this case, the overall popular sentiment of the American people against the surge. Regardless, McCain has still done more in terms of bucking party lines; refer to his unpopularity and the scathing attacks directed at him for his sponsorship of campaign finance reform, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold Act (2002). McCain, in fact, has been just as much of a political maverick as Powell that, in the past, McCain has been labeled a RINO by a variety of right-leaning blogs and discussion boards (see this and this, for example).
Now examine the reasons for Powell’s support for Obama. Powell’s comments include, among others, that:
-Obama “reach[es] out in a ‘more diverse and inclusive way across our society’ and offer[s] a ‘calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach’ to the nation’s problems.” (New York Times)
-McCain’s ads have become too negative and “beyond just good political fighting back and forth” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
-“As gifted as he is, [McCain] is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it.” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
The third comment can reflect rather negatively on Powell himself by painting him as a hypocrite. Given that mavericks fight for the ideals in which they believe, regardless of whoever else holds those ideals, Powell is accusing McCain of the ability to execute the ideals in which McCain believes, ideals (for example, fighting the war in Iraq) which happen to coincide with that of the Republican agenda. It is clear that Powell himself disagrees with this agenda. But why then, did he help execute the Republican agenda when he was Secretary of State under Bush, given that he, unlike McCain, did not actually believe in those ideals of going to war in Iraq? First, Powell explicitly praises McCain’s competency by saying McCain would “be quite good” at what he wants to do. Then, Powell implicitly praises McCain by admitting that regardless of whether McCain’s goals are right or wrong, at least McCain believes he is doing the right thing – that’s why McCain is a maverick. Finally, Powell paints himself as a hypocrite because both did what Powell is accusing McCain of doing: furthering the Republican agenda, albeit at different times and different ways. Except McCain seems to be the better man, because at least he is doing what he believes to be the right action, whereas Powell helped Bush make the case for war even though Powell believed war was the wrong action. Powell’s comment, therefore, does not bolster his message as much as it could; it might not be the best thing to say when endorsing another candidate for the presidency.
But even if we ignore the implication of Powell’s comment, the overall message presented by Powell, at least what is implied in the obviously summarized perspective of the New York Times article, is twisted in a whole different way by Obama’s campaign. Looking at the first and second comments referenced before the above paragraph, Powell basically praises Obama’s freshness of character and his appeal to very different groups and highlights specific qualities (intellectual, patient, etc), in essence arguing that Obama will bring a new face to Washington. McCain, on the other hand, is resorting to an increasingly negative campaign, implying that McCain will bring the same old politics back to Washington. These claims are legitimate, and notice that they focus more on the character of the candidates and the candidates as symbols, what can be seen as big-picture qualities as opposed to small-picture policy details. Refer again to Powell’s third comment, which accuses McCain of his execution of the “orthodoxy Republican agenda” (New York Times). Given Powell’s phrasing and tone, and given knowledge about his stance on issues, it is clear that Powell expresses personal discontent with the details of this Republican orthodoxy. Furthermore, given Powell’s disapproval with certain neoconservative figures affiliated with McCain’s foreign policy advising staff, it was obvious “to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment” that Powell would eventually endorse Obama (New York Times). Based on his past public clash with neoconservatives, Powell certainly would not endorse a presidential candidate who was becoming more affiliated with those neoconservatives. In essence, Powell’s endorsement of McCain can be seen as a message of disapproval to the direction that McCain has chosen in the path of foreign policy, not as a message of approval about Obama’s ability to direct foreign policy. Added to the idea that the first two comments made by Powell praise Obama’s character and the freshness and symbolism of his prospective presidency to bring, one can see that Powell is not giving an active adulation regarding Obama’s foreign policy ability, at least not within the scope of the New York Times article.
But the “Obama campaign welcomed [Powell’s endorsement] as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials” (New York Times). If anything, Powell is mostly reassuring voters of the path Obama plans to take (ie, the opposite of the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda) rather than how well Obama is going to take Americans along the path, which is reflected in the idea of “credentials.” Of course, Powell would not claim that his endorsed candidate is not ready, but based on Powell’s comments described in the New York Times article and his past experiences with political disagreement within the Bush administration, it is most likely that Powell is endorsing Obama more as a sign of discontent that the McCain camp is being taken over by neoconservatives than a vote of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy experience, which the Obama campaign is suggesting and promoting.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5423.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Colin_Powell.htm
http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment