Reconciliation without Truth

It is said that Barack Obama has read Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, about the war cabinet of Abraham Lincoln. It is said Obama wants to constitute his cabinet out of former rivals because he liked the book and he models himself on Lincoln.

Implausible as it sounds, this is the best explanation anyone has given of the offer of the position of secretary of state to Hillary Clinton. Lincoln took William Seward at State, and Seward was a rival indeed, but he had fought for Lincoln with ferocious loyalty and all his eloquence throughout the campaign, and he put his considerable vote-getting power at Lincoln's disposal. What can be said for Hillary Clinton? She fought against Obama until the last possible moment, and on the way exploited, for the purpose of discrediting him, most of the devices the Republicans would later tap in the general election. She said Obama had not shown himself fit to be commander-in-chief. She pretended not to know for sure whether or not he was a Muslim.

Team of Rivals is a pleasant work of popular history, only harmful to the extent that you weave fantasies around it. Anyone who cares about Obama's fortunes after his first large public mistake (for even to offer Clinton the position was a mistake) should close his copy of Goodwin and open the actual words of Hillary Clinton on Iraq, and the things Barack Obama said about those words.

It may seem an incidental detail but none of the people in Lincoln's cabinet had a husband who was a former president with a pronounced need to be at the center of the national stage at all times. Why not repeat the truth? Barack Obama's election was a real breakthrough, without precedent--something he did by himself with the help of a million workers who were not working for Hillary Clinton. When the reading is done and the analogies played out, we should also admit that no two situations in history are much alike.

The wars President Bush has involved this country in, awful as they are, don't in any way resemble the Civil War: not in magnitude, not in necessity, and not in the domestic threats that can be supposed to attend them.

Is Obama's misstep part of a larger pattern? Signs going as far back as July, and as near as yesterday, from persons "close to Barack Obama" ranging from Patrick Leahy to Cass Sunstein, have suggested there ought to be no serious investigation of crimes around domestic surveillance and torture. What of the hundreds of Bush appointees sown throughout the departments and the agencies? These people's ideas of right and wrong will come in part from what the new administration shows itself to care about and what it prefers to disregard. Indifference in this setting is not magnanimity.

Tuesday the Democrats voted to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman did his worst to tear down Barack Obama in 2008 by questioning his love of his country and his fitness to lead a secure government. Compare Lieberman and Clinton now with another person who has been mentioned for secretary of state, Chuck Hagel. Hagel accompanied Obama on his foreign tour even as Lieberman accompanied McCain. That we are not now at war with Iran may also be owed in part to a courageous letter that Hagel wrote to Admiral Fallon last October, on the recklessness of American saber rattling--this, when Clinton and Lieberman were voting the AIPAC line and saying, with docility, that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organization. They hoped if there was a war it would be over by the election.

Any president needs around him people of courage, judgment, and competence who share his fundamental views. If Hillary Clinton all along fit that description for Obama, why did he not tell us so? A party in control must in some respects resemble any other institution that hopes to maintain itself. Reward those who sap and undermine, and you likewise discourage those who are loyal. People will practice the bad arts that they see are profitable. And who that voted in 2008 was looking to have a government of reconciliation without truth?

Comments

[freshnotbitter]

David, I think it is too late. The Clinton News Network just had their employees on stating that Obama wishes he could retract his words at the debates concerning talking to enemies in favor of Hillary's stance. Incredible.

The mouthpiece of war is already drumming up the conflicts to come with their propaganda and O will find it impossible to extract himself when the time comes. he will then be nothing but an automaton reacting to events and reading polls with no power to do anything.

[AbbieXHoffman]

So now that Obama wishes he could retract his words at the debates concerning talking to enemies in favor of Hillary's stance (which I knew he would if elected) what were the differences again on the ISSUES between the two in the primary (besides that she had a better health care plan)?

There were and are no differences on the issues which is why there should be no problem at all with her being SOS.

[PalmG]

Mr. Bromwich, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your article. As another commenter said, this article should be framed and put on the walls of every citizen. I say it should be required reading for everyone--­especially the president-elect. Chris Matthews asked on his show today, "will Washington change Obama?" I think the answer is a resounding YES, else he was duping all of us all along, which is even more problematic.

