The general's personal history is the parent of his message, Lizza argues persuasively.
The Wesley Clark candidacy has its share of critics at the New Republic. Earlier this week, describing the general as "self-assured to the point of delusion," Adam B. Kushner went so far as to say:
"Yes, Clark's record is impressive. Even his harshest critics must admit that much. But are we beginning to see a picture of a man who realized his greatest achievements in spite of his personality, not because of it?"Today, however Ryan Lizza reads between the lines of WKC's career to provide one of the most, dare I say, "nuanced" profiles of the candidate yet. Lizza finds that behind the stark facts attesting to Gen. Clark's accomplishments, there is a philosophy and methodology that helps set him apart from his rivals, not to mention the former baseball executive charged with our security.
. . .For a month, the Clark campaign has been about everything but the candidate's message. Clark's tumble from the Olympian heights of a reluctantly drafted American hero to just another Democratic candidate was swift. . . Faced with charges that his campaign was one of "convenience" rather than "conviction," in the words of Joe Lieberman, Clark's stump-speech rhetoric quickly shifted away from the big ideas his advisers say he brings to the race and toward primary pandering ("I'm pro-choice, I'm pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health care, and pro-labor").. . . Individually, each of these episodes was minor, but, taken together, they overwhelmed the campaign's attempt to quickly position Clark as an above-the-fray candidate --"a historic figure," in the words of one senior adviser--unsullied by the pettiness of the long primary process. Clark is now trying to turn the corner.
. . .The problem for Clark is that the tales of staff intrigue and questions about his commitment to the party have started to drown out his message. For example, last weekend it became news when someone dug up another videotape of Clark praising President Bush, this time for winning the war in Afghanistan. It would be hard to find a Democratic leader who didn't praise Bush for that, but, because Clark's commitment to his new party is suspect, a throwaway line supporting Bush's victory over the Taliban became ammunition for the argument that the general isn't a real Democrat. That's pretty much how it has gone during Clark's first month as a candidate.
Policy-wise, Clark is not breaking much new ground. . . But the potential of the Clark candidacy has never rested on his specific policy ideas. Aides argue it's more about delivering a bigger, more inspiring message to sell those policies, one that lifts Clark above the tired field of politicians.
Obviously, his biography is central to this message. Although most people know him for his service in Kosovo, the general rarely mentions that war in his speeches. Instead, when Clark talks about terrorism, the experience he draws on is the 30 years of his military career he spent fighting the cold war. . . . "That was the climate I grew up in--the cold war," Clark said. "And I went to West Point because I believed America was in danger, and I wanted to do something to protect my country."
After West Point, Clark didn't just fight in Vietnam--he came home and was so disturbed by how the war had harmed the military's reputation that he devoted his career to fixing it. "I spent much of my military career helping to rebuild the war-shattered U.S. army," he writes in Waging Modern War. He's not just boasting. In 1986, a superior noted in one of Clark's performance reviews that it is "not possible to overstate the significance of Col. Wes Clark's impact on our Army." War-gaming as the Soviet or North Korean military, Clark revolutionized the training of U.S. forces when he ran the Army's National Training Center. He is credited with helping the Army prepare for the Gulf war. It's only a slight exaggeration to say that Clark's pre-Kosovo career was devoted to helping the United States win the cold war and overcome the Vietnam syndrome. Not a bad vein of experience for a Democrat to mine.And Clark is beginning to take advantage of it. The parallels between his military career and his presidential campaign are obvious. Once again, Clark says, he sees the country in danger--this time from terrorism--and he wants to serve. Just as he found Vietnam had damaged an important institution he cared about, he wants to repair the damage he thinks the Bush administration has done to our government. He calls it New American Patriotism, but government reform may best describe the overriding theme of his campaign.
In a revealing comment to an msnbc reporter recently, Clark said, "This election is about good government, fundamentally. Set aside the war on terror, that's very important--we want to be safe and secure. Set aside the economy, we've got to deal with it, we've got to create jobs--but all that notwithstanding, fundamentally we have to protect the government and the system, with a pluralist democracy that provides the rights for the minority, the will of the majority for our future generations. That's the issue that I see lurking in this campaign." Clark seems to be saying the Bush administration is actually the biggest problem the United States has right now.
In the Army, Clark gained a reputation as a fix-it man. He has written that he became an expert at "what businessmen would call `turn-around situations and start-ups.' From staff officer to commander to trainer for units, many of my positions involved muscling-up an organization that had been `low-performing' or swimming upstream to start something new."
His performance reviews show he always approached these assignments as a pragmatist with a deep skepticism for conventional wisdom. One review notes how he "freely stated and defended opinions at variance with conventional wisdom." Another praised him for "tempering brilliant intellect with pragmatic know-how." The picture is of someone who is the opposite of an ideologue.
