REUTERS/Jim Young
Peter Feaver, who served in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, blogs at Shadow Government, and gives this cautionary advice:
Even though President Obama has been more focused on domestic policy over the last year, the pace for the national security staff has not eased.
>snip< meeting with current national security officials put this issue in sharp relief for me.
>snip< And my friends from the Obama era shared eerily similar stories with some of the very same complaints: outsiders just don’t get it or get distracted by secondary trivialities. One current insider confided to me that when he reads outsider critiques of the Obama team, he is reminded of similar critiques he offered of the Bush team when he was in the shadow government. He thought some of my own analysis missed the boat and conceded that perhaps the same was true for some his earlier analysis of Bush decisionmaking.
That is a wise cautionary to remember. Those of us in the loyal opposition may have a better understanding than most about the travails and triumphs of the current team, but our perspective is limited. We should not be surprised to read internally contradictory accounts of what is going on behind the scenes. And we should be willing to give the benefit of the doubt from time to time.
In partisan politics, it is extremely easy to damn the other side, no matter what they say or do. Committed partisans sometimes go into automatic pilot overdrive, quick to condemn the opposition and ready to make excuses for the team. We naturally gravitate toward the set of “facts” that support our arguments and positions; and are derisively skeptical and quite ready to dismiss the set of “facts” that our political foes bring to the table. Objectivity and an open mind become quite difficult when you are passionate about politics, and ideologically driven.
I never forgot this post by a liberal who used to comment on my blog, linking to the following:
Political bias affects brain activity, study finds
Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that’s contrary to their point of view.
~~~ The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.
Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.
The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.
“None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,” Westen said. “Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones.”
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said: “You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.”
To avoid mud on our faces and kill credibility, we shouldn’t become so partisanly deranged that we refuse to acknowledge moments when President Obama might make a decision that we would have supported, had it been a Republican leader.
I think one of those moments might have been when we criticized President Obama for the delay in the decision to surge forward in Afghanistan (Battle for Kandahar is beginning); or for doing what you’d expect an American president to do in his role as commander-in-chief.
We might have valid points to make from the armchair, but none of us are sitting in on national security counsel meetings and war room plannings. We are not privvy to all the facts, nor are the media sources we rely upon to make completely informed opinions and perspectives.
Just a note of caution, is all…
Ok, back to your regularly scheduled Dem-bama bashing!
I agree with giving credit when credit is due. I have previously stated that I like that there’s no let-up in the drone-war, and that he leaves his Generals pretty much alone.
But that’s all.
Hi Patvann,
While I have very little praise for the man’s policies, I was surprised and pleased by his recent show of support for expanding nuclear energy in the U.S. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html)
I also suspect he’s a good father and husband, and try to remember that whenever the politics start making me see red.
Nuada
Several excerpts from that article:
This is an asinine view of the costs of Nuclear Energy. The initial cost of a nuclear plant is many times greater than that of, say, a comparable output coal fired plant(which in itself is cheaper than those “green” technologies), and that is basically what he is saying. The difference is that once operating, a nuclear power plant can produce power at a much cheaper rate than that of the comparable coal plant and the reason is the fuel cost. A coal plant has around 80% of the actual cost per MW taken up by the cost of the coal itself, while in a nuclear plant, once running, that averages around 25%. The nuclear plant pays for itself in cheaper cost after a short period of time.
If he really was serious in expanding the role of nuclear energy in the US as a way to combat the evils of carbon(btw, I couldn’t type that without laughing), then he would use the DOE as a bludgeon tool to the environmentalists who will, there is no doubt about it either, bring lawsuit after lawsuit to stop the building of the plant. As it is, he will be lucky, if it continues to move forward, to see those plants actually operate during his lifetime. Also, the regulatory structure surrounding nuclear power is an added disincentive to a company who actually desires to build a new plant. The operators of such plants already running in the US burn out at a very high rate due to the stress of operating the plant and complying with all the regulations that come down on them.
This last one is very telling. A “willingness to be part of this dialogue” just makes me laugh. When, during his short run as president so far, has Obama EVER been willing to be part of a dialogue with the GOP? I don’t count his appearances with the “bipartisan” congressional panel on his healthcare reform since he didn’t really listen to them, didn’t use any of their ideas, and only tried to use them as a prop to show the GOP as the party of NO. Like I said in the immediately preceding commentary, if he really was serious, he would remove the obstacles in place, partly due to the government, and allow nuclear plants to be built at a much faster pace than these two are going to be built.
This is his way of dealing with counter-views given by those outside his circle:
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/03/just-say-no-i-get-invited-to-help-obama.html
Both the right and left are presently so intently focused on the daily partisan political skirmishing that the single biggest threat to national security seems to be completely off the radar. The danger that’s rapidly building just across the Mexican border apparently isn’t going to catch our full attention until all hell suddenly breaks loose. We’re getting occasional random bits and pieces in the news. Much goes totally unreported. Once again, we aren’t “connecting the dots”. We’re too damn distracted by what in retrospect will seem like trivialities.
i also notice the words ;when you dealing bipartisan; this is not the case as he is dealing no partisan and has trouble dealing with the dems also by passing his own party,
“I also suspect he’s a good father and husband, and try to remember that whenever the politics start making me see red.”
