Tom Barnett on HughHewitt
Parts 1-6 (of eventually 8) going chapter by chapter through the Pentagon's New Map.
His ideas are in large only getting play on the right. But with that comes ignorant and I would argue unnecessary defenses of stupidity like this one on Doug Feith. What is the integral thinker to do?
posted by CJ Smith @ 8:43 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Oh, that's easy, Chris. Self-challenge your assumption about Hewitt. And "the right" as anything monolithic. I've been listening to several of the Hewitt interviews of Barnett. These are fascinating, and I don't recall him ever using such clunky language as "unnecessary defenses of stupidity" in making his points. Frankly, he doesn't sound all that against the Iraq invasion, from what I've heard in the interviews. America as the great "perturber".
All that said, thanks for talking up Barnett all this time. I wouldn't have stopped to listen to him on Hewitt had you not.
md
Dude the unnecessary and stupidity was in reference to the Douglas Feith piece HH ran juxtaposed to Barnett. I actually have a decent view of Hewitt that is why I was so turned off by his (again unnecessary and stupid in my view) defense of Feith.
What I was saying was I find it odd that HH can be so forward thinking in one way and not (by my lights) in another.
In the latest Barnett talk Hewitt (whose taking some heat regarding his Barnett pieces) asked Barnett flatly whether he is a registered Democrat and whether he voted for Kerry or not. Hewitt sadly I think partisan-ized it, and those kinds of questions I believe will as soon as the answers are given (yes Barnett did vote for Kerry, yes he is a registered Democrat) immediately turn some? many? of Hewitt's listeners off.
The thinking is because he is a Democrat then I need not listen to anything the man says.
And because Feith was a Bush appointee, and because we are a conservative voice then he should be defended.
My frustration is with the partisan-ship. It just so happened in this case to be directed against Hewitt and conservatives of his ilk.
I'm equally frustrated with similar moves by the Democrats/left.
I know the "unnecessary and stupidity" was about the Feith interview. And it is still clunky to say that.
I have a totally different interpretation of Hewitt asking Barnett about his political affiliation.
Here's the relevant section:
HH: Before I do that, though, because I think it matters, we’ve never talked politics. And since you’re making a Wilsonian argument here, I’d like to kind of get on the record…you’re a Catholic kid, grew up in Wisconsin, a Harvard PhD, and if my e-mailers are correct, you were a supporter of John Kerry in ’04?
TB: Yes.
HH: And are you a Democrat?
TB: Registered, yes.
HH: And have you always supported Democrats? I think this is important for people to understand that we’re going to agree a lot in this chapter, and I want them to understand you’re a Democrat.
TB: I guess I’d call myself a conservative Democrat, or sort of a Tony Blair, Scoop Jackson sort of Democrat. So pretty much a hawk externally, and pretty much a Democrat internally.
HH: Would you agree that you’re a pragmatic Wilsonian, if we have to come up with sort of categories to put you in?
TB: Yeah, pragmatic Wilsonian, kind of an idealist/realist. I hate the binary choices. You know, when I was over in China the first time, they said you’ll never be accepted in America, because in America, they always want you to be either one or the other. And you’re very pragmatic in your short term analysis, but very idealistic in your long term analysis, and that’s a tough balance to maintain.
HH: How have you earned the trust of the uniforms, not being a veteran yourself?
TB: Well, you know, I don’t talk about things I don’t know, and I’m not asked to advise them on things that I don’t understand. I’m a grand strategist, and my role has always been about helping the military to understand the larger context, the whys and the whens and the whos of conflict, but not the how. I leave the how completely to them, so they don’t come to me, for example, for tactics or operations. They come to me for insights about under what conditions they’ll wage war, and for what reasons.
HH: You know, Dr. Barnett, I find it very encouraging, though, that the uniform services are open to a civilian of your background and writing, coming in and talking about those things, and don’t automatically say he hadn’t been there, he hadn’t done that, he can’t possibly project how force is going to be necessary and used in the decades ahead.
TB: Well again, it’s the role I play.
Emphasis on "we’re going to agree a lot".
Hewitt's questions indicate one of his (and many other conservative radio hosts') fundamental views, namely on just how far the Democratic party has fallen.
Because, essentially, here's Hewitt and Barnett, having a great conversation, in a rather unique series of either conversation, about the preeminent foreign policy problem America faces.
And the conversation is civil.
And the conversation is nuanced.
And the conversation is respectful.
And it's between a Democrat and a Republican.
It's illustrative of how things should be. It already is this way when smart conservative talk amongst themselves. It is rarely this way, if ever, when smart progressives talk.
If you aren't getting this, my advice would basically be to listen to more conservative radio, Chris.
It takes a while to unpostmodernize oneself, and to see what is, in this case, clear as day.
md
md,
I agree that the conversation was civil as it should be.
for what's it worth i still think it was completely ignorant to defend Feith. The man whom Gen. Tommy Franks once called, "the dumbest f--in' guy on the planet." Tommy Franks, not exactly a bleeding heart lib.
