Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Zakaria, Obama, and 'The Establishment'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-17-09 12:29 PM
Original message
Zakaria, Obama, and 'The Establishment'
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017323.php

ZAKARIA, OBAMA, AND 'THE ESTABLISHMENT'.... Last week, Newsweek's Howard Fineman said President Obama needs to invest more energy in impressing the Washington establishment. This week, Fareed Zakaria, Fineman's Newsweek colleague, suggests the Washington establishment doesn't know what it's talking about.

Specifically, Zakaria makes note of the new administration's "striking moves in foreign policy." They started early on with announcements on Guantanamo and torture, but quickly expanded, "mixing symbolic gestures of outreach with substantive talks." We've seen encouraging initial steps in our relations with China, our outreach to Syria and Iran, and a more constructive relationship with Russia.

These are initial, small steps but all in the right direction -- deserving of praise, one might think. But no, the Washington establishment is mostly fretting, dismayed in one way or another by most of these moves. The conservative backlash has been almost comical in its fury. <...>

The problem with American foreign policy goes beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement. Other countries can have no legitimate interests of their own -- Russian demands are by definition unacceptable. The only way to deal with countries is by issuing a series of maximalist demands. This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world.


I remember a point, not too long ago, at which Zakaria was positioned as a leading, sensible, center-right observer on politics and foreign policy. He seems far more progressive now, not because Zakaria's worldview has changed, but because so many of the voices that dominate the political discourse have gone off in a misguided direction.

—Steve Benen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-17-09 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Zakaria is the only real journalist on CNN....
and the only show of theirs that I actually watch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-17-09 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. The Bush Admin made a Leftie out of him
And countless others

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-17-09 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. some good comments there...
"This is not foreign policy; it's imperial policy. And it isn't likely to work in today's world."

Ya don't say? For one thing, the US can't blow its nose w/o China's permission right now. We owe them a trillion and are asking them for another couple of trillion, w/o which the nation falls into the abyss.
The very idea of dictating anything to anyone from such a weak position (economically, morally, ideologically)is ludicrous. And our main economic rival has veto power. Great job, W!
Posted by: richard greenslade on March 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

"He seems far more progressive now, not because Zakaria's worldview has changed . . . "

A think there are a lot of us who suddenly find ourselves redefined as progressives or leftists just because the right has moved so far right.

Who'd have thought that common sense and realism were "progressive" notions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-17-09 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. He seems to have been researching our neighbors to the north, the Canadians,
and is becoming more progressive in the process.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183670

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1--compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1.

Fareed Zakaria

NEWSWEEK

From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

The legendary editor of The New Republic, Michael Kinsley, once held a "Boring Headline Contest" and decided that the winner was "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative." Twenty-two years later, the magazine was rescued from its economic troubles by a Canadian media company, which should have taught us Americans to be a bit more humble. Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada's virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking. More at link.


He summed up liberalism in a nutshell, common sense, although I'm sure he would not label it as such. He was able to make a non-political observation because he was on the outside looking in and not involved in taking sides politically like he does in the United States. I believe if everyone looked at issues from an informed and common sense view, there would be no conservatives but a small 2% who stand to benefit from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC