This interview begins to answer a number of questions about this topic that have nagged at me for years. Presumably the book goes much further into detail. It’s going to the top of my Holiday Wish List. Kudos to Elias for the get (or maybe it was assigned to him, which would also be very cool), and for doing a bang-up job with it!
Michael Drew
Michael Drew is a Wisconsinite currently residing in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He enjoys thinking and writing about politics, history, and philosophy, listening to music and podcasts of all kinds, watching and occasionally playing sports, and playing the cello.
Thanks to your generosity, we were able to upgrade our service plan. Hopefully this will help us address some of our performance issues.
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024Currently we are facing the liberal society paradox where a liberal society faces threats so great t…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
on From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in ChargeHave you spent much time in blue cities? Growing up near Detroit, I can say the Dems talk a great ga…
on Youngsters Make Merry at Evanston Country Club Christmas PartyHester Walrath (1898-1971) went on to attend Northwestern University, marry a businessman, and have…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024So the "CR" of 1500 pages, given to members 24 hours before the vote, and which did all kinds of thi…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024Do you not understand the irony of speaking positively about banning political parties in the same b…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024I suppose we could blame the townspeople for not showing up the umpteenth time the shepherd boy crie… on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024A small backlash? If the election were held today they would be the 2nd biggest party in the Bundest…
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024I have no idea why pointing out that Na.zis were elected legitimately is relevant to this discussion… on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024No, I'm pointing out that you find 'Trump is Hitler' more absurd than 'These people are Na.zis', so…
Youngsters Make Merry at Evanston Country Club Christmas Party
December 21, 2024
December 20, 2024
December 19, 2024
December 18, 2024
on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024 on A Note from Em
on A Note from Em on A Note from Em on A Note from Em on A Note from Em on A Note from Em on A Note from Em on A Note from Em
on From The Wall Street Journal: How the White House Functioned With a Diminished Biden in Charge on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024 on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024
on A Note from Em on Open Mic for the week of 12/16/2024
That the dynamic apparently also confirmed by a study of Brown voters was basic to Obama’s thinking always seemed obvious to me. Throughout this presidency, Obama has been more sensitive than the further left and fellow traveling libertarians of the danger a successful major terror attack in the U.S., or other setback on that order, would pose to his entire agenda and legacy, and even especially to a civil liberties and anti-war/anti-intervention agenda. There’s no need to view the effect on his policy cynically either: He may quite sincerely believe that doing everything in his power to prevent such an attack, and therefore to avoid any laxness in the Policy Formerly Known as the War on Terror, is part of the job he swore an oath to do. Of course, to the extent one accepts that rationale, it becomes more difficult to condemn his predecessor’s policies as one-sidedly as his supporters might wish to, and as he himself has done.
Report
The role of the Brown election is this sphere was what stood out as new to me too, but it wasn’t obvious at all to me. I wasn’t aware it was such a significant part of the impetus behind his election.Report
Not sure if we’re reading each other right. It may be that I worded my comment ambiguously (have tried now to fix it): What I meant was that the dynamic that a study of Brown voters seems to have confirmed was, I believe, the theory obviously underlying Obama’s approach before the Brown election – and not just regarding the former WOT. As for Brown specifically, I had the idea at the time that his candidacy was not treated by the voters as primarily a referendum on Obamacare (which would have been unusually selfless of Massachusetts voters!), but that political punditry treated it as one in effect.Report
I’ve always wondered to what extent “evolving thinking” is also representative of “getting access to all of the info you didn’t (or couldn’t) have access to when you were a mere candidate.”
Candidate: “If elected, I will end this petty War On Terror Crap! We will have a return to normalcy!”
(wins election)
Guy in suit: “Hello Mr. President, here is your briefing of what is really going on.”
New President: “Holy crap. We need to start bombing.”Report
With the federal reserve, I’d believe it… with the presidency? Particularly with congressmen running?
I mean, sure, if Trump decides to aboutface on twenty things when he gets to be president, no one ought to be surprised.
But if Hillary Clinton does that, we have a genuine “wtf”… because she ought to be able to get enough information from her allies on the Hill to not be completely out of line on policy.Report
Eh. I’m pretty sure that any “wtf” following Hillary doing something completely different than she campaigned on will be one of those “shocked, shocked” wtfs.
https://youtu.be/SjbPi00k_MEReport
So Obama realized he was naïve in his underestimating the threat? Not surprising.Report
Then he should have had a public address and said “I was wrong in the campaign and here’s why and now I know better.”
Of course, he gave those individuals and the administration that backed them up, a pass on legit torture and civil rights violations.Report
I still need to RTFA, but Candidate Obama was never the anti-war civil libertarian that many (too many) made him out to be. His own words were “I’m not against war, I’m against stupid wars”. A main thrust of his campaign was that he was going to focus on Afghanistan and fight the larger so-called War on Terror more intelligently, with a whole of government approach. He campaigned to close down gitmo, sure, but he was never against the System, as such.
[dg]He was who we thought he was, and we let him off the hook[/dg]
(though a significant break from his campaign rhetoric and promises was Odyssey Dawn, but nobody has ever given him any grief for that, aside from a (very funny) segment or two on the Daily Show)Report
Skimming the book over the last couple of post-leaf-blowing evenings, I find that Savage goes to considerable lengths to make this point quite explicit. Neither in the the campaign, nor in the presidency, nor, there is some suggestion, long before that time, as a conlaw lecturer & legislator.
Savage expresses some frustration (felt contemporaneously in 2007) that Obama’s campaigning, while taken literally not committing him to civil libertarian positions that would be difficult to deliver on, was nevertheless “framed” (I would suggest “pitched” as the better charge here) in such a way as to give the impression that Obama was and, if elected, intended to be as president a committed civil libertarian. From my perspective that kind of just seems like good campaigning. But Savage, like the legal expert he is, draws out the many ways in which Obama’s commitments have been to the formal legality of government security actions, rather than to substantively protecting citizens from them. I sort of expected Savage as a lawyer (or law school grad) to appreciate that, but he doesn’t seem to.
As an incidental update to the post, I’m actually not finding the Savage book to be quite as enjoyable as I thought I might. It’s a very thorough and lawyerly examination of the Obama administration’s approach to (and struggles to approach) the legal challenges of the post-9/11 U.S. national security environment. But man is it dry. It’s also not especially illuminating in the parts I’ve seen. There is a lot of recounting of deliberations and arguments that anyone following these questions moderately closely in the press or on blogs will be pretty familiar with.
If you’re going to spend money and time on a book covering these questions, especially if you don’t have need for a comprehensive review of national security legal politics in the Obama era, I might recommend you check out Scott Shane’s Objective Troy instead. It looks into a good number of the same legal questions, focusing on the targeted killing area, but couples that with a close look at the life and significance of Anwar Al-Awlaki. And in both areas – detailing the administration’s wrestling with these problems, and telling the story of Awlaki’s journey, Shane offers a much more textured, concrete account of the events, people, and forces involved. It’s governmental and political history that reads like thrilling, suspenseful governmental and political history to Savage’s legal text with a dash of personal portrait here (usually of government lawyers, who seem to be the bulk of the sources) and political analysis there.
The Savage will probably end up being the more essential text for an overall appraisal of the legal ramifications of Obama’s presidency in this area, though.Report