United Liberty

Dan Carlin, the host of the poular podcasts Common Sense and Hardcore History, gave me his thoughts on various subjects, varying from the attacks in India to Obama’s cabinet appointments.

What do you make of rumors that President-elect Obama will be keeping Robert Gates as Defense Secretary?

Well, as far as I can tell I am the only person in the world who doesn’t like the pick (and it sure looks like, at least for the early part of the Administration that Gates IS the likely pick).

I have a longtime aversion to the folks from the secret side of government coming out and serving in the more public-oriented areas.  Gates is a CIA guy. I want LESS secretive people in these roles (Defense Secretary, for example) not more secretive ones. Add to that the sort of people Gates served with or was a contemporary of in the 1980’s (Reagan’s operatives…the sort of people who pulled off stuff like Iran-Contra, etc.) and I just don’t want those guys serving in government anymore. Their philosophy of government clashes with mine.

That having been said, it would only be fair of me to point out that Gates seems to be a very competent guy. But there are plenty of competent people that I do not want serving in government.  Especially in an Administration that is supposed to be a break from the past.

What do you make of the Hillary Clinton pick for Secretary of State?

It is completely baffling to me. There are about a thousand downsides and so few upsides that it really makes you wonder about “back room deals” and whatnot.

Besides the obvious issue of having a Sec of State that everyone knows really wants to run for President herself as soon as she can (in a job that has often featured a strained relationship between boss and underling), there’s the issue of her husband.

What sitting President wants to bring a popular (but controversial) former president of the same party back into the White House? He comes with a rather hard to restrain tongue, he’s universally loathed by Republicans, he carries tons of “baggage” with him, and is not exactly immune from the possibility of future scandals (what if the Sec of State’s husband began having another illicit affair? What if the donors to his presidential library that he is working hard to keep secret are exposed and it is very embarrassing? What sort of liability does this couple bring to the new Administration that could have been avoided by simply picking a different, equally, if not more,qualified candidate?)

It makes no sense to me at all. I hate the pick, and I think the Prez will eventually regret it.

Well, rather than specific ones I would suggest he use the guidelines he seemed to imply would be used while he was running for office.  I have taken some flak for suggesting that the President-Elect was turning his back on his campaign theme of “Transformative Change”. People have correctly pointed out to me that nowhere did the campaign specifically and unequivocally say that they would not stock their Administration with “re-treads” from earlier Administrations (I hate that term by the way…but everyone immediately knows what/who you mean when you use it…).

But I think that it was implied that this campaign was about New Ideas that weren’t shackled to the old, ridiculous partisan struggles that the Baby Boomers were waging in the late 1960s. New Politics…right? There were a great many campaign speeches devoted to this concept, were there not? But then you load your incoming Administration with the foremost practitioners of the partisan Art that the Democratic Party can provide, and expect us to believe that because the Chief Executive is beyond all this divisive, poisonous, outdated political gamesmanship, that all his underlings who know no other way of operating are going to be beyond it as well? Overnight and with no practice? Call me cynical but I don’t buy it.

Of course, the point the defenders respond with is the need for the new Administration to “hit the ground running” in terms of getting to work without any orientation period being necessary and hence, experienced people are required.  I would suggest that the direction we are running when we hit the ground is as important as being able to run when we hit it. If we end up simply perpetuating the same old politics by the (formerly) opposition party, who cares if we hit the ground running? The stated goals of the campaign will not be achieved.

Obama would be better off picking people from outside the Federal government (be they from state governments or the private sector) and provide these people with experienced underlings who can make sure the bureaucracy carries out their wishes (this is important.  People often argue that “outsiders” have problems working with the government agencies. Hence the argued need to keep appointing “insiders” when new thinking is so desperately needed.  The key is to provide the “outsiders” with the top agency jobs and make their under-secretaries be the bureaucratic functionaries who can implement these new concepts and push the bureaucracy in a new direction).

I don’t think we (or at least I) have enough information yet as I type this to really know the answer to that question.  India has all sorts of other issues traditionally happening on and off that might account for this sort of violence. Much of it involves traditional Hindu-Muslim antagonism. On the other hand, it sure might tie into the war that has us fighting in places like Afghanistan…but if it does one might ask why. India isn’t much involved with those issues that have people like Osama bin Laden so upset.  They haven’t much to do with Israel or the Palestinians.  They have no history of keeping the Arab states down through colonialism. They haven’t been a huge player in the U.S. version of the War on Terror. Why would Osama or al Qaeda care?

I imagine that those with an interest in making all terrorism seem like a giant worldwide conspiracy will take a stab at linking these attacks to the people we are fighting as part of our post-9/11 efforts.  It will be interesting to see what the evidence says.

Are you more concerned about Barack Obama’s personal safety than you usually are for the President? If so, why?

Well, I think the reasons are somewhat obvious in one sense. A black man as leader of the United States of America is enough provocation for some very fringe people in this country. You never need to add more reasons for would-be assassins to take a shot at the top guy. There are always enough mentally deranged people out there to keep the Secret Service busy. Taking a guy who would be a target no matter what the situation and adding a skin color that just sets the racists off is asking for more security. All that Reverend Wright stuff, the hinting at possible Islamic leanings on Obama’s part along with the “palling around with terrorists” talk during the campaign probably doesn’t help either.

Having grown up in California, were you surprised by the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage?

Well, California is like a lot of Western states in the sense that it has been transformed over the last 15 or so years by new arrivals.  You look at how much a state like Nevada has changed after absorbing lots of people from states like California over the past decade or so.  Las Vegas has exploded in housing and size.  The voting patterns in Nevada have been altered by all the new arrivals (making a traditionally very conservative state much more liberal than it has ever been). 

California’s transformation involves people from south of the border in a lot of cases. This is a trend that has been going on a lot longer than fifteen years. There were what we would today call “Hispanic” folks already there of course when we Anglos arrived in California hundreds of years ago, and they never left.  Then there are the people that have come north looking for work, or who transit to and from their home country in central or south America. These people are changing both voting patterns and social-cultural patterns in the region.  Mexican-Americans (as just one example) are a very traditionally family-oriented and socially conservative group in a lot of ways (check out who goes to church in California’s major cities, and in what language the proceedings are often conducted). African-Americans are often the same way.

And California has always had areas that are very conservative in a Republican sense.  Orange County near Los Angeles, all the desert communities and eastern rural part of the state, much of central California between L.A. and San Francisco…these areas all trend conservative. People who don’t really know the state are often quite surprised that it isn’t always as left-wing as you might think.

So, when you combine voters who are the traditional Republican conservatives you find in a place like Newport Beach with voters who would normally support Democratic candidates, but who are themselves traditionalists when it comes to things like marriage and family, the results of something like Prop 8 are a little less shocking. But, only a little.