[Skepticat]

If the Clintons want to be secretary of state they will have to disclose much more than has ever been done in the past - and so far seem to be agreeable to it. Bill has already agreed that future appearances and speeches be vetted - and to co-operate as required. Compare this to Clintons without any restrictions - or any responsibility for the success of the administration.
If they don't co-operate after this offer, all but the most petulant of pumas would be hard pressed to claim that the Clintons weren't given a fair chance. If they sabotage Obamas efforts - they can forget running any time in the next millenium. As to Lieberman what options does he have but to play ball?
As to rewarding only the loyal as many have suggested - that's what the last administration did. How well did that work out?

[julianne]

I agree. Obama just doesn't seemed to be moved by the magnitude of the cold blooded treason of the Iraq invasion and ensuing murder and theft and the fascist politicization of agencies of government, including the judicial branch. Millions are dead and wounded or refugees. Millions have lost their jobs abroad and at home. Several years ago he was asked why he didn't support impeaching Bush/Cheney and he replied, "It would take away from the people's business." Pray tell, what business is that? Direction and priorities are important but so is intent, passion, and justice. And what about the hundreds of thousands of poor people rotting in American prisons on pot and cocaine charges, the three-stri­kes-your-o­ut laws, and endless petty crimes. Is "justice" only for them?

[robbie44]

I think you should run for public office.on second thought maybe not.......­....YOU HAVE A BRAIN!

[LewisWalsh]

My opinion:

Though I am delighted with the outcome of the election, we should not ignore the damage that has been done during the last eight years. I am content to forgive those individuals who contributed to our present sad state through incompetence, but forgiveness should not be in the offing for those who damaged the United States through deliberate criminal acts.

If the new administration does not encourage the new Justice Department to investigate allegations of crimes committed by government officials during the preceding eight years, they can rightfully be accused of abetting the actions of rogue officials. President Elect Obama must quickly order the investigation of those government officials who are suspected of illegal acts during their tenures. Many would say that the new administration should tackle the economic problems before anything else; I say that justice must be dispensed swiftly if it is to be effective in discouraging future bad acts.

The US has the reputation abroad of having no reluctance in incarcerating large numbers of its citizens, many of whom are serving prison sentences for petty and non-violent crimes. It would be a stain, not easily removed, if we are seen by the world as a country that metes out punishment based on status. If prosecutions do not occur, the accurate interpretation will be that the high ranking can undermine the Constitution and walk away with their taxpayer provided benefits and their reputations intact while the less prominent are imprisoned for minor addictions.

[piul05]

Loic Wacquant, for anyone interested on the subject, has extensive work done on this area.

It should recommended reading for anyone converced with the increasing policing nature of the state, motived no doubt by incarceration being one of the most profitable commodities around (war being another one but that we al already know).

[boing007]

the three-stri­kes-your-o­ut laws---Brought to you by President Bill Clinton.

[pjean]

I worked for, donated to and voted for Obama and I'm glad he won. I was one of those people who at first was screaming that he gets mad and goes angry but then I realized that the man and his team knew what he was doing. President Elect Obama has NOT taken office yet for those of you being critical of him. I feel that he is surrounding himself with smart, hardworking people who will challenge him. However the FINAL decision will rest with him. Who other then George Bush want to be surrounded with people that will always agree with him otherwise you lose your job. I trust our President Elect will do the BEST job he can for us. We have to remember that he is after all human and he will make mistakes just like we average people make. We need to support him and help him make the necessary changes our country so desperately need.

Why don't we do the right thing and support a President who cares about us and our childrens future specifically after having a President who could a rats a$% about any of us.

If we all do our part, we can make a difference and change our our country for the better.

[rwe2late]

It should never be 'my president, right or wrong', nor 'Obama right or wrong'.

You are attempting to frame criticism of Obama's policy statements and appointments as unwarranted personal attacks on Obama.

If he adopts good policies, he will have earned and deserve support.

So far, indications are that the coming "change" will not be substantive. Excuse us for bringing that to everyone's attention in the hope that it will generate pressure on policymakers to adopt substantive change.

'Hope', however, is not optimism.

[Hattie]

This is the proverbial bitter pill to swallow for the Hillary haters who worshipped Obama.

[robbie44]

Let me guess, if Obama does get a three in the morning phone call, he will just hand the phone to Clinton, roll over and go back to sleep.CHAN­GE WE CAN BLA BLA IN.

[rwe2late]

Whereas Bush's appointments were assailed for giving too much power to the wrong people, Obama's are now praised for giving power to the wrong people supposedly in order to restrain them.

Although the election was a repudiation of Bush, it was less clearly a repudiation of his overall policies.

Both Obama and Clinton only cricized Bush's implementation, not his basic policies.

Thus, both explantions are wrong, either that Obama is cleverly Machiavellian, or foolishly Machiavellian. Both explanations start with a flawed premise about Obama's imagined politics.

The simpler explanation is that, as Obama states, he supports the basic militarism of the US, seeks to expand the military, wishes to expand the wars to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and beyond, supports NATO expansion, supports Paulson's bailouts, and gives little priority to rescinding domestic 'Homeland Defense' legislation which he has supported.

Obama has only promised to improve style, not the substance.

[Kassandra]

You better hope that's not so.

[renatam]

The ONLY way to put Clinton Inc. in a position to be managed and, ultimately FIRED...wh­ere all of America can SEE their machinations front and center -- is to have made this decision. Everything they do will be on the record, disclosed for the purpose of accountability -- and JUDGED in the open. Familia Clinton will not and cannot stop their machinations - long term. It will be their choice WHEN they decide to go off the rails and do their own thing. When they do, it won't be hidden -- this time. And, when Americans see progress on all fronts/cylinders, Clinton Inc. won't be able to triangulate the new President-Elect against the interests/needs of the American people.

Until Clinton Inc. goes off the rails, it is the Presdient-Elect's job to MANAGE them to produce results he wants/needs for the American people, pursuant to this being HIS CHOICE for his reasons. It is his job to get the best out of Hillary Clinton -- until she chooses not to give it due to personal ambition/agenda(s), etc. That will be HER CHOICE - as it was her choice to remain with Bill. When she makes her choice, she should be prepared for the CONSEQUENCES and we women should not back her dysfunctional play of undermining a new President when/if it she does.

That's OUR CHOICE. Our children's futures are at stake.

[piul05]

Best post-election editorial to date.

My fear with regards to Obama has always been his very sketchy knowledge of foreign affairs and how much he's prepared to uncritically repeat the same lines that, in effect, have rendered the US a diplomatic pariah. Recent developments have done nothing to allay the fear that there will be more of the same manichean posturing in the new administration.

Everyone should frame this editorial and hang it on their wall - it'll be a sobering reminder of what his election was meant to be when talks of obliteration, preemptive strikes and unilateral action become become the staple diet of US foreign policy.

[robbie44]

If you call having the insight not to start an unjust war with no end sketchy, then what do you call the 95% of our government who played follow the leader into the abyss of ignorance?

[piul05]

Cynical and criminal.

[biabouman41]

"sketchy knowlege" of foreign affairs? Nonsense. He repeatedly exhibited better juadgement than his opponents. He opposed the Iraq war, Clinton, Bush McCain did not; he anticipated the invasion of Georgia, no one else did; he said we should take the fight into Pakistan when needed, Clinton, McCain opposed, Bush is now, 7 years later doing so and is having success; he said we should talk to Iran and others, Clinton and McCain opposed, Bush has recently adapted Obama's position.H­e expressed that it was not a good idea for Israel to push into Lebanon, all of the other lunatics were rubbing their hands in excited anticipation of Israeli victory.Is­rael was embarrassed in failure. In the first debate he showed himself the superior of McCain on foreign policy. On loose nukes.....­it goes on, and on. If Clinton follows his lead, with no funny stuff, OK, otherwise it could be a bad idea to make her Seretary of State. She does not have the jadgement.

