TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 5:30 PM
December 01, 2008 | 4:40 PM
December 01, 2008 | 2:02 PM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

December 01, 2008 | 4:08 PM
December 01, 2008 | 1:36 PM
December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
30.06.2008
Obama's Patriotism

Barack Obama has touched the untouchable in the left-wing narrative of the sixties. He has reminded us and reproached us for how smitten we were with the very idea of revolution. Did we not -- or, at least, very many of us -- cheer on the victory of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese in the struggle for Indo-China? Did we ever really ponder the human calamity that followed their triumph in Vietnam and that of their allies in Laos and Cambodia?  Did we even examine the mass cruelties of the Chinese "cultural revolution" that accompanied what we preferred to think of as a peasants' war against America?

No, Obama did not literally ask these questions. But he recalled for us their equivalent, what he himself, being too young, had not experienced, the validating of the charge that the Vietnam opposition was bit short on patriotism. Here is Obama speaking: "by burning flags, by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world, and perhaps most tragically by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day." Read about this speech in an article by Jonathan Weisman on the web-site of the Washington Post.

Frankly, I do not recall a major Democrat brave enough to utter this reproach to his own supporters. Obama did this in the context of a reproach to the Republican opposition which makes it a habit to question the patriotism of others, as G.O.P. operatives and their subterranean allies have questioned his.  

But there is another context to these remarks, discussed today by Ben Smith in Politico and by Brian Knowlton in the New York Times. Apparently, "leftist blogs" have attacked John McCain as being guilty of "war crimes for bombing targets in Hanoi in the 1960s and castigated him for his coerced participation in (North Vietnamese) propaganda films." A double whammy, so to speak. I wonder if these bloggers now reproach Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden for doing such cheesey film work as volunteers.

In any case, Obama has, with the elegance and eloquence which comes naturally to him, also decried these allegations against McCain. One of Obama's supporters, Gen. (Ret.) Wesley Clark, who thought he could get the Democratic nomination four years just on his military record, derided McCain's military career as anything of a qualification for the presidency. Obama distanced himself from Clark and praised those "who have endured physical torment in service to our country."

"No further proof of such sacrifice is necessary," Obama added.  "And let me also add that no should ever devalue their service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides."

 

 

Posted: Monday, June 30, 2008 8:08 PM with 23 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

lymon1 said:

If Obama really wants to nail your generation, he should talk-up how you baby boomers are and continue to suck generation y or z dry.  As for the 60's, don't blame me -- I was like 3 in 1968.

June 30, 2008 9:38 PM

fseidle said:

What is "like 3" anyway. Barak Obama has by his candidacy,elevated not only political discourse,but a belief in that maybe this country can change course.

"No further proof of such sacrifice is necessary", could prove to be one of the most effective lines from a speech this year.I believe with that line,Obama has really said,"that was then this is now".

McCains military service while seen as heroic, remarkable and all things American by supporters and non supporters alike,is only part of his biography.

It would be both nice and informative if would could stop living in McCains past and start looking at his ever changing positions on the real issues Americans and the world care about. Oh and Marty please reprint or post Lebanon Eyewitness. Thanks,Frank

July 1, 2008 3:03 AM

boxofrox said:

Good post, Marty. I thought the speech was wonderful. Imagine that. A politician demanding intellectual honesty. Now I know that some of my more cynical brothers and sisters would simply chalk this up to more of the same slick, self serving rhetoric they've seen time and again. It's hard not to get jaded. But this brainwashed patriot (and proud of it) who saw the sixties as both invigorating and obscene thinks that he nailed this particular subject. At least within the parameters that collectivity will allow.

July 1, 2008 8:44 AM

lsernoff said:

Obama's rejection of Clark's comments on McCain's military record as qualification for the presidency was characteristically eloquent.  The wonder is what Clark thought he was accomplishing.  Does he think the Harvard Law Review, followed by community activism and service as a junior state legislator provide more qualification?

