Is Clark Democratic Enough? Redux
****UPDATE Once again, Clark confirms this Blogger's analysis of his character: "I'll never put the interest of the party above the interest of the country." Clark's positions on social, military, and economic issues are in keeping with core democratic values, so it is natural that he would identify himself as a democrat and yet emphasize that he is not extremely partisan and can appreciate the value of individuals in both the republican and democratic parties.****
It's become clear that conservative media attack dogs (the term journalist would be a misnomer here) like Drudge will regurgitate every thing Wesley Clark has ever said in his past and try to impeach his character.
The latest Clark "scandal" according to Drudge (linking to Drudge is painful) concerns a videotape of Clark from the May 11, 2001, Pulaski County Republican dinner at which he was a guest speaker. Drudge alleges that in the tape Clark praises Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Powell and the unthinkable: George W. Bush. Clark reportedly says "I'm very glad we've got the great team in office: men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condolzeezza Rice, Paul O'Neill--people I know very well--our president, George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."
Clark also praises Reagan for his actions during the Cold War and King George I...er President Bush I for his "tremendous leadership and statesmanship." This appears to reference the Gulf War, but because Drudge has taken it out of context it's difficult to be certain.
What do these remarks say about Clark? Is he a traitor to the democratic party because he has praised republicans (he has also strongly praised Clinton)? Or does it confirm what Clark has said about himself, that during his military service he was not partisan and did not become partisan until George W. Bush began the deconstruction of America with the full support of the republican party?
It seems that once upon a time, Clark had great respect for Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. That is unsurprising and hardly unique, even among democrats. Several people on both sides of the aisle respected those individuals, particularly Powell and Rice. Joseph Biden said about Powell:
Without question, General Powell's experience at the highest levels of government and the conduct of foreign and defense policy and his experience in managing large organizations makes him well qualified to be secretary of state.
Powell and Rice earned kudos from republicans and democrats alike until the two shamelessly promoted GWB's Iraq agenda (Rice in particular), with what they had to have known was faulty or exaggerated intelligence. If they did were unaware that the intelligence was bad, it suggests a staggering level of incompetency unbefitting Powell and Rice's stellar reputations. Whether lying or incompetent, either alternative was sufficient to diminish the respect they previously enjoyed from democrats.
During his confirmation hearings, Powell broadly outlined the Bush administration's foreign policy plans, explaining that they planned to analyze troop deployments and hoped to reduce troop commitments abroad. He affirmed Bush's determination to work with our allies and NATO on any solution.
I can assure you that President Bush understands the commitment and obligations that we have made to our NATO allies and to the people in the region. This will be done carefully, it will be done as a part of an overall review of all of our commitments overseas.
In a statement released just prior to the confirmation hearing, Powell articulated some specific foreign policies, such as continuing the work of the Clinton administration to establish dialogue with North Korea, being careful not to tie troops down for peace operations or missions of undetermined duration, and working with allies to strengthen sanctions against Iraq. These stated goals jived with viewpoints Clark had previously expressed. It is almost impossible to find a Clark missive on foreign policy that doesn't advance his belief in the tremendous importance of working with allies and multinational organizations to counter threats to world peace. This explains his praise for the leadership of President Bush I. Whatever one may have thought of Bush Sr.'s domestic policies, his achievement in coordinating a multinational effort through the UN that included several Arab nations to oust Hussein from Kuwait was nothing short of brilliant, and he deserves tremendous credit for it.
Rumsfeld and Powell were confirmed lickety split, despite concerns expressed by a few democrats regarding a Rumsfeld/Nixon tape in which Nixon using racial pejoratives and Rumsfeld seemingly assented.) Democrats also praised Condoleezza Rice, who advised Gary Hart on foreign policy during his presidential bid. Add Cheney to the triumvirate and you had what appeared to be a crackerjack national security team. Why wouldn't Clark have praised them, when almost everyone else was doing the same thing?
Clark also praised Reagan. He has already acknowledged that he voted for Reagan and liked him, as many in the armed forces did. At the Pulaski dinner, Clark credited Reagan with building up the military that won the Gulf War, something for which Cheney had also given Reagan credit: "I called him and thanked him for what he'd done in the early '80s to build that force. I wonder if any future secretary of defense is ever going to call Bill Clinton or Al Gore." (That call from the Bush administration should have been placed sometime in mid-April.)
Then, at the Pulaski dinner, Clark did what many democrats may regard as the unthinkable. He praised George W. Bush. Keep in mind, this was 2001, prior to September 11 and prior to the Iraq war. He was an invited speaker at a republican gathering. In reference to the security quartet and their leader, Clark said "We need them there." Was he sincere? Or was he playing to the crowd?
