(The conclusion of WR Mead’s must-read post on the Tea Party Movement):
At this point no national political leader has emerged who seems capable of providing the leadership the new populists seek. Sarah Palin stirred their hearts, but her appeal does not seem to grow as her exposure increases. Certainly there is no one of Ronald Reagan’s stature on the horizon. More, since the public is not particularly happy at the moment with the results of electing sympathetic but untested young leaders (George W. Bush as well as the current President), experience and seasoning hold some appeal. That is a tough thing to find: a Washington-hating outsider who is also deeply knowledgeable about how government works. A military leader could fill the bill; generals aren’t career politicians but they know a thing or two about Washington life.
Does David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal drink tea? Potentially, that could be the most important question in American politics.
“Do Soldiers Drink Tea?” – Walter Russell Mead’s Blog – The American Interest.
Comments 12
A Washington-hating general?!
A Washington-hating general?!
ROFLOL. Also kinda creepy, no?
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:50 pm
@ Seth Halpern:
I avoid such phraseology myself, out of respect to the Founding Father and constitutional government, but his phrase is “Washington-hating outsider,” and he’s speaking informally and metaphorically – “Washington” as the permanent government, the imperial court, the den of iniquity. I know you know that, and though I found the part I quoted interesting on its own terms, I was as or more interested in how he worked his way to it.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:13 pm
http://www.harlemglobetrottersstoreintl.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Generals_Jersey_Front.jpg
It was nice to hear that the birthers and truthers are gently but firmly being shown the door, and that Palin is headed out with them, but postulating McChrystal or Petraeus as standard-bearer shows the present lack of any recognized figure to rally around more than it does point to a real possibility.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:24 pm
@CKM: No, I really do think he was having a Burt Lancaster moment.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:31 pm
@ fuster:
I think you’re over-reading the comment on Palin, but you may be right about what McChrystal and Petraeus end up standing for within the “want ad.” For now. If we imagine things getting much worse rather than much better, however, we may have to throw many assumptions out the window.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:49 pm
So close. I read this after seeing John Steele Gordon’s snap at NZC. Mead had a pretty good head of steam going there, and then he ended with the discordant proposition that maybe what the vast, populist Tea Party movement needs is … the very model of a modern major general.
I suppose the implied allusion is to George Washington, Father of his Country, since the Revolution figures as the first of Mead’s facts in evidence about popular movements and America’s national life. (And I suppose, again, to Andrew Jackson. It obviously can’t be to FDR or Reagan, nor does it fit our most famous general-presidents — the ones most famous for being crucial military leaders and riding that reputation to the Oval Office — Grant and Eisenhower.)
But this is one of those weird endings that make a whole promising line of thought fall flat. What was looking insightful now looks like too abstract and mechanistic an interpretation, as if we could reduce it to a formula.
Populist movement + general officer president = Wheee!!!!
Across history, including in the US, lifetime military men don’t have much of a genius for translating the sentiment of popular movements into effective governance. Understanding military operations isn’t the guide people too often think it is to understanding political leadership. No one was less surprised than I, frankly, that General Petraeus’ morning-show performance left CKM underwhelmed: politics is an avocation for a career military officer, and one he needs to park at the dock (or outside the tent, or wherever) when he puts the uniform on.
There’s no one I’d rather have in charge of pacifying Iraq than David Petraeus. But it’s easily possible to understand how to do that, and not understand how to make the political decision to commit America to that course. The latter decision requires less military technical acumen, but far more ability to navigate a course through the kind of political and moral blowback that ultimately do almost everyone in.
Flag and general officers don’t really have to face that kind of pressure. In bad political conditions they can be the victims of a cheap blame game (e.g., Vietnam during the Johnson years), but even then, the pressure isn’t that they are facing the ultimate accountability for decisions about America’s future.
Military service is a good thing for a politician to have, but by itself it’s not the most effective preparation for political leadership. It’s actually antithetical in many ways to becoming the leader of a groundswell of populism. Mead kind of pooped out with this one at the end, and didn’t make it over the finish line.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
@ CK MacLeod:
let’s first tie those assumptions to Palin.
http://www.capitola.com/dogs/images/Howl-o-ween/jester.jpg
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
I don’t have much truck with birthers and certainly not 9/11 denialists,
he assumes deep in the article, that health care needs to be rejiggered, maybe nudged and the climate change problem??? needs to be solved. Well he’s come a long way from the apocalyptic tone of Mortal Splendor, and I guess buying Siberia from the Russians, his pet peeve is out. b ut he does ultimately miss the point
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:49 pm
No, I don’t see a James Mattoon Scott in the picture, it’s interesting that Knebel. saw a great war coming from the perspective of the early 60s, but saw it happening in Iran, not Vietnam. Now someone who might fit the mold, is General Mattis, who once upon a time was to be
played by Harrison Ford, in the film adaptation of Bing West’s account
of Fallujah, that went into development hell.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:31 pm
narciso wrote:
I’ve seen it. So stop saying it ain’t so!!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_qIdxc0EEs44/SsFLhwB5IDI/AAAAAAAAAxU/bn5bTFuPCA8/s400/RevelatoryTruck.jpg
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Maybe not in the picture today, but we probably wouldn’t see him coming, would we? He may not be slouching toward DC quite yet, or he may be there right now, and he may be a she, and she might sound a lot different, and do things a lot differently, than we expect. For that matter, in today’s world, and the world to come, we might turn on the TV or the computer on any given day, and discover that there is no DC, anymore, at all.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 pm
PS – love the sculpture in the background of that shot. Perfect.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:57 pm