July 1, 2008 8:58 AM

WaltB said:

It's borderline laughable, how 'patriotism' has morphed into a right-wing ideology that mandates blindly following some sort of behavior pattern that includes wearing a pin made in another country.  Our country was founded by a group of people the British called terrorists, criminals, thieves and worse.  They were nothing at all like what the word is taken as meaning today.

And there is no way being a POW, serving in the military for twenty years or more, or even being a Senator, gives a person the experience to be President.  The only experience for it is by being President.

July 1, 2008 10:12 AM

lymon1 said:

Change course?  Neither of them offer that -- Obama wants to put on the breaks while McCain wants to accellerate (forget Iraq, has anyone looked at his looney economic plan?).  But the f*cking glaringly obvious fact that nobody except a handful of pundits will talk about is that absent RADICAL changes in our energy policy, the longterm outlook for America is gloomy. Neither candidate is proposing anything close to what we need.  Mainly that's a guaranteed floor on oil prices, while at the same time opening pretty much every nook and cranny to oil exploration and public financing of nuclear and wind energy (using any money captured by the oil floor to improve infrastructure and public transportation).   Neither come close to this.   And in the short term only a radical change in energy policy would put pressure on Iran, a poor nation despite it's new wealth, and do more to empower the world's containment efforts than anything else.

So wank away about patriotism and character issues and campaign financing and gun rights and gay marriage and -- particularly you baby boomers who will either be dead or too senile to see the results.  

July 1, 2008 10:24 AM

blackton said:

I agree with Lymon, this was also a shot across the bow of the baby boom generation.

I like McCain a lot, but I am starting to get a little weary of his "Vietnam war hero" line. There was a story on the Civil War PBS series after the war was over where one Veteran hero ran for office and never missed an opportunity to remind people of his sacrifice (McCain is having others do it for him). He got drubbed. I am starting to feel "yes I get it, I am not worthy to tie your shoes, now just go away because I have no desire to be reminded of this everyday for the next 4 years."

I have a new campaign slogan "We are not worthy to vote for John McCain."

July 1, 2008 10:28 AM

blackton said:

lymon, stop believing the hype about oil. There are enough reserves to last 100 years at present consumption. At Chincotepec and Jack2 alone in the gulf are about 30 billion barrels of oil. Vast areas of Siberia haven't even been explored much less tapped. We don't need radical change. The reason why oil has spiked is because Bush drove the dollar to the toilet, and couple that with speculators we have sky high prices. Bush is happy for this because his oilmen cronies have struck it rich, but if Obama is elected I guarantee oil will soon fall below $100 a barrel (and if the dollar maintained parity from when Clinton was in office that would be about 65 a barrel). The Saudis are scared shitless of the US developing alternative sources because they will then be stuck sitting on vast reserves of crude.

I agree we should conserve, but for environmental, economical, and national security reasons, but enough with the chicken little.

July 1, 2008 10:34 AM

lymon1 said:

blackton -- I'm not worried about oil suddenly running out or doubt that the oil spike in prices is somewhat exagerated.  I'm worried about the impact on our economy and the effect oil revenues, even at $100/barrel (the dollar ain't going back to Clinton-era strength anytime soon absent a deep economic recession), has in financing our enemies in the war on terror.  How much economic competitiveness, brain drain, etc. more do we need to lose to Europe and, increasingly, Canada?  When oil prices do drop as you say, where is that wealth going?  With baby boomer entitlements about to expload, I have an idea.  You also have to look at oil in terms of our population demographics.  So yes, we can just "let the market" nudge us towards some improvements in energy efficiency and conservation and it's not going to be a return to the Great Depression.  It's just going to be, with ocassional bumps here and there, a continual slide for typical americans a la the last 6 years.  

July 1, 2008 1:31 PM

lamh31 said:

I said this in another post, but thx tnr and you posters for some actual intelligent discourse on Clark/mccain that many in the so called liberal blogosphere can't seem to have w/o drama queen antics

July 1, 2008 1:44 PM

butchie b said:

Lymon is right.  it's NOT either/or, it's both/and.  In the short term, we're stuck with the energy usage we've got - fossil fuels.  Beyond that, nuclear and the other alternatives should and will play a bigger role, but the idea that we can "get off oil" is loony.  Maybe get off non-North American oil, which would be a big step in the right direction.

