Conventional wisdom says that conventional wisdom is smart. Conventional wisdom also says that unconventional wisdom is stupid.
If you have unconventional wisdom—regardless of its quality—but have not been a member of the establishment for very long, then you are naïve.
What about conventional wisdom that has always been bad? Or at least biased in a way that we no longer attribute to being normal? What if conventional wisdom has put us in perpetual jeopardy?
Barack Obama is still being criticized for his remarks last year for welcoming the suggestion of unilateral talks—that these are something that should be on the table. These statements were welcomed by the establishment as proof of his naïveté and inexperience. They are still being trotted out on a regular basis as proof of Obama’s unfitness. Since when has talking with one’s opponents been a sign of stupidity and ignorance? Isn’t it the height of ignorance to avoid diplomacy or worse: to rig your diplomacy so that it wouldn’t work? Under Bush, nobody in the world thought that he has ever used real diplomacy, especially with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. Everyone could see through the ruse. This is worse than failed diplomacy: sabotaging one’s position only demonstrates an aggressive stance to one’s opponents. Faking diplomacy is tantamount to opening warfare.
Obama’s remarks, in this context, are not naïve, but expose the foolishness of our decades-long policies with regards to Cuba, Israel, and the Middle East. While things looked fine, nobody cared that our efforts were inefficient or counter-productive, because they seemed to be working. Bush, with his witless and baseless maintenance of old policy toward Cuba and Israel proves the weakness of that policy—which frightens the establishment more than anything. It is like proving the Clintons are wrong. It is like telling children that Santa is Mom and Dad. It is to be stopped at all costs—the truth must not be revealed!
The truth inherent to this debate is that Obama’s remarks are not coming from a place of inexperience, but of a place that uses a different political wisdom. Part of the “folly” of direct talks with Cuba is that it was not sanctioned by the Cuban immigrant communities in the U.S. and dissidents living in Cuba. That the wisdom of State-to-State communications seems to rest on conservative ex-pats and dissidents is pure folly: it is like setting our policy of communication with Germany based on German immigrants and any neo-nazi groups looking to implement “regime change” in their native country. We currently do not set our Middle East policy based on immigrants and dissidents (except for Iraq)—we actually set it in spite of these people. Hey, we even threw a tantrum and changed the name of French Fries because we didn’t like the way France reacted to our (then proposed) unilateral invasion of Iraq.
How else can we explain the response to merely suggesting that talking to Cuba might be a necessary break from existing policy? Is it really that dangerous? Cuba, the last remaining Soviet-style communist country remains the epitome of conservative fear and hatred of State influence. But is conventional wisdom on Cuba effective? Castro outlasted Kennedy, McCarthy, and all of those opponents. And yet, his island nation provides no political or military problems for the United States today. It does not represent a danger to the homefront or the beachhead some evil crusade to eliminate the U.S.A.; it is merely a poor, depressed country that has grown increasingly interested in Western values. Using the same policy toward Cuba in 2008 as was used forty years ago is both incredibly stupid and disgustingly cruel.
Obama’s policy position is quite nuanced now. He has been endorsed by the leaders of the Cuban American community and the dissidents in Cuba because he is looking to change our policy and open things up a smidge. And the conventional wisdom? Stay the course. The policy is now important than those groups you were using to prove your point. Circular logic for everyone!
Merriam-Webster defines a politician as “a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government”. When are our other leaders going to start acting like politicians instead of party hacks?
No comments:
Post a Comment