He contains multitudes
September 3, 2008, 10:55 am
Posted by Matthew Boudway
The problem with John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate is not — or not mainly — about her qualities, or even her qualifications; the problem is what it reveals about McCain himself: that he and his advisors are not bothered by self-contradiction, that the only logic that governs his campaign rhetoric is the logic of political advantage. Experience is all-important, except when it isn’t. Identity politics is bad, unless it’s good. Country first, once he’s elected.
For the first and last word on this subject, see Michael Kinsley’s Slate column here.
I guess my response to Kinsley would be: whatever.
Just speaking for myself: I’d hope that whoever becomes president (or even vice president) can change his/her mind when the circumstances warrant it. The last thing I want in a president, particularly after the last eight years, is unwarranted stubbornness.
Probably I’m too cynical by half, but I put almost no stock in the promises by either campaign. I don’t believe that McCain is strongly committed to rolling back Roe v Wade; nor that he will lower taxes on upper-income brackets. I don’t believe Obama will do anything to materially change NAFTA; nor that he will stick to his 16-month Iraq withdrawal timetable. I do believe that prudence and circumstances will largely determine these things for them. Sometimes that is even for the best.
The problem with Barack Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his running mate is not–or not mainly–about his qualities or even his qualifications; the problem is what it reveals about Obama himself: that he and his advisors are not in the least bothered by self-contradiction, that the only logic that governs his campaign rhetoric is the logic of political advantage. Change is all-important, except when it isn’t. Identity politics is good, unless it’s bad. Country first, once he’s elected.
***
The most instructive Palin news of the day is that her speech tonight is being written by Matthew Scully, the most interesting author of Dominion, which presents what seemed to me a very Catholic view of the treatment we owe to animals as our fellow creatures. Should be a serious speech. But there is a note of contradiction here too. Palin was celebrated last night as being able to field dress a moose, not totally consistent, perhaps, with Scully’s views:
“Lopez: Is hunting immoral?
Scully: One thing I noticed, reading articles and books by sport hunters, is that they themselves are often uneasy about the things they do. And I hope Dominion will encourage more of that self-examination among the relatively few people — about five percent of Americans — with a taste for bloodsport. Hunting, if it can be justified at all, falls into the category of the necessary evil. When the aim is just the pleasure of stalking and killing, or the pride of a “trophy,” the necessity is absent and you have to ask yourself what’s left.”
And it goes on from there: http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/interrogatory120602.asp
Mr. Englert,
The news that Matthew Scully is writing her speech is good news and, as you say, instructive. Maybe, as Scully hopes, it will have the collateral effect of fostering a discussion between conservatives like Scully and conservative hunters. Your analogy between McCain and Obama is less instructive (though clever). The principal changes that Obama promises are changes of policy, and who can doubt that Biden is also an advocate of the kind of policy changes Obama is proposing, from health-care reform to foreign policy? I suppose it is plausible to interpret the choice of Biden as merely an exercise in identity politics, but that is not the only (and probably not the most) plausible interpretation. One can imagine Obama choosing Biden even if he weren’t a Catholic from Scranton. Do you really think it is possible that McCain would have chosen a man with Palin’s record and background? Finally, “country first” is of course McCain’s line, and if you are going to use it against Obama, you’ll also have to show that his campaign decisions have been as myopic as McCain’s choice of Palin.
Why give Michael Kinsley the last word on Palin and McCain? Why not just read verbatim whatever talking points the DNC hadns out–it would be as useful.
The Democrats must REALLY be scared of running against John McCain because they keep pretending that Obama is facing somone else (first, they sounded as if Obama were running against George W … now they try to match Obama against Palin). But I guess that sort of political obfuscation is understandable when you have put the most inexperienced candidate in modern history at the TOP of your own ticket.
Moreover, in their nasty little whispering campaign–which tries to imply that McCain will die in office quickly. leaving us with the supposedly unprepared Palin–they overlook two key points:
1. Palin already has more experience than Obama, who has absouletely NO executive experience and has spent much of his tenure in the senate running for the White House, while Palin has been busy actually running a state government
2. If Palin did become president, she would hardly be alone … under the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, she could select a nominee for the vice presidency who would have to be approved by majority votes in both the House and the Senate. Thus, President Palin would quickly be joined by a VP with as much if not more experience than Biden, giving the nation something we will NOT have if Obama/Biden wins: a team that has both executive and foreign policy experience …
Moreover, Obama and Biden are flat out wrong on foreign policy–given that Biden wants to appease Iran and Obama seems to think it’s still 2005 and Iraq is headed certainly for civil war (which didn’t happen) and that the surge won’t work (which it did)
Palin already has more experience than Obama, who has absouletely NO executive experience and has spent much of his tenure in the senate running for the White House, while Palin has been busy actually running a state government
Of course, McCain has no executive experience, either. Perhaps owing to Palin’s superior executive experience, they should swap places and make it a Palin-McCain ticket.
