Daily Archives: September 30, 2007

Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! It’s the Pottery Barn Rule!

In the spirit of the popular NPR quiz show, “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” here is a timely question for reader consideration:

For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?

I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.

The answer is below the fold!

John Edwards?  He wouldn’t commit, but that’s worth at least three points.

Barack Obama?  He offered the same message, so that gives you five points.

Hillary Clinton?  Ohhh, so close!  8 points for that!  But before you hear the answer, let’s talk about what this mystery speaker is really saying!

At the Dartmouth primary debate last Wednesday, the underlying assumption to the answers regarding  ongoing American involvement in Iraq is known as the Pottery Barn Rule.  Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward attributes this “rule” to Colin Powell’s advice to the president in 2002, leading up to the war in Iraq.

‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.

No matter how strongly anyone might feel about America’s responsibility for either “breaking” or “owning” Iraq, it only takes one Blackwater scandal to guess how Sunni’s, Shias, and even members of the Iraqi Police are currently responding to their loss of sovereignty to the American industrial complex.  To them, it probably doesn’t matter whether America will ruled by another war-hungry Neo-Con or a long-winded, moralizing presidential candidate; in either case, the message from the people on the streets in Iraq is that they want their country back and life to return to normalcy.

The real irony of the Pottery Barn Rule is that the store by the same name has no such policy.  Like anywhere else, damaged goods are written off as a loss.  After spending nearly a trillion dollars in Iraq, maybe we should think about stopping our losses, too.  On the other hand, by sticking to the resolute charge of “owning” Iraq because we “broke” it, we can continue to follow our current “Pottery Barn Rule” logic to it’s obvious end, as expressed by comedian Stephen Colbert: 

At Pottery Barn, if you knock over a lamp, you have to glue it back together, even if when you’re done it looks terrible and it doesn’t work. Oh, and you have to stay in the store forever. Oh, and it’s an exploding lamp.

What’s most interesting about the Pottery Barn Rule is that Democratic followers seem to have bought this message, lock, stock, and barrel – war pun intended.  And since they have bought into this message, they better not break it either.  Moderate lefties, bloggers, and even leading presidential candidates now assume the same “rule” of foreign policy offered by Colin Powell and Richard Armitrage is, in fact, their own.  Why this is seems to be the case, no one is certain, however theories among pundits suggest that Democrats just aren’t as good at coming up with their own metaphors, so they stick to the ones they’re given.  That being said, maybe there really is a better way to look at our role in Iraq in a more compelling and accurate way than by comparing a country of 25 million people to a cheap porcelain lighting fixture.

It has been said, even among Republicans, that the Bush Administration’s foreign policy has demonstrated all the subtly and tact of an angry bull in a china shop.  In the case of Iraq, it’s pretty hard to imagine the 2002 conversation between Powell and Bush as if they were innocently  stopping by the nearest Pottery Barn for a particular brand of an attackable, oil-rich nation with a conveniently slapped-on terrorist  label.  If they were, maybe Powell should have just said, “Let’s not go in that store.  It’s too expensive and you might break something.”  Instead, he warned a bull-headed Bush to please be careful and not break anything; because he would then own it.  Given Bush’s strong interest in Iraq’s oil fields, some of us are still wondering, “Was that a warning or an invitation?”

The metaphor of a “Bull In a China Shop” is an apt conceptual platform for accepting our foreign policy responsibilities because we can begin corrective action more appropriately.  After all, it’s not like we broke just one little piece of pottery that is the land and people of ancient Mesopatamia.  The culture is mixed, the artifacts many and rare, and now the mess is absolutely incredible.  Our responsibility isn’t to glue together one lamp, but repair to normalcy the lives and livelihoods of families, business people, and political leaders in a mix of cultures we barely understand. 

Given this, what should we expect to hear from Democratic presidential candidates?  Like the “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me” mystery quote suggests, there is a wide recognition for an “American commitment to Iraq.”  But the question isn’t about commitment; it’s about finding the best way to clean up the mess. 

Since we’ve got a Bull In a China Shop, here’s what we should do:

1.Get the Bull out of the China Shop.  This should be obvious, but apparently it’s not.  As long as our foreign policy continues to wave it’s tail around in Iraq, we’re contributing to the same mess we’re trying to clean up.  By removing privatized security forces, regular military troops, and even diplomats from Iraq and even Baghdad, we can get the Bull out of the China Shop and begin to formulate a workable clean-up strategy with the real stakeholders.  Diplomats and Iraqi political leaders can meet in Paris, Versailles, or New York in order to get the hard work of negotiations done.