Back to the main point. My observation about what I took to be partsianship does not have to do with un-postmodernizing myself. It has to do with my disappointment that Barnett's shows got lower ratings on the site than say many a Christopher Hitchens or even a Mark Steyn(both of whom I think are not in Barnett's league).
Although to be fair the last Barnett clip as of today got 5/5 stars. Most of his earlier ones were only polling at 2 or 3/5. [The Doug Feith clip 5/5].
Have no idea how representative of his listening population those rate it features are.
And as for having to listen to conservative talk radio, I was raised having to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Gordon Liddy every day. Fairly right of center I'd say. Hewitt is light years ahead of those clowns. And certainly true that I don't listen to stations like Air America. Consider them the other sides version of a Limbaugh.
But maybe you were correct about Hewitt's intentions, although I would still say I'm not off-base in how that would play with some HH's audience (again I can't guess as to how much, my instinct tells me though quite a fair bit o' them). It's not an unfair question to be sure, but I think given how the conversations had gone til then and the heated partisan environments it would have better been unasked.
They could have asked the pragmatic Wilsonianism without asking who he voted for and what party he is registered as--those two were the ones that crossed the line for me, not the whole line of questioning as such.
Chris,
That blows me away that you listened to Limbaugh so much. Since I've listened to approximately 45 seconds of his radio work, in my entire life, and knew I wasn't interested in his show, I approach the conservative radio hosts I do listen to without, I guess, the Rush baggage.
You know, are you really caring about the "star ratings" dudes or dudettes gives the Barnett interviews???
Like, um, not exactly scientific. Or necessarily representative of who listens on the radio.
Hewitt's enthusiasm for talking with Barnett says all that needs to be said about the embracing of Barnett. I think Hewitt genuinely treasures the fact that he's having such an indepth conversation about foreign policy with an obviously intelligent person, in Barnett, who doesn't vote the same way as Hewitt does.
And I part ways, again -- I'm glad Hewitt asked, because it adds another perspective to the mix.
My hunch, and this is just a hunch, is that Hewitt's audience is a bit smarter than you are giving it credit for, on the balance.
Web-yahoos, the kind that actually registered votes, are just web-yahoos.
In any event, I'll be reeling, in a sense, all weekend with this bit of info about you and Rush. It is a perspective, as it were, that I'm glad to have about your background. ;)
cheers,
md
md,
i wouldn't put too too much into the Rush comment--as in I assume Hewitt's listening crowd is more or less the same as the Rush-ster.
As I said in an earlier post I was a George HW Bush-like Republican. The sharp criticisms I have had of the right (especially the current president Bush) is from them taking from my pov a harder right turn. Not just the administration but also thinkers like the neocons, social cons, and unyielding libertarian outlooks. Not Limbaugh.
Like I said, I was being honest--I didn't claim scientific status on the rate it lines. I did say specifically I don't know how reliable these are. It was just a piece of information. But you seem to know more about the type of folks who do participate in them, so I'll assume ur basically right on the yahoo aspect.
All I said was that Hewitt could have gotten to questions about Wilsonianism or Barnett's Scoop Jackson-like policy without questions about who he voted for and what party he is registered as.
If someone wants to proffer that information, then so be it, but I don't think it is a question to be asked. I think that is a more private affair.
I don't disagree with you saying that Hewitt cherishes the conversations. I did say in the original post that my impression is only people on the right actually talk much about his work and I'm glad someone is.
But Democrat politicians are making overtures to him. Barnett has met with and briefed one of Obama's top aides. Wesley Clark has proposed a modified form of the SysAdmin. function.
I was just talking specifically about this one single point with which I disagreed. My linking to the posts was a way of acknowledging HH's good deed. I noted that I thought was a flaw and there are other aspects of Hewitt's outlook that I do not share.
I think you are reading too much into my impressions of his audience and so forth. The only other piece of information was linked through Barnett's weblog of a posting Hewitt made defending (to his listeners) his choice to give Barnett an 8 part forum.
I can only assume that means Hewitt received some fairly substantial negative feedback, else why make the apologia? Again, no idea how representative that feedback he got is relative to his audience. I don't think either of us could know that question. So no I'm not saying putting those two pieces of evidence together is anything approaching a scientific, case-shut analysis, but it is something to consider.
anyway, don't get too reeled from the comments. I used to be Republican, then I was more Democratic, now I consider myself radical middle and am waiting for either party (I care not which one) to start adopting a 3rd way of sorts on foreign and domestic policy. A more pragmatic idealism if you will.
The only reason I have been so hard on Republicans and conservative thinkers (and yes they are different in my mind) is that they are the ones who have been controlling the levers. The left wing anti-anything position is certainly annoying and self-destructive in its ways, but really has no power. Only perhaps since the elections and even then Bush has still gone forward with the troop surge.
I think blaming defeatists is easy and not completely incorrect, but masks the holes in the ability of conservative political thought alone to deal with the issues now faced.
I think the Left alone fails as well.
peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home