This pragmatism is now a major part of the general's message. Echoing something Bill Clinton has been talking about lately, Clark seems to be trying to set up a debate between ideology and pragmatism. Clinton put it this way: "They--Republicans--believe in government by ideology, enemies, and attack. We believe in government by experiment, evidence, and argument. We actually think we might be wrong now and again, we might have to change." Clark's speeches are filled with similar references. "Traditionally and ideally, we Americans meet our challenges by starting with the facts, analyzing the problem, and reasoning toward a solution--in as public a manner as possible," Clark said in one recent speech. "This administration does things in reverse. They start with a solution, cast about for a problem that 'requires' their solution, and mold the facts to make their case--in as secret a manner as possible." Sometimes it sounds like he's running as the candidate of the scientific method. This "just-the-facts" approach is politically useful. It allows him to make the argument that he's running for president not because he's an ambitious Democrat but simply because Bush has failed. "I don't oppose the president's policies because they are Republican policies," he said recently. "I oppose them because they don't work."
There are two other major themes Clark is weaving into his speeches to try to set himself apart from the field. The first is meritocracy. He holds up the military as the U.S. institution in which connections and birthright matter the least. It's a reminder that he rose from an Arkansas boy of modest means to a four-star general strictly on merit. The contrast with Bush is so stark it doesn't need to be pointed out. Similarly, one of the values of the Army he is trying to borrow for his campaign is equality of opportunity. "One of the things that I loved about the Army is that everyone, from every background, had a chance to advance," he said this week. "The same ideal applies to our country. There are great inequalities in America--vast wealth and deep poverty. But that doesn't have to divide us--as long as everyone has an opportunity, a chance to succeed."
Finally, Clark is trying to become the candidate of optimism. His advisers see an unfilled niche for a candidate with a message of hope to contrast with Dean's anger. "The candidate who comes up with a really forward-looking, optimistic, big message is the one who will win," argues a senior adviser. "JFK, FDR, Carter, and Clinton all ran on fundamentally optimistic messages that offer hope." Clark began hitting this theme hard this week in his economic speech. It was one of the first speeches from a candidate that spent as much time explaining how much potential the economy has as it did explaining how badly Bush has screwed the economy up. Clark noted that he was "as optimistic as I've ever been about our future." He said he disagrees with "the pessimists" who say "our best days are behind us" and "that we're on a long slide we can't get off of." "In short," he concluded, "I'm bullish on America." It doesn't hurt that, in person, Clark is a naturally sunny and positive guy. Several of his rivals are not.
Overall, it's not a bad message. Now that he has his voice back, maybe people will start to listen to it.
Op-ed by WKC in the Detroit Free Press today breaks no new ground but this type of short articulate piece is one of his strengths.
When I left the military and contemplated entering political life, many issues led me to find my political home in the Democratic Party. Affirmative action was one of the most important. This is an issue that Democrats both understand well and feel deeply. And, based on my experiences, I believe without hesitation that we Democrats are right in our belief that affirmative action is good for all Americans.
. . . There is one thing the opponents of affirmative action have never wanted to admit: It works.I know this firsthand from my 34 years in the United States military. Affirmative action was essential to creating the diverse officer corps we need to defend our country. Throughout my career, I have seen the benefits of seeking out qualified minority candidates for leadership positions -- and I am a beneficiary of their leadership.
In the University of Michigan affirmative action case this year, I joined military and political leaders in an amicus brief affirming my deeply held belief that policies combating discrimination are essential to good order, combat readiness and military effectiveness. As a result of these policies, the military is one of the most integrated institutions in America. And our country is safer today because it is defended by a diverse, integrated, talented military that is the envy of the world.
. . . Our president, on the other hand, seems unable to pull himself away from his right-wing advisers long enough to examine the facts. The Bush administration argued against affirmative action in the Michigan case. And they've done everything possible to undermine diversity, not promote it. I think Bush should head down the hall and talk with National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, or speak with Gen. Colin Powell, both of whom have testified to their support of affirmative action.
Conservatives say they are opposed to affirmative action "on principle." They invoke "quotas" to scare people into thinking they will lose their place at the table. But this is a pessimistic view of America's future.If we make room for everybody, there will be more room for everybody. An integrated America, where each and every American is treated with the same dignity and respect, is a better America for everyone.
Democrats have always believed that our diversity is our greatest strength, whether in our schools, our workplaces, our government or our courts. Unlike the ideologues who deny the facts and denounce affirmative action, we will work for an America where everyone has a chance to contribute -- and receives the respect each and every American deserves.
An article by Tom Curry analyzing two candidates' decision to sit out the Iowa caucuses quotes a "veteran New Hampshire Democratic activist who asked not to be identified by name."