That is the best argument I’ve seen yet, Robert. McCain-Palin-TK ’08! Thanks.
Neither Palin nor Obama (nor Biden, nor McCain) has “experience” in an objectively relevant sense; none has ever served as president or vice president. I’m convinced it is an exercise in frustration to try to compare the experience the candidates do have as if we were playing rock-paper-scissors; as if it is somehow provable that being governor of Alaska prepares one to be president more than serving in the Senate or studying and teaching Constitutional law or being a prisoner of war.
When Obama supporters point out Palin’s lack of “experience,” they do so not because they think it excuses them from comparing him to McCain, but to call attention to what Matt notes in this post — that Palin’s nomination flies in the face of the values the McCain campaign has been insisting on up to now. The point is not to compare Palin to Obama so much as to hold her to her own ticket’s supposed standards.
Last night, both Fred Thompson and Laura Bush referred to Palin’s role as “governor of the largest state in the union.” Alaska is indeed big, but implying that its physical size is at all relevant suggests that the McCain campaign has indeed reversed its supposed commitment to “logic,” and also that it’s not the Democrats who are frightened of looking squarely at Palin. And I’m still trying to figure out which of Obama’s pledges, promises or claims are contradicted by his choice of Biden as a running mate.
Mollie,
How about Obama’s insistence that he was bringing “change” to Washington … yet he chooses one of the oldest old boys in the whole creraky Senatorial establishment … and Alaska’s physical size is just one measure of its importance–this year energy is one of the mopst important issues we face and Alaksa represents real energy, not the false promise of somehow changing the laws of physics, electromagnetics, thermodynamics, etc., to pretend that we can instantly live in a fossil fuel-free world.
Also, your very comment about experience negates your criticism of Palin–if no one is actually experienced who hasn’t already been president, than Palin is no more or less experienced than the others … thus, McCain’s selection of her is hardly inconsistent … instead, she is quite consistent with his peldge to pick a nominee who shared his values, which she clearly does.
Grant,
Sarcasm is the last resort of someone who has no argument. What I said about the possibility of a Palin presidency is absolutely true. She would serve McCain well as a domestic advisor and would have plenty of people to choose from for foreign policy expertise if she were suddenly elevated to the Oval office. That is irrefutabley accurate–and it’s why the Obama allegations about her are nothing but cynical demogoguery.
Matthew Boudway said: “Do you really think it is possible that McCain would have chosen a man with Palin’s record and background?”
I realize this was addressed to James Englert, but if I may, the answer (assuming a reasonable definition of “record and background”), in my opinion, would be yes. Governor Piyush Jindal of LA was high on Senator McCain’s short list.
MAT,
Excellent point–Jindal was often touted as a potential veep with nary a word about how he would handle being veep AND raise his 3 children …
Jindal could have satisfied at least one of the litmus tests important to some as to qualified presidential/VP candidates: education. He graduated from Brown and was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford. In some circles it also wouldn’t hurt that he converted from Hinduism to Catholicism.
Also, as to Biden as a “Catholic from Scranton.” I have nothing against Biden or the touting of his affinity with blue collar workers, but I think it’s getting old linking him to Scranton, a place steeped in coal dust, economic hard times, and blue collar sensibility. I guess that’s the political point, however, to create an image of Biden as in touch through and through with the Scranton’s of the country. The fact that Pennsylvania will almost surely be a key state in the election doesn’t hurt either. True he was born there, but he left when was 10 years old, hardly enough time to absorb the city’s and the surrounding area’s essence. I was born there, too, but I moved away when I was 8, and though I still have relatives who live there, I wouldn’t consider myself as being a Scrantonian. But then again I’ll never be running for national office. :)
Matthew, I agree that the Palin choice is extremely inconsistent as to the experience theme, even if she isn’t at the top of the ticket. I think there’s plenty of contradiction this year; but it’s a matter of which particular contradictions bother you least rather than the existence of them. Of course, Palin’s blank slate on foreign affairs makes it much harder for McCain’s criticism of Obama to hit home.