At the time of Clark's remarks, very little was known about GWB and his skill at foreign policy except what came from his mouth, which was very little. Bush's stated intentions meshed well with Clark's foreign policy views, such as his debate remarks about not being an arrogant nation and not believing in "nation building," along with an expressed belief in sharing the burden and responsibility for world policing among our foreign allies.
As of May 11, 2001, Bush hadn't done much as president, so there wasn't much to criticize. It wasn't until after 180 days in office and a month-long August vacation that Bush began to establish policy that disproved his pre-election claim of being a "uniter, not a divider." Everything, including Clark's esteem and democrats' willingness to give Bush the opportunity to make good on his grandiose promises, declined from there.
It is ironic that conservatives play up Clark's comments at this meeting, because it can only help Clark win crossover support from those conservatives interested in strong defense but who are unhappy with Bush, yet too fearful of a strong partisan democrat like Dean, Gephardt, or Kerry to vote democratic. Clark's Pulaski remarks demonstrate a kinship with some conservative ideals (not to be confused with neo-conservative), particularly on defense.
Once Bush made it clear that he intended to launch a unilateral pre-emptive war against Iraq, many generals who had been generally supportive (pun intended) expressed their disagreement with his foreign policy decisions, inclding General Scowcroft, General Schwarzkopf, and General Zinni, who even endorsed Bush in 2000. It's no suprise that General Clark joined their ranks.
More than one democrat in congress sides often with the Bush administration; Zell Miller of Georgia and John Breaux of Louisiana come to mind. It is possible to be a democrat and yet express admiration for some republicans and share some of their views on policy and vice versa.
Over the years, Clark has consistently articulated policies and positions far more in keeping with democrats than republicans. He supports affirmative action, gay unions, expanded healthcare, and deficit reduction (once the province of republicans, but no longer). Ergo, Clark is a democrat, albeit a centrist or 'new' democrat. He demonstrated this in today's democratic candidate debates, which won him praise from such arch conservatives as Andrew Sullivan (who should recheck his calendar, because May 11, 2001, comes before September 11, 2001), Peggy Noonan and Joseph Scarborough.
Bush portrayed himself a centrist and one could fault Clark's judgment for believing the act, but you'd have to fault a lot of Americans who once believed Bush's message but no longer. The more Bush's stated centrist policies clashed with his far-right reaching actions, the more critical Clark became of Bush and by the time he announced his candidacy, only the willfully ignorant could imagine he remained a Bush supporter. In 2002, he actively campaigned and contributed to democratic candidates. He also reportedly refused overtures from the republican party to run as a republican for the 2002 congressional elections.
It is somewhat humorous to see uber-conservatives flipflop between whether Clark is too much like them or too much like Clinton. A few days ago, Safire has Clark furnishing Clinton with a de facto presidency. Today, Drudge paints Clark as a George W. Bush devotee because he once made a complimentary remark about him at a republican dinner.
Clark has yet to explain why he spoke at the dinner, although Josh Miller unearthed this from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "A hot-ticket guest speaker, Clark plans a similar appearance before the Democrats, his wife, Gert, confided." Does an act of bipartisanship disqualify Clark as a democrat at a time when this country could use a bit of bipartisanship? Someone comfortable spanning the partisan divide might be what this country needs to heal the pervading split since the 2000 election. Clark would have been the ideal independent candidate; if independents stood any chance of getting elected, perhaps Clark would have run as one.
Remember, Clark did not decide to run in the interest of advancing the democratic party or out of great ambition to be president. General Clark agreed to run because people asked him to and because he sees a true lack of leadership and policymaking in the White House at a time when leadership is crucial. Clark's lifetime experience in national defense uniquely positions him among all the other candidates to deal with the extreme challenges America faces.
This may not satisfy fence-sitters that Clark is a democrat, but as he himself said in today's debate: "I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. That's why I'm proud to be a democrat." No doubt, the word of a four-star general will be good enough for many. And with that, we let Clark have the last word:
I am not making a partisan comment. The chance to earn a living is not a partisan issue. Yet when we point out the facts, they will call us unpatriotic; or they will call us left-wing liberals - even though I have been non-partisan my whole professional life. I don't oppose the President's policies because they are Republican policies. I oppose them because they don't work. If they worked, I wouldn't be here. If he admitted they didn't work and changed them, I wouldn't be here.
10:09:24 PM 
|