I am reminded of when President Lincoln was told that General Grant often drank too much. He asked the man to find out what kind of whiskey the General drinks and to send a case to all his other Generals.
Personally, I don’t care what kind of father and husband he is: we have no way of knowing of his family life other than the fact that he has a family. Otherwise, the information would be under lock and key like the rest of his life. His family could well be nothing but a charade like most of his life has been, how do we know?
I take no solitude in a man who hides his personal records from the rest of the world. His politics make me see red and you know from what flags that Red is from! Does this man deserve the benefit of the doubt? Sorry folks, not from me,! You say some things go right: I say, even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while. Remember the drone attacks assure we have no high level detainees to interrogate, do you think that might possibly be self-serving?
Unlike economics, the “hard” sciences don’t give you any room to wiggle your facts. Yep, mother nature is a b!tch! Obama’s team seems to be stumbling into a viable energy and environmental strategy, perhaps because fantacising about some energy utopia doesn’t work so well when you’re in charge. We obviously need to build more nukes, especially if we want to reduce carbon emissions. We pretty obviously are still gonna need oil to run many, many parts of our economy for decades. Did you catch the seeds of a deal Obama’s trying to strike? More drilling in exchange for some limits on carbon emissions. I had feared during the campaign that we’d get an energy plan straight from the NGO playbook – one that will ultimately fall dangerously short of what’s needed while costing a fortune and reducing our national security. As possibly the only conservative here who thinks the global warming problem is real, I think he’s on the right track at last on both sides of that deal.
From what I see, the CiC listens to his present NS Advisor, Mr. Jones, and ‘others’, not so much to the ones that matter like the CENTCOM Commander and ISAF Commander that actually have Command Responsibility and ‘boots on the ground’.
Just my 2 cents worth from the ‘Responsibility’ tip of the spear. I can’t speak to the ‘good husband or father’ business but my priority is winning Mr. Obama’s War with meager resources from the “greatest Nation and formerly most formidable Military Power on Earth”. Defeating the Tangos makes “Community Organizing” in Afghanistan possible from a security aspect. I do not involve myself with Politics or Diplomacy. There can be no Diplomacy until Diplomacy can be done from a position of strength. We don’t have that yet and may not have it until the CiC leaves the achievement of the position of strength to the grownups in boots that are Professionals and not bush league Politicians or Community Organizers.
It is now Mr. Obama’s War, make no mistake about it. Committing Troops and sitting in the Big Chair in the Oval Office made it so. It is up to the CiC and Congress to furnish the necessary resources and get out of the way in rhetoric or posturing. Brilliant rhetoric never won a War. Neither did rationing resources or ridiculous ROE. Up until now a SJA Officer (Military Lawyer) was not a key player on my Staff. Now he is.
Take Care All!
Doing More with Less Here.
@Doug
Given the penchant of the left to use either made up or exaggerated claims of impending doom to further their leftist ideoloy driven agenda, do you really believe global warming is (a)real and (b)a threat to humanity? Have you never thought about doing the old follow the money trick in identifying the root of the AGW claims? When scientists(and no where near the consensus the media would have you believe) get their funding for research based on the politically correct ideas of the day, and when the front man himself(Gore) on the AGW crusade stands to gain not just a tidy sum of money, but a veritable fortune, if Cap-n-Tax passes, don’t you think the data will be massaged to show their claims? And what about the shouting down of all dissenters of AGW? Don’t you think that that is at least enough of a reason to question their motives?
Many people who are on the side of skepticism, or like me, outright denial of AGW have already done the fact checking that should have been required of people like Gore and Dr. Mann(of the infamous “hockey stick graph”) and dispute their findings and conclusions outright. When data is left out, or the type is changed mid-stream on the research, and is not peer reviewed, then we have a right to question it’s legitimacy. AGW is nothing more than a theory, and a theory that is driven by money. As for your claim that Obama is on the right track, I suggest you look at his track record so far as President. He offers deals for votes, and those deals are always rigged to be non-starters(see Stupak and his idiocy on the EO). This one is no different. The only thing Obama did was to remove his own roadblock, placed by his admin, on offshore drilling. It still has to go through lawsuits, environmental surveys(how do you think that one will go?), and a host of other regulatory hurdles before it even comes to the auction floor.
I wouldn’t characterize it as a viable energy and environmental strategy like you do. I will call a spade a spade and classify it as nothing more than a deal to accumulate votes for passage of Cap-n-Tax. And if you think that is a good idea, just remember who will be getting all the money, with little if no reduction in carbon emissions.
if they are transparent and bipartisan ,our perspective should not be limited,and if majority don’t give the benefit of the doubt ,is in it because they have it figured out with the lack of transparecy ,@ PETER
Wordsmith, I’m going to read a more universal theme into your piece and hazard a guess that, at the core, you’re saying that being open-minded and principled are not mutually exclusive. From what I’ve seen, you’ve consistently demonstrated that while you stick to your conservative guns and beliefs, you don’t discourage dissenting viewpoints and discussions. I thought this was very well done and I hope everyone who reads this takes it in the spirit in which it was given.
Candidate Obama and President Obama and assorted sycophants blamed Bush for everything from Fannie/Freddie making crappy loans to the weather. I find it very difficult not to hold the Obama administration to the standards that Obama applied.
ps: a real mensch wouldn’t use his children as political props. Obama does…