As to individual points: Obama promises policy change substantively, from the Bush years back to conventional liberalism, but also promises a change in tone. Biden is at odds on a few substantive points, but very much so on the tonal issue. It was funny when Obama took past adminstrations to task for failing to change energy policy, and pointed to McCain’s having done nothing for 26 years when Biden had been in the do-nothing senate for 30+ years.
I hadn’t been thinking of Biden as an instance of identity politics. I was thinking of Obama’s riding both sides of racial politics until the contradictions became untenable.
And I agree with you that it’s shameful to suggest Obama does not hold country first and that Palin wouldn’t be the best successor to McCain in foreign policy.
James Engelbert,
The Democrats will be vulnerable to charges that they don’t put their “country first” so long as they do not believe in American exceptionalism, so long as they look to the UN to solve the world’s problems, so long as they seem willing to give certain European powers a veto over the legitimacy of US foreign policy decisions, so long as they nominate candidates like Bill Clinton who travel overseas and participate in anti-American demonstrations or Barack Obama who act as if they are running for president of the world rather than the USA (a problem for many Democrats, ever since Woodrow Wilson).
I was once a strong Democrat but their blame-America-first attitude to foreign policy helped drive me away.
That should have read: “who have traveled overseas ..” since Clinton’s anti-american activity took place while he was at Oxford (and only dramed of becoming president)
Cynical is the word deployed here, among others, as two conservatives get caught being honest about Palin on a live mic: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/212920.php
I have found interesting how the word “experience” has been used in this election so far.
From the point of view of someone who hires executives, we here at the office use it two ways.
There are jobs where one gets better (presumably) the longer one does it. This might be a surgeon or an airline pilot. One wants these people to have more time experience (“Gosh, what happens when I press this button?”)
There are other jobs where one wants a level of experience where one can guage one’s overall ability to do the job, but where years on the job are themselves not that important. This would include professors, writers, journalists, and… executives. We establish a minimal requirement, but we are more interested in the quality of their work from the point of view of our performance standards. Longevity as such is not particularly relevant. And people in big business at least see people jump from utterly unrelated industries at a very high level all of the time.
From an executive hiring point of view, McCain’s years of experience don’t help him much, because he wants to continue the same policies as the old CFO whom we are trying to replace. We would classify him here for what he really is; an out of touch old timer who is too old to run a chaotic operation that has been mismanaged for 8 years. The fact that he had a hand in this mismanagement is a further down side for him. And Palin doesn’t have much to show for herself yet. We don’t know yet (and won’t know for a few years) if she is a good governor or not, because we don’t know what has come from her policies as opposed to her predecessor’s. Palin shows promise, but on the big stage, she might make an Associate VP but certainly not President and CEO. Obama’s experience in law is very important because we are hiring for his abilities in formulating policy and this is in a great part influenced by his legal work.
Of course, most people have jobs that are like the first kind I have outlined above. So it looks to them that a senator with five years experience must by definition be a better one than one with four years. Stands to reason.
Grant,
Amazing clip! Amazing!
MAT said (and Robert Reid backed him up):
“Matthew Boudway said: “Do you really think it is possible that McCain would have chosen a man with Palin’s record and background?”
I realize this was addressed to James Englert, but if I may, the answer (assuming a reasonable definition of “record and background”), in my opinion, would be yes. Governor Piyush Jindal of LA was high on Senator McCain’s short list.:
I say: Don’t know if you guys noticed, but McCain actually chose Sarah Palin. She did not choose Jindal. He could have, yes. But he didn’t. How does that figure with Matt’s point?
Unagidon said: “We would classify him here for what he really is; an out of touch old timer who is too old to run a chaotic operation that has been mismanaged for 8 years.”
Wouldn’t that run afoul of Chapter 14 of Title 29 of the Code?
David Gibson:
I expressed no opinion on any point Mr. Boudway may or may not have been trying to make. I was merely expressing a personal opinion, based on the qualifiers I stated, regarding whether it was”possible” that Senator McCain would choose a male with Governor “Palin’s record and background” in response to a question posed to Mr. Englert. I did not know if Mr. Boudway or many here were familiar with Governor Jindal since he is not a national figure outside of the conservative movement and wanted to provide that information along with the aforementioned opinion in response to the question he stated.
