When Susan Rice's nomination went down in flames I felt incensed. How dare Hillary Clinton not step up and take responsibility? (I still feel that way.) Why didn't President Obama defend her? (I've reconsidered that view.) Then the emotions subsided as emotions do and logic took it's rightful place, in the driver's seat of the mind. And I realized two things. One: Obama was right to accept Susan Rice's withdrawal. The reason he was right: Chuck Hagel.
Susan Rice is capable. Make no mistake. She's a Stanford and Oxford graduate, has a Ph.D., graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and was a consultant at McKinsey, no small feat. She worked for the Clintons, the premier political establishment in nascent years.
While I am no fan of qualification as birthright (I think it's un-American) there is something to be said for surroundings. Her father was a Federal Reserve Board Governor and a Ph.D., as well which means he had a familiarity with the political culture. Rice also grew up around luminaries. Madeline Albright says she knew Rice since Rice was four years old. It's safe to say Rice had some pretty enlightening conversations around the dinner table.
Alas, the problems.
Susan Rice
For the job in which she was in the running, ironically, Rice has a temperament problem. She is not given to small talk, is a straight shooter, smart, but is also known to be no-nonsense and have sharp elbows. This temperament very similar to Barack Obama's, has endeared her to the President. But while that is a plus in a lot of fields it may not be so as a Secretary of State.
If Rice were to be in negotiations with the Foreign Minister of China she may have to waltz about many issues delicately balancing the Senkaku Islands (or the Diaoyu depending on your view), the issue of rare earths, as well as relations with the Vietnamese. This requires a soft touch, a touch that Rice may not be temperamentally befitted. To quote the Russian Ambassador to the U.N., when informed that Rice would be remaining on that job, he said that his employer would have to compensate him with "double pay" to make it worth the "stress."
Second, it doesn't seem that Rice knows when to kiss the ring, when to show a little leg. John McCain is no friend of Susan Rice. She hurt him during his campaign for President. Lindsay Graham has an election to win and may face a primary challenge. Susan Rice has never faced an election for anything in her life.
Creatives are the kings in Hollywood. Celebrities and Money Men (and Women) are the kings of New York. Elected officials, empowered by the people of their districts, are the kings in Washington, D.C. It's what the founding fathers intended and it's a damn hard job: balancing fundraisers, business leaders, constituents, unexpected events, unions, and politically shifting terrain can't be easy. To quote Jay-Z: "I paid the cost to be the boss and floss this hard. I recall a year ago I almost lost this job." Susan Rice never paid the cost.
Therefore she must cow-tow show deference, and realize that her position is in deference to every elected official in D.C. In short she had to take crap from McCain, Graham, and Collins and placate them, assuage them, salve wounds, soothe egos, make promises, romance and seduce them. In short she had to politic. (And to be sure, that's not a man-thing or a woman-thing, it's a politics thing.) She was unable to do that.
To have a Secretary of State that does not know when or even how to politic, that is, to use Susan Collins' word "troubling".
Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel's resume is flawless: Vietnam War veteran, well-liked by his colleagues, former business executive and CEO in a innovative field for it's time: cell phones, two-term Senator, described as amiable and smart, Georgetown professor ... the list goes on and on.
But the most glaring difference between Hagel and Rice is this: when trouble came Susan Rice was alone in the wind but Hagel's friends ... are legion.
When he was attacked by pro-Israel groups and pro-marriage equality groups his friends came out of the woodwork to defend him. See below:
Postscript: Already, Hagel has been defended by a strikingly diverse array of voices, including (in addition to people I mentioned in the piece) Dana Milbank of the Washington Post; John Judis ofThe New Republic; Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast; Scott McConnell and Daniel Larison of The American Conservative; the progressive pro-Israel group J Street; the Center for American Progress blog ThinkProgress; Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy and Harvard; Steve Clemons of The Atlantic and the New America Foundation; Jim Fallows of The Atlantic; Emily Hauser of Open Zion;Marsha B. Cohen and Jim Lobe at Lobeblog; Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times; Clyde Prestowitz, formerly US Trade Representative in a Republican administration, in Foreign Policy;Robert Merry at The National Interest; former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer; and former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller (author of the book in which Hagel's "Jewish Lobby" quote appears). Update: Also, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Update, 12/20: A bunch of former US ambassadors--including five former ambassadors to Israel--have now written a letter saying Hagel has "impeccable" credentials to be secretary of defense: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt; Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel; William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.