As a GOPer, I believe the federal gov't can play a salutary role in the nudging, and that energy is first and foremost a nat'l security issue.

July 1, 2008 1:53 PM

dhuey0 said:

Very thoughtfull piece, Marty.  I also liked Boxofrox's observation that he saw the sixties as "both invigorating and obscene."  Sort of, "the best of times . . . the worst of times."  Mostly, it was for me the best of times but my 60's buzz is killed everytime I remind myself W. is a '60's generation member too.

Hopefully, the best thing about the '60's will turn out to be the Gen X and Y'ers we raised.  It certainly is in my case.

Anyway, I am glad to hear Obama call me to account.  I can take it and be the better for it.  An  [intellectually] honest accounting is the only way for a people to mover forward..

July 1, 2008 4:50 PM

tomeg said:

As one born at the trailing edge of gen boom (like 1948), I can't wait (well, hardly wait) for us to fade into the sunset. I've become so bored, annoyed and disgusted with our over-consumption, greed, and self-satisfaction, the end couldn't come too soon. To paraphrase,

"Bye Bye meinen Boomeren

it's been a fine affair

but now its over"

(or something to that effect)

July 1, 2008 5:21 PM

lsernoff said:

Re energy, neither party has anything legitimate to say, since neither has done much of anything over the past 35 years.  The Rs say let the markets take care of it; period.  The Ds won't agree to anything their environmentalist masters won't approve; and they won't approve anything conceived by private enterprise.  The French and Japanese (at earthquake central) have lots of nuclear power.  Three Mile Island killed nobody but the industry in the US.  We haven't built a new refinery since Jesus wore kneepants.  We can't drill within shouting distance of where the Cubans are drilling offshore, or on a tiny piece of the ANWR (though the prior Alaskan drilling seems to have been wildlife friendly; and the Google photographs of the proposed drilling area are not friendly to the environmentalists' complaints).  And, we are busy raising the cost of food to make the corporate corn farmers rich for ethanol (while protecting our sugar growers from competition from Brazil, which is busy producing ethanol more efficiently from sugar cane).  The one positive step I can recall is the CAFE minimum mileage rules, which I credit to the Ds; though Dingell and the Michigan delegation have made sure the bar is raised as gently as possible. A very sorry record.  

If our elected representatives weren't totally absorbed with partisanship, we might have done better.  But their non-partisan exertions have largely been confined to creating "safe" districts for each other.  We could have done better;  we'd better do better.

Blackton, I share your lack of joy on Bush's dollar policy, but point out that it has improved the export posture of American manufacturers.  Minimal point:  nothing is all bad.

July 1, 2008 5:42 PM

blackton said:

lsernoff, I agree that nothing is all bad, but might I add no country has ever gotten rich off of devaluing its currency. Might I also add that we are endangering the dollar being the defacto world currency. When the Chinese stop pegging the yuan to the dollar and let it float against a basket of currencies the dollar will take a huge hit spiking inflation. The Chinese are in a tough spot because they are getting killed on oil prices, they let the yuan value rise, oil becomes much cheaper but they hurt their export market. The US currency has been a force for stability for generations, Bush has brought us to a nasty precipice, so yes, a few exporters might be doing well but that ain't nowhere near enough.

July 1, 2008 8:52 PM

simon greenwood said:

Great piece, but  a minor nitpick: wasn't it the Viet Cong who overthrow the Khmer Rouge government?  I know that some people ALSO defended the KR (famously, Chomsky) but calling them allies is still erroneous if I've got my history right

July 2, 2008 8:24 AM

elliesch said:

I'd like to see some posts relating a pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan with the following Obama comments:  "Did we ever really ponder the human calamity that followed their triumph in Vietnam and that of their allies in Laos and Cambodia?  Did we even examine the mass cruelties of the Chinese "cultural revolution" that accompanied what we preferred to think of as a peasants' war against America?"