However, anyone wants to spin it, McCain astounded everyone, including the Republicans, in trying to please the evangelicals that he ignored his own constant theme of experience. Even the dumbest reporter got this and was screaming this to Republican spinners as soon as the selection was announced. Whatever one wants to say about Obama it does not nullify that this decisions says plenty about McCain. As the clip showing Murphy and Noonan confirms.
Cable is certainly thanking McCain for this choice. This will not be boring.
Grant and David:
Peggy Noonan putting the conversation in context in a way that I am not sure Jesse Jackson did concerning his comments of Obama talking down to blacks.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html
In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. “The first lesson they learned is the one they remember,” I said to Todd — and I’m pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that’s over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, “It’s over!” — and I said it more than once — that is what I was referring to.
I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her. I suspect, as I say further in here, that her candidacy will be either dramatically successful or a dramatically not; it won’t be something in between.
Amazing article! Amazing!
On to the substance of the article by Kinsley. I don’t believe that Camp McCain ever thought that the experience card would stick. Obama clearly has/had momentum, charism, a true gift. They needed a wild card. The have succeeded in flushing out the elites and exposing them for the American people to see. When the dust settles let’s see what happens.
I am far more impressed with how team Obama is handling this. Although they do have the media and the usual elite sycophants they need to be careful of riding that horse. They are wise to keep them at a distance and throw them under the bus if need be.
For the record, I was an Obama leander but after the absolutely disguisting way that Palin has been treated and ferocious and vicious attacks against her, if Ilived in the US I would be tempted to vote for them out of spite.
PS
I do agree with Peggy and that is why I don’t think you will see a culture war redux at least in the way it was fought historically. You will see a class/culture war though and ironically the Republicans are where the Democrats were when my father (Catholic and intellectual) and his father and mother and all my relations were. He became one of those famous Reagan Democrats. I don’t know where he would be today.
Unagidon said: “We would classify him here for what he really is; an out of touch old timer who is too old to run a chaotic operation that has been mismanaged for 8 years.”
MAT said: “Wouldn’t that run afoul of Chapter 14 of Title 29 of the Code?”
What he would be told as the announcement that he was “leaving to seek other opportunities” was released might be a bit different.
And too, when gets to the top of the tree, things like age and sex don’t really exist any more.
To echo some of what Unagidon said (and as someone in his mid 30’s trying to climb the “corporate ladder” without much success – supposedly because of my lack of “experience”), I see credence in the argument that goes something like this (I may have borrowed some of this from Thomas Friedman): In today’s interconnected/fast changing world, how much should we (as voters or hiring employers) value “experience?” In fact, I think a solid argument could be made that “experience” today could be just as dangerous as a lack of “experience” in today’s marketplace. “Experience” is really only valuable if tomorrow is going to be like today.
Of course, if I were 50 something and looking for a job I wouldn’t be trying to make this argument. Anywho, I’m not making any excuses for McCain (I’m quite sure he won’t be getting my vote) but I often question the value of this “experience” factor in today’s world or even when critiquing a VP selection.
MAT:
Like Sarah Palin, Jindal is a young first-term governor. Beyond that, I’m not sure their careers have much in common. Before she was governor of Alaska, Palin had been mayor of Wasilla, population 9,000. Before that she had been a sports anchor. In college she majored in communications. Before becoming governor of Louisiana, Jindal was in the U.S. House of Representatives. Not long before that (he is only 37) Jindal was a Rhodes Scholar who studied political science at New College, Oxford. Now, I’m not sure Jindal is qualified to be president; I would have to know more about him before I would be qualified even to have an opinion on the matter. But I am prepared to say it seems very unlikely that Sarah Palin is prepared, right now, to make informed judgments about foreign policy. I could be wrong about this, of course, but if I and the many other skeptics are to be persuaded, it won’t be because someone has pointed out Alaska’s proximity to Russia.
Robert:
Michael Kinsley has anticipated and answered your main arguments, such as they are. You would have discovered this if you had read the article instead of dismissing it out of hand on the grounds that Kinsley, as a member of the mainstream media, may as well be a DNC flack. Too many of your interventions here seem to begin and end with “Consider the source.” If the source isn’t a conservative Republican, you’re confident you can have nothing to learn from him. Why? And, please, let’s have no more silliness about the critical significance of “executive” experience, as if every manager of a McDonald’s were more qualified to be president than a U.S. senator.
