And Jeffrey Goldberg, whose normal gig is with The Atlantic magazine, has written a piece in the New York Times that purportedly has the answer.
What does the next president absolutely have to do to be judged a success?
"The next president must do one thing, and one thing only," writes Goldberg. "He must prevent Al Qaeda, or a Qaeda imitator, from gaining control of a nuclear device and detonating it in America."
Everything else pales in comparison, Goldberg says.
And, on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the September 11 attacks, it's worth reflecting on his words. "The nuclear destruction of Lower Manhattan, or downtown Washington, would cause the deaths of thousands, or hundreds of thousands; a catastrophic depression; the reversal of globalization; a permanent climate of fear in the West; and the comprehensive repudiation of America’s culture of civil liberties."
It's the kind of argument — playing on not just fear but a specific fear — that many people would like to see dominate the discussion in this campaign.
"In the cold war, the Soviet Union had the technical ability to eliminate America many times over, but was restrained by rational self-interest, by innate conservatism, and, perhaps, by an understanding of the horror of world-ending nuclear war. Though Al Qaeda cannot destroy the world, it will destroy what it can, when it can."
Jeffrey Goldberg
Op-Ed contributor, New York Times
It is true that there are many perils in the world. There always have been.
Humans have always faced risks, for example, from deadly diseases. It would be great if a president could spearhead a renewed effort in the medical community to eradicate something like AIDS or cancer, but, throughout history, it seems that no sooner have humans conquered one scourge than a new one emerges to take its place and bewilder another generation or two of dedicated researchers.
And humans have always been at the mercy of nature. We're currently in the middle of hurricane season, with its unpredictable death and destruction. Even if the dire reports about global warming are correct, reversing that trend will not rid the world of hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes. They're not the products of global warming — they've been with us since time began.
It seems to me that John McCain would like for the public to focus attention on the war on terrorism. It is the centerpiece of his campaign.
In the tradition of modern American politics, the emphasis on one issue implies that other problems are only temporary and will correct themselves if left alone.
But terrorism is only one of many issues with which the next president must contend. A president can't specialize in one area and hope everything works out all right in the other areas. If a candidate for president knows he is weak in some area — like foreign affairs or economics — that candidate should share with the voters what he plans to do if elected.
In a little more than four months, George W. Bush will leave the White House, and a new commander in chief will move in.
Will the next president rely on a panel of expert advisers to compensate for his lack of expertise in certain areas? Will he follow President Lincoln's example and put his ego on a shelf, seeking the counsel of a "team of rivals" (to use the phrase penned by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin) for the good of the country?
It has been suggested that the clash between Russia and Georgia led Barack Obama to acknowledge, at least to himself, his personal limitations and narrow the focus of his running mate search, resulting in the selection of a Senate colleague with clear credentials in foreign affairs.
If that's true, it shows that Obama is aware of the need for an administration to be prepared for anything that may happen on the global stage.
But it doesn't tell us if he is prepared to stand up to the terrorists.
Goldberg frets about what he sees as Obama's naïvete in foreign affairs. He says it was "disconcerting" to hear Obama tell ABC's "Nightline" a few months ago that the efforts following the first attack on the World Trade Center were commendable.
"We were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial," he quotes Obama as saying. “They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.”
Goldberg concedes the point, "yet there is no better example of why law enforcement is inadequate to the demands of effective counterterrorism today than the prosecution of the 1993 bombers," he writes.
"The capture and conviction of the terrorists were perfectly executed; the F.B.I. reached all the way to Pakistan to catch the plot’s mastermind, Ramzi Yousef, who is today thoroughly incapacitated at the federal 'supermax' prison in Colorado."
Law enforcement appears to have followed all the rules. But other terrorists stepped forward — and, as a result, "the World Trade Center is gone. Eight years after the first attempt, Ramzi Yousef’s uncle ... organized a more successful attack. The successful prosecution of the original bombers lulled the country into a counterfeit calm."
Preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is important.
But McCain has acknowledged a lack of knowledge about economic issues that is also risky today.
In America, gas prices are easing, but a gallon of gas is still selling for what would have been an astronomically high price less than a year ago.
Have wages kept up?
That's assuming, of course, that you still have your job — according to figures released last week, the unemployment rate is at its highest level in five years. August job losses were 20% higher than expected. What will the September figures reveal? Will unemployment be higher in October than it is today?
What happens in the American economy has a ripple effect in the economies of the other nations of the world. In the Financial Times of London, Mark Penn alludes to Hillary Clinton's famous commercial from her primary campaign against Obama: "It’s 3 a.m. and your children are asleep, and the markets are collapsing in Shanghai, and in the White House a phone is ringing," Penn writes.
"Who do you want to answer it? With the collapse of the credit markets, the gyrations in energy prices and the surge in unemployment, this is becoming the central test facing America’s presidential contenders."
Yes, preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons is important.
But so is health care. And, in an age of rapidly escalating prices, affordable health care is essential — if only to help people pay for the prescription drugs that sustain their lives. Of course, there are so many other reasons why affordable health care is important.
And so is employment. The economic figures may indicate growth (even if it's slower) — but what does it say about an economy when its unemployment rate goes up at the very moment when the workforce is shrinking because young people are leaving their summer employment and returning to the classrooms?
As I say, with a presidential election heating up and the September 11 anniversary a couple of days away, it's fitting that we should reflect on keeping America safe from terrorists.
But that is only one of the threats to our standard of living.
Americans need to discuss many issues before casting their votes in November.
Goldberg does readers a disservice by suggesting that only one issue really matters in 2008.
There will be many complex problems waiting for the next president.
No comments:
Post a Comment