a tale of two speeches
“Obama’s is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor–platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. […] He’s president. He’s not just a guy participating in a debate. But he’s more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions. […] Cheney’s is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He’s sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices.” ~ William Kristol
here, and Cheney’s here. Read them both – and bear in mind, Josh Marshall’s quip as he live-blogged Cheney’s oratory – “11:45 AM … Wondering how long it took Bill Kristol to write this speech.”
Fleetingly, I thought I should just write: ROTFLMAO but it seemed too trite. Something this vapid and delusional deserves more of a response than mere internet jargon can provide. Obama’s speech isMy questions are manifold. Why are the Republicans letting Cheney shoot off his “sober, realistic and concrete” mouth? Hasn’t anyone learned yet that within the ranks of either party there simply does not exist a public speaker who can take on the President? This person does not (yet) exist. Any attempt to outshine or counter Obama will fall short, and this is only a magnified truth when the speaker in question is Dick Cheney, a man who is – despite the adoration of 21% of the American populace – despised even more than his former boss by the vast majority of Americans. As Greenwald notes, Cheney’s speech was “just the same recycled, extremist neoconservative pablum that drove the U.S. into the deep ditch in which it currently finds itself.” Just another sign of cancer in the fast-decaying conservative movement.
On the flip side, I don’t really share Andrew’s enthusiasm over Obama’s admittedly much, much finer speech. Once again, I’m mightily impressed with our current President’s rhetorical skills, his intellect, his ability to pronounce words properly, but beyond this there is a little too much of the old, Bushy hawkishness there, or, as digby puts it:
We are still in a “war” against a method of violence, which means there is no possible end and which means that the government can capture and imprison anyone they determine to be “the enemy” forever. The only thing that will change is where the prisoners are held and few little procedural tweaks to make it less capricious.
David Frum writes:
[W]hat we have in Obama in other words is not so much a change of direction, but a reset and rebranding of existing policies that received their real modification in 2004 and 2005.
I’ve mentioned before that one of the greatest threats to liberty is the imperial presidency. Once the executive gathers up power, it is – like any other human institution – loath to give it up. The irony of course is that all this talk of “limited government” means nothing if the presidency and its extension in the military/national security apparatus aren’t checked. The genius of our government and our constitution was never so much in the limiting of the welfare state or the limiting of the federal government, but rather in the checks and balances between the different branches of government. Far more vital is our protection of those checks and balances than in some artificial “limiting” of the welfare state.
How can spending on domestic projects – bridges, roads, rails, health care – even compare to spending on a massive, overblown military which operates almost totally outside the check of a congress devoid of any independence? Far too much power is placed in the hands of the president and his advisers.
I have high hopes for Obama, and I want him to succeed. I’m a fan, I admit it. But nothing in either speech made me feel any better about the ever expanding role of our Commander in Chief or the entrenched national security state we have erected. The imbalance of power should be sobering to conservatives and liberals alike. Obama is a softer, cuddlier figure than Vader Cheney, but that doesn’t make him any less dangerous.
I think Kristol has it right when he compares the experience and maturity. To me, Obama is no great speaker, and the fact that there aren’t any good speakers in government right now speaks to the weakness of our representatives moreso than Obama’s rhetorical skills. Obama is facile, patronizing and boring. Cheney is not much better, but he does come across as an adult. As for the content of their speeches, both are rehashing something that should be dropped. Let’s talk about ending the wars — that would be much more interesting and productive.Report
Mike:
I couldn’t agree more!Report
E.D., you wrote, “But nothing in either speech made me feel any better about the ever expanding role of our Commander in Chief or the entrenched national security state we have erected.”
Well, I won’t presume to dispute your feelings but the President made a least two statements that gave me some hope, made me feel better, that some roll-back in executive prerogatives might be in sight.
1. “And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.”
2. “I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government.”
Yes, at this point only words and his words, to often in my opinion, have failed to bring about action. At least we have something to measure him against. We will be watching to see if he hold Congress and the courts as co-equal branches.Report
Good point, Bob – and well taken. Again, I do have high hopes for the President. I just worry about all these words, words, words. And also I worry that Congress will have a hard time living up to that co-equal branch idea…Report
“…Congress will have a hard time living up to that co-equal branch idea…”
Well, that deflated my ballon. But you speak the truth.Report
Bob –
It’s just words. Obama has taken a view on state secrets privilege as extreme or more extreme than Bush. He’s backed off virtually every promise he made to civil libertarians. His tactics on this issue are to sound as moderate and reasonable as possible while changing virtually nothing.Report
Katherine, I don’t think there is much daylight between us. I clearly stated my skepticism regarding Obama’s words v. actions. At least I hope I did. But if any opacity remains here is my position, Obama has disappointed me way to often, he must show me the money.Report
There is no reason to feel good about this speech, except its uber-logical construction and the crystaline clarity of its analysis of the issues at hand. The president clearly lays out the difficulty of the situation he inherits (difficulties that in all honesty obtain regardless of those inherited facts as long as we seek to prevent people from taking particular actions in the world by means other than prosecution after the fact), and then clearly asks Congress to pass a law that would manifestly violate the basic protection offered in our law against imprisonment without due process.
I can’t say this at Greenwald’s place, but I do have considerable respect for the president’s honesty and the above-board way he asks Congress to institute procedures that we simply cannot institute without violating core principles.Report
Michael – to some extent I agree. And again it’s not Obama so much that worries me but those that come after. It’s the generic executive that frightens me, not necessarily the individuals who inhabit it. Obama is extremely bright, and I think honest, but he’s only with us for 4 – 8 years, and then….who knows?Report
E.D.,
I wrote this under Chris Dierks’ excellent post on the Obama speech, regarding the issue of de facto presidential power and our vulnerability to calculated disregard for law by the person in that office regardless of Congress’s attempts to reign the legal powers of the office in:
I wonder what your thoughts about that view might be.Report
Dangnabit, I just can’t post cleanly lately:
should read
Thanks if you’re still with me here, no sweat if you’ve moved on…Report