Oonefrom said: “To echo some of what Unagidon said (and as someone in his mid 30’s trying to climb the “corporate ladder” without much success – supposedly because of my lack of “experience”), I see credence in the argument that goes something like this (I may have borrowed some of this from Thomas Friedman): In today’s interconnected/fast changing world, how much should we (as voters or hiring employers) value “experience?” In fact, I think a solid argument could be made that “experience” today could be just as dangerous as a lack of “experience” in today’s marketplace. “Experience” is really only valuable if tomorrow is going to be like today.”
I like that last line very much and think that you might be in the wrong business. Obama is hiring in Chicago; you might check it out.
Your argument, though, sounds like a Generation Y argument. And I wouldn’t use it during an interview, unless you want to hear your resume hit the trash can before you clear the door on the way out. If you want to be an executive, you’ll need to tell the interviewer what you will make happen that she needs to make happen and make her believe in you.
Matthew Boudway said: “Before becoming governor of Alaska, Palin was mayor of Wasilla, population 9,000. Before that she was a sports anchor.”
I am not expressing any opinion or proffering any argument regarding the above, but I would just add a factual correction that before becoming governor in 2007, and after her two terms as mayor which concluded in 1996, Governor Palin chaired and served as Ethics Supervisor of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (2003-2004). Also, Governor Jindal worked at McKinsey after Oxford and then held a number of state and federal appointments, including one at HHS, before his time in the House.
Matthew Boudway:
I apologize, Governor Palin’s two terms as mayor were from 1996 – 2002, I was confusing that with her two terms on the city counsel which ended in 1996.
Here is a transcript of Noonan’s live-mic exchange:
In Noonan’s explanation, she calls this “truncated.” As you can see from the clip I linked to, this is the complete transcript of what was said after the cameras stopped rolling and Chuck Todd said “goodbye” to Murphy and Noonan. She also explains that “it’s over” refers to the narrative theory of politics being deployed by the GOP and Republicans’ “assumptions.” She must have been thinking of that problem before it was talked about, because on tape is sounds like she’s responding to Murphy’s blanket statement: “it’s not gonna work.” Noonan also says that Palin is not the most qualified woman for the job. She provides context to that comment in the post, but she does not repeat what she said into the live mic. She writes, “I do like Mrs. Palin, because I like the things she espouses. And because, frankly, I met her once and liked her.”
Grant:
Thanks. I stand corrected. what can I say, I took Peggy Noonan at her word. Oh well as the saying goes fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. It won’t happen a second time. Peggy is a fraud.
The larger issue is that Repubicans, it appears, are running out of things to believe in. Maybe this selection (as Obama”s) will give them fresh ideas that resonate with where people are at and respond to today’s issues (environment, poverty, and a free floating malaise that is best addressed in the city of God (church). I do think Peggy Noonan is a bit to reliant on gov’t to create meaning for her. Maybe that is the problem.
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, George.
Matthew B:
Your sneering condescension–in comparing managing a fast food restaurant to running the government first of a town with several thousand residents and then an entire state that is vital to America’s most pressing energy needs–helps explain both why the Democrats are so good at losing national elections and why Sarah Palin is such a great pick for John McCain and for the country as a whole. Keep it up, please.
And Matthew, what beside your own snide self-assurance that you must be right makes you think I didn’t read the Kinsley piece? Just because I didn’t smack my forehead and say, wow, he certainyl makes a lot of sense!?
Kinsley’s opinions are hardly objective or irrefutable. The major flaw in what you consider to be his “first and last word” on the subject is the point I have made repeatedly on this website: Obama is NOT running for president against Palin; he is running against John McCain, who remains far, far more experienced than Obama. And as Palin demonstrated so effectively last night, she is also Obama’s equal both in electoral experience and eloquence while also bringing real world credentials in running the governemnts of both a small town and an important state–soemthing both Obama and Biden lack. Should she suddenly become president she would certainly be no less prepared than Obama and is arguabley already better suited for the job.
Point, set, match to Palin and McCain.
Unagidon said: “Obama’s experience in law is very important because we are hiring for his abilities in formulating policy and this is in a great part influenced by his legal work.”
Very interesting that you should mention that – just today, a very influential writer in the conservative movement wrote an essay about law training and presidential experience. An interesting factoid he mentioned was that every Democratic presidential nominee for both president and vice president in the last seven elections, with the exception of Vice President Gore, who terminated his law studies early to run for the a House seat in 1976, has been trained as a lawyer. I am not implying this impacts any point you may or may have not been trying to make, not am I expressing, either directly or indirectly, any opinion on anything you may or may not have said, but I found it interesting.