Need I say more. Washington is a town of relationships. This is the reason Leon Panetta has served in every major office in D.C. Politics is a business of loyalties. If you don't have loyalty, if you don't have a network of relationships by which one can gain information, insight, and see around curves, it strikes me that you might be toast.
Susan Rice is capable. Make no mistake. She's a Stanford and Oxford graduate, has a Ph.D., graduated Phi Beta Kappa, and was a consultant at McKinsey, no small feat. She worked for the Clintons, the premier political establishment in nascent years.
While I am no fan of qualification as birthright (I think it's un-American) there is something to be said for surroundings. Her father was a Federal Reserve Board Governor and a Ph.D., as well which means he had a familiarity with the political culture. Rice also grew up around luminaries. Madeline Albright says she knew Rice since Rice was four years old. It's safe to say Rice had some pretty enlightening conversations around the dinner table.
Alas, the problems.
Susan Rice
For the job in which she was in the running, ironically, Rice has a temperament problem. She is not given to small talk, is a straight shooter, smart, but is also known to be no-nonsense and have sharp elbows. This temperament very similar to Barack Obama's, has endeared her to the President. But while that is a plus in a lot of fields it may not be so as a Secretary of State.
If Rice were to be in negotiations with the Foreign Minister of China she may have to waltz about many issues delicately balancing the Senkaku Islands (or the Diaoyu depending on your view), the issue of rare earths, as well as relations with the Vietnamese. This requires a soft touch, a touch that Rice may not be temperamentally befitted. To quote the Russian Ambassador to the U.N., when informed that Rice would be remaining on that job, he said that his employer would have to compensate him with "double pay" to make it worth the "stress."
Second, it doesn't seem that Rice knows when to kiss the ring, when to show a little leg. John McCain is no friend of Susan Rice. She hurt him during his campaign for President. Lindsay Graham has an election to win and may face a primary challenge. Susan Rice has never faced an election for anything in her life.
Creatives are the kings in Hollywood. Celebrities and Money Men (and Women) are the kings of New York. Elected officials, empowered by the people of their districts, are the kings in Washington, D.C. It's what the founding fathers intended and it's a damn hard job: balancing fundraisers, business leaders, constituents, unexpected events, unions, and politically shifting terrain can't be easy. To quote Jay-Z: "I paid the cost to be the boss and floss this hard. I recall a year ago I almost lost this job." Susan Rice never paid the cost.
Therefore she must cow-tow show deference, and realize that her position is in deference to every elected official in D.C. In short she had to take crap from McCain, Graham, and Collins and placate them, assuage them, salve wounds, soothe egos, make promises, romance and seduce them. In short she had to politic. (And to be sure, that's not a man-thing or a woman-thing, it's a politics thing.) She was unable to do that.
To have a Secretary of State that does not know when or even how to politic, that is, to use Susan Collins' word "troubling".
Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel's resume is flawless: Vietnam War veteran, well-liked by his colleagues, former business executive and CEO in a innovative field for it's time: cell phones, two-term Senator, described as amiable and smart, Georgetown professor ... the list goes on and on.
But the most glaring difference between Hagel and Rice is this: when trouble came Susan Rice was alone in the wind but Hagel's friends ... are legion.
When he was attacked by pro-Israel groups and pro-marriage equality groups his friends came out of the woodwork to defend him. See below:
Postscript: Already, Hagel has been defended by a strikingly diverse array of voices, including (in addition to people I mentioned in the piece) Dana Milbank of the Washington Post; John Judis ofThe New Republic; Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast; Scott McConnell and Daniel Larison of The American Conservative; the progressive pro-Israel group J Street; the Center for American Progress blog ThinkProgress; Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy and Harvard; Steve Clemons of The Atlantic and the New America Foundation; Jim Fallows of The Atlantic; Emily Hauser of Open Zion;Marsha B. Cohen and Jim Lobe at Lobeblog; Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times; Clyde Prestowitz, formerly US Trade Representative in a Republican administration, in Foreign Policy;Robert Merry at The National Interest; former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer; and former U.S. Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller (author of the book in which Hagel's "Jewish Lobby" quote appears). Update: Also, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Update, 12/20: A bunch of former US ambassadors--including five former ambassadors to Israel--have now written a letter saying Hagel has "impeccable" credentials to be secretary of defense: Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt; Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel; William H. Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; Frank G. Wisner, former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt and India.
Need I say more. Washington is a town of relationships. This is the reason Leon Panetta has served in every major office in D.C. Politics is a business of loyalties. If you don't have loyalty, if you don't have a network of relationships by which one can gain information, insight, and see around curves, it strikes me that you might be toast.
No comments:
Post a Comment