"Increasingly, moderate candidates now see both states as playgrounds for exotic liberals slanting the nominating process before it begins," he said. "The Democratic Party must come to grips with this situation: Its nominees are hurt by this process. Can there be any doubt the party would be stronger if you started elsewhere?"And in a New York Times op-ed piece, former editor of The Des Moines Register, Gilbert Cranberg, has even less good to say about his home state's "arcane" caucus system: "Iowa's caucuses not only showcase questions from farmers about the nearly impenetrable intricacies of agricultural economics, they also require a search for needles in haystacks. These are the little more than one in 10 registered Democrats who may actually attend the meetings."
This activist added, "My prediction is more and more candidates are going to bypass one or both. One or two things are going to happen. Either Dean wins big here [in New Hampshire], gets nominated, and is blown out (by losing to Bush), allowing moderates to say, 'I told you so.' Or, Dean wins here, but is tanked in other primaries and is not nominated, making New Hampshire seem like an anomaly a la Paul Tsongas (in 1992). Either way, we come out a loser."
". . . And for what [are the candidates campaigning]? Surely not for delegates. Iowa is vote-poor, with only 55 voting delegates at the national convention, where there will be more than 4,000 voting delegates. The state is publicity-rich, however, by virtue of its first-in-the-nation caucuses.One of these days, perhaps, it will become commonplace for candidates to decide not to pose with pigs in Iowa. If so, the absence of General Clark and Mr. Lieberman could be seen as the beginning of the end of Iowa as a required stop on the way to the White House."
Don't know much about history: "In pressing their request for nearly $20 billion for reconstructing Iraq, Bush administration officials have been invoking the Marshall Plan. . . In fact, however, such invocations are highly misleading, and the Congressional conferees who are shaping the final version of the Iraq appropriation bill would do well to review what made the Marshall Plan a success - and how the Bremer plan may be headed for failure."
Susan E. Rice, formerly assistant secretary of state, quotes Marshall himself and goes on to point out that the Iraqi people are incidental to the Bremer "plan": "It would be neither fitting nor efficacious for this government to undertake to draw up unilaterally a program designed to place Europe on its feet economically. This is the business of the Europeans. The initiative, I think, must come from Europe." Marshall's central insight is missing in the proposal before Congress. Under the Bremer plan, Iraqis need not do much of anything except sit back and watch American occupiers and contractors decide how to rebuild their country. There is no requirement that Iraqis - Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, Turkmen - resolve their differences and together plan to rebuild. That means there is no opportunity to improve Iraqis' capacity for standing the country on its own feet.
The Bremer plan recalls the cold war era, when the United States pumped billions into corrupt dictators' coffers and asked questions later. A return to this failed approach is odd in an administration that promised last year to revolutionize foreign assistance through the Millennium Challenge Account. To get Millennium Challenge money, a country's government and its nongovernmental organizations will have to work together, will have to relate their program requests to their larger national development strategies, and will be held accountable for the results.
The Millennium Challenge philosophy should be applied to Iraq's reconstruction. The Iraqi Governing Council, and the Iraqis themselves, would decide where the money was needed most. Iraqi businesses would be in a better position to compete directly for contracts, and hiring local companies through transparent bidding procedures would help control costs. Instead, under the current plan, Mr. Bremer and the coalition authority will dole out contracts worth almost double what the American government spends annually on all foreign assistance, and the United States will be no closer to establishing a united and self-sufficient Iraqi government.
The Marshall Plan was also devised to be finite in cost and duration. Congress authorized and appropriated the money after careful review each year. The goal was to give Europeans a limited window of opportunity, not a limitless gravy train, and to give the American people a clear voice in the plan's operation. In contrast, the $20.3 billion proposal for Iraq and Afghanistan is a multiyear request masquerading as an "emergency" supplemental, meaning that lawmakers get to vote only once, and after a relatively hurried period of consideration. More important, the money is but a small fraction of what will be needed to rebuild Iraq. Last month, the Bush administration estimated the cost of reconstructing Iraq could be as much as $75 billion. Bush officials say, optimistically, that $12 billion of that could come from Iraqi oil revenues, and hope American allies will provide the balance. Yet only a little more than $3 billion in grants had been pledged by yesterday, the start of donors' conference in Madrid. Shouldn't lawmakers know where the balance of reconstruction funds will come from before they approve the first installment? That doesn't mean, however, that they should bend to pressure to transform some of the proposed grants into loans, which would further cripple an Iraq that already has more than $100 billion in debt. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq. Congress has a responsibility to examine the president's request thoroughly - and it should heed the central lesson of the Marshall Plan and use Mr. Bremer's billions to help unite Iraqis in rebuilding their country.