Sunday, June 04, 2006
To listen to me is to do as I say
This article from yesterday’s Washington Post I think is reflective of a lot of the Washington mindset: if we don’t hear about it, it didn’t happen. White House Opens Door To Dissenters
The gist of the article highlights how some critics of this administration are now talking about how they’re getting an audience inside the White House. These include General McCaffrey and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Apparently, to many observers, the fact that some areas of disagreements are just now becoming public means disagreements were stifled before. How bad a problem was this?
“To disaffected insiders…, Bush has seemed powerfully indifferent to alternative views or shielded from them altogether. First-term figures such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill ultimately left frustrated. Skeptical assessments of Iraq's weapons programs were largely disregarded before the 2003 invasion.”
Left unsaid in this litany was that frustrated Secretary of State Colin Powell was certainly not disregarded re: Iraq’s weapons programs. After all, he was the point man in explaining our understanding of the weapons program. Also not explained is just why they were frustrated - did they explain their policy preferences and the President just decided to go in a diffeent direction? Or were they frustrated with themselves because they kept quiet all the while?
Alluded to but not highlighted is the chasm between being “indifferent to” and “shielded from”. Listening to critics doesn’t mean you have to incorporate their suggestions or otherwise alter your strategies. Obviously, the President has people on his staff and in his council to advise him. They may offer different perspectives and disagree. The President goes one route thus disappointing those who counseled another. They’re unhappy; maybe they leave. It happens.
What doesn’t follow is that this is an indication that the President is “indifferent to alternative views or shielded from them altogether”. Nor does a collection of quotes and anecdotes from longtime critics who continue in that role cinch the case for that viewpoint. If the President wants to talk with Secretary Albright now, that’s his prerogative. On the other hand, should he surmise (like I might) that she probably has little to offer constructively, I’m not going to consider that just one more example of his isolationism.
The gist of the article highlights how some critics of this administration are now talking about how they’re getting an audience inside the White House. These include General McCaffrey and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Apparently, to many observers, the fact that some areas of disagreements are just now becoming public means disagreements were stifled before. How bad a problem was this?
“To disaffected insiders…, Bush has seemed powerfully indifferent to alternative views or shielded from them altogether. First-term figures such as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill ultimately left frustrated. Skeptical assessments of Iraq's weapons programs were largely disregarded before the 2003 invasion.”
Left unsaid in this litany was that frustrated Secretary of State Colin Powell was certainly not disregarded re: Iraq’s weapons programs. After all, he was the point man in explaining our understanding of the weapons program. Also not explained is just why they were frustrated - did they explain their policy preferences and the President just decided to go in a diffeent direction? Or were they frustrated with themselves because they kept quiet all the while?
Alluded to but not highlighted is the chasm between being “indifferent to” and “shielded from”. Listening to critics doesn’t mean you have to incorporate their suggestions or otherwise alter your strategies. Obviously, the President has people on his staff and in his council to advise him. They may offer different perspectives and disagree. The President goes one route thus disappointing those who counseled another. They’re unhappy; maybe they leave. It happens.
What doesn’t follow is that this is an indication that the President is “indifferent to alternative views or shielded from them altogether”. Nor does a collection of quotes and anecdotes from longtime critics who continue in that role cinch the case for that viewpoint. If the President wants to talk with Secretary Albright now, that’s his prerogative. On the other hand, should he surmise (like I might) that she probably has little to offer constructively, I’m not going to consider that just one more example of his isolationism.