2.Put the Bull In the Barn Already.  We don’t need special forces roaming the borders of Iran or Syria while we’re busy cleaning up one store already.  If we send forces anywhere, it probably should be to the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

3.Get Bearish, not Bullish, on Oil.  It’s terrible to mix metaphors, but in this case it’s apt:  We all know that our foreign policy is nothing more than a strategic grab for Iraq’s oil fields.  If Wall Street starts putting its investment dollars in alternative energy, electric car development, and other non-oil initiatives, then it can start lowering valuations — and dependence — on oil futures trading.  Then we won’t need to get into this Pottery Barn mess again.

But now it’s time to get back to our special edition of “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!” 

Once again,  For 10 points, which Democratic candidate said the following at the Dartmouth primary debate last week?

“I think that what you are beginning to see is a fairly wide recognition that whatever you think about how the United States got into Iraq, that an American commitment to Iraq–not at the levels that we are now, but an American commitment to Iraq for some significant period of time is going to be critical not just to stabilizing Iraq, but to stabilizing the Middle East.”

Condoleeza Rice.  Sorry, trick question.  But here’s the follow up, for another 10 points:

Which presidential candidate is most likely to get the Bull In the China Shop out of Iraq?

Wait, wait…  Zero troops in Iraq, right?  Don’t tell me! 

Bill Richardson!!!

84% of Iowa Dems say Out in 6 months.

From http://www.strategic…

Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican cacus goers and 600 likely Democratic cacus goers, aged 18+, and conducted September 21-23, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)
Hillary Clinton 24%
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 21%
Bill Richardson 13%
Joseph Biden 4%
Chris Dodd 1%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Undecided 14%

Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)
Yes 84%
No 7%
Undecided 9%

When making your selection for a presidential candidate, what are you looking for most in the candidate, charisma, experience, or ideology? (Democrats Only)
Ideology 30%
Charisma 30%
Experience 27%
Undecided 13%

The Republican Nominee Who Scares Me

I’ve posted about my support for Edwards before.  I’ll mention that even though I have real reservations about Obama, I’d be willing to vote for him come the general election.  Clinton, on the other hand, disturbs me greatly and I don’t think I could actually vote for her in the general election.

But this post isn’t about that.  This post is about the Republicans.  While I think it’s plausible that some of the front runners could win a national election, I don’t think any of them are likely to do so unless the Democratic nominee is a small chunk of moldy cheese (and even then, I think Romney would lose). 

There’s only one Republican candidate whom I think would be a dangerous opponent in a national election. 

Policy-wise, I think most of the country opposes Governor Huckabee.  That’s not what scares me.  What scares me is that I when I see him speak, I find myself wanting to like him.  I figure if I want to like him, knowing who and what he is, people who choose not to be informed may be much more easily swayed towards his candidacy.

Don’t get me wrong: no way in hell would I ever vote for the man.  He’s very conservative, and a major part of the religious right.  I don’t think that he’d get elected if his policies were what were being voted on.  In a general election, where many of the voters don’t don’t vote in an informed fashion (think I’m wrong?  Look at 2004) but instead rely on their general feelings about a candidate, a Huckabee nomination would be a serious problem for any Democrat because he’s funny, clever, and doesn’t take himself too seriously.

Here’s the silver lining: he’s got no problem at all speaking about President Bush in very unflattering terms.  This means there’s not much of a shot for him at getting the Republican nomination.  The wingnuts who are deeply committed to their path of cognitive dissonance and self-justification of rank hypocrisy can’t allow themselves to accept that their pet Shrub is an incompetent, arrogant, grandstander who has made everything infinitely worse.

So I don’t think it’s a huge risk of him being the nominee, but I think there’s a risk, and even as a VP candidate, he’ll add to the appearance of humanity of whoever ends up at the top of their ticket.  Fortunately, again, as someone who routinely trashes Bush, I don’t know that that’s a major risk either, but it’s there.

So, anyway… my dream ticket for the Democrats would be Edwards/Obama.  My dream ticket for the Republicans would be Romney/Keyes.  That last bit would be just for the major comedy factor that would ensue.  I think we’d have to write a theme song to go with the campaign, like The Odd Couple meets Jesus Camp. 

This post probably revealed way more about my psyche than I should have allowed.