[piul05]

His opposition to the Iraq tragedy was not based on a (right) sense of unwarranted agression towards a sovereign country but on logistics and results. Never once have I seen him talk about the plight of the Iraqi people being bombarded into oblivion for oil and to avenge Bush Snr.; it has always been phrased in terms of a bad move for geopolitical reasons - no change, in my book;

The Bush administration may have not antecipated Saakashvili's silly move - or they might but expected a different result (i.e. international outcry). Obama's position, after the invasion, however, was to repeat the same line as the present administration - tough talking, outrage, and being economic with the truth - the georgian president had overstepped the line and terrori*ed those nationalistic (and ethnic Russian provinces, which had a precedent anyway with Bosnia) hoping for US back-up.It didn't happen. Russia had a UN mandate and used it to its advantage to protect civilians. Obama's utterances on the episode were unremarkable as they were silly.

As to Isra*l - well, he bends himself backwards to assure them that unconditional support will continue - a speech in NY during the campaign being an example of that.

And Ir*n, well, his SOS wants to b*mb them to oblivion.

So, yes, saying his foreing policy is sketchy is a understatement.

[jmpurser]

I agree. There's no good reason to put Hillary in at SOS except faux party unity. It would be as self defeating as allowing Lieberman to continue to caucus with the Democrats.

Apparently the "Democrat with a spine" remains a mythological beast.

[Kassandra]

Oh come on! You're in revenge mode sir! Clinton isn't some loose cannon; she loves this country. She thought she had the best experience and the best ideas for America and so, she fought for what she believed in, just like you and I have done. She's a POLITICIAN, fergawssakes!
The people who should be prosecuted are the ones who've tried to kill this nation and the world. And I believe and see signs that they will be.

Obama's already talking about investigating the torture which violated the Geneva Conventions. That's the tip of the iceberg, but a good place to start. I think Obama's idealistic but he's not dumb, in any sense. His idealism is what appealed to the country.

Anyone who doesn't get with the program of saving America and the world from the robber barons will hang himself on his own petard. Should be interesting to see who gets the most rope to do it with.

[pastgone]

I have to agree with the author: Barack Obama is making big mistakes, and will continue to make them. His only real method of controlling Hillary Clinton if she is installed as Secretary of State will be to fire her, and firing her against her will will generate a scandal that will put a black cloud over the entire term in which she is fired. The funny thing is, many would say that Obama is simply continuing to govern as he campaigned--as a conciliator. I would disagree. Barack Obama ran a very good campaign, but he ran a very SAFE campaign. He didn't gamble--he didn't make any sudden, strange moves (a la McCain)--his VP pick, his messages and themes, his strategies--all "no drama", calm, and safe. NOW he's picking up the dice and throwing them--gambling big time that Hillary Clinton won't clash with him, won't pick fights with him, and that the Clinton couple won't generate drama and scandal. Suddenly, Obama is a gambler--and he's a making a risky and unnecessary bet. I think it's a big mistake.

[boing007]

Suddenly, Obama is a gambler--and he's a making a risky and unnecessary bet. I think it's a big mistake.

You might be right. He loves to play poker.

[davenav]

How presumptuous to say it's a misstep. Do you really think you are smarter than Barack Obama?

Your argument is 1/10 malice and 9/10 assumin'.

[who38]

Disagreement = presemption? Yes, Dave, there are people smarter than Obama; however, you may not be one of them but don't feel bad; a number of us fall in that category. What are you arguments to support your allegations re malice and assumption?

[2PartyDictatorship]

I have to say I agree with Mr. Bromwich. Clinton said she had the support of "hardworking, white people." She threatened to blow up Iran, she lied about being shot at in Bosnia, and her husband has shady international connections. To Hell with this so-called "Team of Rivals." I am sick and tired of hearing this phrase spoken by stupid pundits.

[who38]

Team of Rivals and Keep your enemies closer are necessary concepts when there is limited justification for the choices being made.

[concern4civility]

Obama will be a strong President. Obama knows exactly what he is getting with Clinton. The last two years demonstrates that he is no fool. Give it a chance. Don't let your anger over the limitations of our system & ideas of perfection get in the way of movement toward common good.