Robert,
“Keep it up, please.” Well, since you asked…
First, I apologize for my presumption. I presumed that if you had read Kinsley’s article, you would not simply repeat the bad arguments he disposes of there. And by the way, did you read his article before you wrote your first comment on this post (and then copied-and-pasted most of it into the next thread)? You do not quite say. Of course you are right about Kinsley’s opinions not being “objective” — who said they were? And they may not be irrefutable, but in any case you have not refuted them. Kinsley’s argument is not that Obama is as experienced as McCain, or more experience that Palin; it is that a presidential candidate who insists on the need for experience and then chooses a relatively unexperienced running mate is having it both ways. All the experience in the world does not prevent or excuse cynicism. Your huffing-and-puffing about the distinction between the “TOP” of the ticket and the bottom doesn’t amount to much, since no one is qualified to be vice president unless she is also qualified to be president. To borrow a term from her own speech last night, the vp’s office is not a place for discovery. And, sorry, Alaska’s important oil reserves do not redound to Palin’s political credit, any more than the state’s geographical size correlates with her readiness to assume presidential responsibilities. You are right: A town of nine thousand people is not a McDonald’s (I never meant to suggest it was, though arguably the administrative duties of a small-town mayor are more like those of a restaurant manager than like those of the president of the most powerful country in the world). But my point here wasn’t about Palin; it was about the risibility of your appeal to “executive experience,” a term used to obscure obvious distinctions. I am not in any position to condescend, sneeringly or otherwise, to small-town mayors, much less to new governors; I just don’t understand why we are being asked to assume that her experiences as mayor and (very briefly) governor translate, by themselves, into preparedness for the presidency. And this is not Palin’s fault, it’s McCain’s. If you will not grant Kinsley the last word here, let’s give it to the impeccably conservative Mike Murphy or Peggy Noonan who were saying the same thing (cynically?) when they thought no one else would hear them.
Matthew B,
Since you ask, I read through Slate regularly and am quite familiar with Kinsley’s writings … but in this case, familiarity hardly breeds consent … Kinsley’s–and your–argument about McCain “having it both ways” may appeal to those who weren’t going to vote for McCain anyway, but I suspect Gov. Palin will persoannly be far more appealing to the electorate overall. She certainly has solidifed the GOP base around McCain–and remember: all he has to do is win the same states that George W won and he is the next president. Picking Palin will certainly help him toward that goal. As for Peggy Noonan, the actual final word again lies with the electorate, and Gov. Palin helped herself immensley in that regard last night.
Uniaigidon,
Fear not! I have never used it – but the thought has crossed my mind NUMEROUS times, particularly when the powers that be tell me thanks, but no thanks (I’ve always bitten my bottom lip and just smile).
I like your last line as well – very much. I guess experience, while part of the equation (and necessary, of course) might now have to be share of its “prestige” with some other factors: motivation, charisma, confidence and the ability to get things done (no matter how big or small) seem like they could quickly crowd the conventional “prestige hiring plate.”
Oh by the way, the sector I am employed in is not too supportive of promoting “youth” and/or those who lack Apollo-like (Charles Handy) characteristics/mentality. I figure in another 10 years or so I might make the grade, along with all the other 15-20 year employees who have been waiting for someone to die or retire. Sometimes I think I am a fish out of water – but the steady pay check is HARD to pass on.
Thanks for your advice! At least the resume would be hitting the trash can…and not the back of my head:-)! – Awh…I just keep biting my bottom lip….
It is something how the bombing of Belgrade became justification for the war in Iraq. Seems both liberals and conservatives broke international law.
To the Editor:
I was disappointed to see Tony Judt, in his otherwise excellent Oct. 7 Op-Ed article, conflating the United Nations-sanctioned military intervention in the Bosnian civil war with the NATO-sponsored bombing of Serbia during the Kosovo crisis. Surely he knows why they’re different and how that crucial difference was used by both liberals and the Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Under international law, the bombing of Serbia, unsanctioned by the United Nations, was just as illegal as the ”pre-emptive” assault on Iraq, especially since Serbia had not attacked another country. The Bush administration hawks took note of the liberal hawks’ ”humanitarian” position on Kosovo and have exploited it to the hilt.
Thus are neoconservatives and liberals applauding themselves for their moral purity while they tear down decades of hard-won respect for international law. Morally and politically, the bombing of Belgrade opened the door for the Iraq catastrophe.
John R. MacArthur
New York, Oct. 9, 2007
The writer is the publisher of Harper’s magazine.