July 2, 2008 10:40 AM

butchie b said:

No, Simon the Vietnamese Army overthrew the Khmer Rouge.  The Viet Cong were the South Vietnamese who supported the North.  They were mostly killed off during the Tet Offensive in Jan 1968.

July 2, 2008 11:12 AM

elliesch said:

Blackton, could you provide your source for this:  "There are enough reserves to last 100 years at present consumption. At Chincotepec and Jack2 alone in the gulf are about 30 billion barrels of oil. "

And also, could you elaborate on how exactly " Bush has brought us to a nasty precipice. " I'm guessing your will respond that by failing to put into place a serious alternative energy program, he has failed to frighten OPEC sufficiently to force them to drop prices. But I thought I read just the other day that such an initiative failed in congress, having gotten just one vote from a Virginia Congressman. Am I wrong?

Thanks.

July 2, 2008 2:55 PM

blackton said:

elliesch, you can easily find the sources for the reserves, of course a lot of the problem is not the amount of reserves, but the cost to get to those reserves. The oil is there I am sure you are aware.

The precipice I am talking about is his driving down the dollar to such an extent that it is no longer the world reserve currency. The Chinese and Japanese aren't going to keep financing our debt if the dollar becomes more and more worthless over time, there are other developing markets for all of their consumer goods, especially in Asia.

July 2, 2008 5:43 PM

elliesch said:

Blackton you are kind -- but no, I was not at all aware that the oil "is there" to the tune you describe--"30 billion barrels and enough to last 100 years."  Now you mention the cost to get those reserves; is it any greater than it would be if we were to drill in ANWR or off Florida in the intercontinental shelf?

And by what avoidable means  has Bush driven down the dollar?

July 2, 2008 7:45 PM

elliesch said:

Blackton, I did research.

The following is from Wikipedia in a search for Jack 2 alone:  "The maximum estimate of 15 billion barrels (2,400,000,000 m³) represents 50% of current estimated U.S. reserves[3][4] — or slightly less than 2 years of U.S. consumption at present levels.[5]"

So, since the  17 billion barrels (your figure) in Chincotepec could not be good for much more,  I am still left to wondering about your argument that "There are enough reserves to last 100 years at present consumption" -- obviously you  must mean from all over the world, not in the U.S. -- and I am wondering exactly where these reserves are, because if we ain't got 'em, then we aren't independent, are we?

And if we ain't independent, I'd say we've got trouble.  Since we import more from both Canada and Mexico each than from Saudi Arabia (shocking, isn't it?) we are quite dependent upon them; probably the oil importation from Mexico accounts more for our loose immigration policy than all the common arguments we tend to hear on that subject. That is hardly independence. And most of Latin America is not very interested in American know how anymore, because they don't want to share revenues.

I checked Google and found this on Wikipedia concerning  Chincotepec:  " In other word's, Mexico's oil industry is in freefall. The Cantarell field, which produces 55% of the country's oil, has been showing decline rates of 25% per year. While Mexico does have the Chincotepec field, which was found decades ago, it doesn't have the money or the technological expertise to develop it, so I would expect Mexico to cease exporting oil within a few years. "

So, first of all, it is Mexican oil, not ours--not that you said it was. And I note that you, yourself, provided this information in an earlier post:  'the field at Chincotepec has 17 billion barrels, but as of now Mexico isn't drilling there. Not for environmental reasons but because the field is so deep."

And with respect to the Jack 2 field, Wikipedia has this:  "About supergiants: "As is true for any oilfield, the volume of economically-sensible extractable crude is likely to be significantly less than its estimated total reserves. For example, the amount of recoverable crude in the Kashagan field is estimated at 7-9 billion barrels, whereas Iran's Azadegan oilfield, with estimated reserves of 26 billion barrels, has only about 9 billion recoverable barrels." [4]  So we also learn that it is "recoverable" barrels that need to concern us, not just total barrels.

July 2, 2008 8:23 PM

elliesch said:

To EllieS and Blackton,

What all this  oil reserves stuff got to do with Obama's patriotism anyway?  Why aren't you commenting on the piece that was actually written?

July 2, 2008 9:53 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.