Globaloney Updated
Like most Americans, THE SCRAPBOOK was surprised--and a little disappointed--that the job in the Obama administration that should have gone to Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek's international editor, went instead to Hillary Clinton. We're sure that Senator Clinton will be an adequate secretary of state and help make us proud to be Americans again. But imagine a world in which Fareed Zakaria was our nation's top diplomat!
In fact, Newsweek had the same idea and as a public service asked Zakaria to write a cover essay last week entitled "How to Fix the World." Sure, there's a photograph of Barack Obama on the cover--striding purposefully onto an airplane, flying to Tehran?--but the "Global Agenda" ( Newsweek's term) for fixing the world is pure Zakaria.
There's not a syllable of policy prescription or specific advice or genuine content; but as we've always observed, when it comes to belaboring the obvious, or slinging hackneyed phrases, airy generalities, and all-purpose flatulence, nobody slings it like Secretary Zakaria.
If strategy is on President Obama's global agenda for hope, Zakaria has the concept down cold:
Grand strategy sounds like an abstract concept . . . that bears little relationship to urgent, jarring events on the ground. But in the absence of strategy, any administration will be driven by the news, reacting rather than leading.
That's why strategy is so important, as he explains in stunning detail: Its absence leads to a vacuum:
For a superpower that has global interests and is forced to respond to virtually every problem, it's all too easy for the urgent to drive out the important.
All too easy indeed. But as they say over in Foggy Bottom, that's pure Zakaria. You see, what THE SCRAPBOOK values about Secretary Zakaria is that he not only asks all the right questions, but he has all the right answers as well. Take strategy, again. His insights are not just theoretical; he puts the concepts into practice as well--and in such simple, compelling language that Hillary Clinton ought to paste these insights onto her new desk over at State:
Any attempt at a grand strategy for today must also begin with an accurate appraisal of the world.
If the truth be told, THE SCRAPBOOK was a little saddened by reading "How to Fix the World" since it reminded us, all too uncomfortably, of the truths that the Bush White House routinely ignored. For instance:
Any strategy that is likely to succeed in today's world will be one that has the active support and participation of many countries.
Or:
Technology is increasing the pace of change. Such ferment is usually a recipe for instability.
Or even:
In a world characterized by change, more and more countries--especially great powers like Russia and China and India--will begin to chart their own course. That in turn will produce greater instability.
So the key to fixing the world, in THE SCRAPBOOK's estimation, is to marry Senator Clinton's practical experience to Secretary Zakaria's wisdom and perspective, and bear in mind that--
National rivalries, some will say, are in the nature of international politics. But that's no longer good enough.
No, it's not. Nor is Zakaria content to leave things vague--"some will say"--when a few choice proposals can make the difference between an increasingly dangerous and complex world, and a world that, while broken, may yet be fixed:
A more responsive America, better attuned to the rest of the world, could help create a new set of ideas and institutions--an architecture of peace for the 21st century that would bring stability, prosperity, and dignity to the lives of billions of people.
Yes, the world has been seeking a formula for years--decades, even centuries--to usher in an age of stability, prosperity, and dignity. And Fareed Zakaria, in just one phrase, unlocks the secret: A more responsive America, better attuned to the rest of the world.
Why didn't we think of that?
Dallek Reads the Times!
At a Washington, D.C., screening last week of the movie Frost/Nixon (about the late president's televised encounter with David Frost), director Ron Howard, James Reston (who worked for Frost), and historian Robert Dallek compared President Nixon to President Bush. Who could resist? According to the Washington Times, Dallek referred to the Bush years as "an imperial presidency. This has, I think, in a sense, made this film and the play so timely, and why it's really commanding so much attention."
It is? Chris Wallace took strong exception: "I think to compare what Nixon did, and the abuses of power for pure political self-preservation, to George W. Bush trying to protect this country--even if you disagree with rendition or waterboarding--it seems to me is both a gross misreading of history both then and now." The host of Fox News Sunday (who received a mix of applause and boos from the audience) concluded, "You're simply making suppositions based on no facts whatsoever."
Dallek's response (as reported in the Washington Post): "Oh come on! You read the New York Times." We do, too, as well as the Onion--sometimes they're hard to tell apart.
NPR's Daniel Schorr, now 92, also used the Frost/Nixon movie to make the Nixon/Bush comparison, and the longtime Nixon foe suggested that Tricky Dick, by apologizing for his illegal behavior, might have achieved higher moral standing than Bush.
As I listened to Nixon on film, I thought of President Bush. While still in office, he is having to respond to questions of critics, but not only critics, as to whether he let the American people down, primarily by launching an invasion of Iraq in search of nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Interviewed by Charles Gibson of ABC, the president said his greatest regret was the intelligence failure that led to the war. As to whether he would have gone to war if intelligence had been right, Mr. Bush said, that's a do-over that I can't do. But Mr. Bush's expressed inability to look back avoids the issue.
The problem, Schorr says, is that Bush lied the country into war in Iraq because he "was determined to find a target for American anger." This slander doesn't really deserve a response, but it's worth reminding Schorr that the United States had already overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan and killed thousands of al Qaeda terrorists by the time of the Iraq war.
"As he prepares to leave office," Schorr said, "Mr. Bush might want to look at the Nixon interview and consider doing a do-over. That is reconsidering the wisdom of invading Iraq."
As long as we're making suggestions, NPR might want to consider a mandatory retirement policy.
Since it seems to be Nixon week in Washington, THE SCRAPBOOK is reminded of a line spoken by a character in one of Charles McCarry's great spy novels: "They have made Mr. Nixon stand for evil and they think that all it takes to be virtuous is to hate him. It is the sin of pride."
Sentences We Didn't Finish
"This book was born during a pan-Pacific dinner in Seattle in March 2007, with political journalist Michael Kinsley, Patty Stonesifer (Mike's wife), Susan Rieger (my wife), and me. Somewhere between the Singing Fish Satay and the Pow Wok Lamb, Mike and I, for some reason, said more or less the same thing . . . " (from Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, and It's Ruining Our Conversation, by David Denby).