Topic for Week of Nov 29: The New National Security Team
So I think it is interesting to have watched both the process and the outcome of the new National Security Team for the new Obama White House. I don't know if I have ever seen more experience and a bipartisan approach in the formation of such a team. Both Republican and Democrats are there, both with lots of international experience. So I would be interested in hearing from others (on both sides of politics) regarding your thoughts.
It seems that Gates was a very good pick for now as he has really helped stabilize things out of the chaos in Iraq (still bad, but better than it was). There has been some criticism about bringing the Washington folks in when Obama implied otherwise...but I believe it is about leadership and the provision of strong advice so that very informed decisions can be made about very difficult issues (for example, Middle East and Israel, Russia and its more aggressive behavior, Pakistan and India and instability there, Al Qaeda and how do deal with issues related...can the leader be found?, making the UN a much more effective entity, engaging with Iran, N Korea and Venezuela rather than ignoring their rantings, dealing with America's lower stature in the world which resulted from decisions of the Bush White House, issues about the Geneva Convention, cell phone tapping of Americans, undocumented workers from the Central and South American countries, the immoral prisons in which so many people are still held without charge, some for over five years...lots of issues).
So I am very very impressed with the new team at this point. Lots of experience, lots of motivation to do well... What do you think?
What about Hillary (I know the Republican side of politics has not really been in favor of her in the past). But what about for Secretary of State? Also we now have a third female Secretary of State out of the last four...wow and no white males there since 1992, I believe...is this saying something (or not)?
See the following news items regarding the team and their backgrounds:
Obama Introduces Clinton, National Security Team
Obama taps Clinton, Gates for US 'new dawn' abroad
Any thoughts are welcome as long as they are respectful of other's comments...
Cheers...
9 comments:
I guess I am in a 'wait and see' mode. I really hope things go positively.. or at least not as horribly wrong as I fear.
I find it funny I have been participating in this blog as it has turned political. Nick will tell you that was the one rule I made early on when we got married- no discussing politics at family events.
I have a liberal grandmother and a very super liberal cousin who is a federal judge in NYC. We usually just smile nicely and eat our pie and talk about what else we are doing but do not talk politics . There is so much opportunity for debates to go horribly wrong- especially when it is family that you will be seeing every holiday for the next million years.
I guess I learned this lesson from a wedding reception I went to once that turned into an ugly debate about abortion- there is a time and a place and family events are usually not either to discuss politics
I've found it very interesting to hear everyone's views here on the blog. I will try to get Nick to come chime in because I know he probably has an opinion about this
Hi Emily –
I once subscribed to the belief that politics and religion were taboo subjects, a policy my Dad unfortunately clung to most of his life. Yes we had fewer conflicts but also exchanged fewer ideas. Then we moved to a couple of small towns, Granbury, TX and Idaho Falls, ID. In a small town, if you require your friends to agree with you in these two important areas, you will have very few friends. We have friends now who are Buddhists, Jewish, Muslim, Lutheran, Catholic, LDS, Republican, Democrat, subscribe to no religion, never vote, are politicians, or just simply are great people with no labels attached. Good to have lots of thoughts and ways of life around. Here's a couple of my thoughts to ponder:
All interesting people are highly opinionated and of course biased in many areas.
A democracy simply can not function if everyone agrees.
I don’t subscribe to the idea that our country is divided into the liberals and conservatives – that’s far too simplistic. Rush Limbaugh has done tremendous damage to free thought by his need to categorize ideas into the good and the bad. For example, “liberal, feminist, environmentalist” are not bad words. Most ideas and concepts are not conservative, liberal, good, or bad, and in fact do not need to be categorized at all.
Obama said in his victory speech, “…we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.” One of the messages from this statement is, we are all in this country together and we should share ideas without the fear of conflict. We must, of course, do this with the utmost respect of our friends and family’s differing opinions.
So there is Bill 101 for today.
Happy Trails, Bill
I don't see how Obama could possibly select his leadership team without choosing many from Washington. That's where the power base and vast experience resides.
Hillary should be great as Sec of State. Perhaps Bill Clinton can tag along?
I met Bill Richardson once who is picked for Sec of Commerce. He should be a good fit in the new position.
I also like to closeness and respect Obama has shown McCain and believe he should seek his advise.
Hi, Bill! I would agree with you that using labels is often unnecessary. I think this is why I have been extremely uncomfortable when asked to put candidates in certain categories like “which black politician” would I have voted for or “which woman would I rather” when I’d much rather base it on their experience, history and proven truthfulness/morality in general.
I certainly do not require everyone to agree with me; I hope I never implied that. I love it here on the east coast with a diverse and interesting group of friends, associates and coworkers. Nick will tell you I ran screaming from Utah the first chance I got- there I was the extreme maverick that plagued my roommates. Very interesting years of my life.
I have a good neighbor that I sometimes walk with in the mornings. Very early on in our friendship we agreed that we would be unable to discuss politics as we each had such opposite views on nearly everything. But making politics taboo has not stifled our friendship as there are so many other topics to discuss.
Some people love talking politics- it is fun for them. For me it isn’t (usually). So I’ve been surprised to find myself drawn into political discussion here. That was the only point I was trying to make with my previous comment.
And I agree respect needs to be given to all views and the person who is expressing them. There is often the attitude (not necessarily here- just I am finding in general) that because I don’t believe the same as someone else that makes me and my opinion less valuable. I have encountered people (again, not directed specifically at anyone here) with a smug, condescending tone that because I disagree with them it is because I “just don’t get it” They express pity for me for being less enlightened than them. Less educated. They imply my opinion is less valuable because I am a stay at home mom. Because I disagree with them they call me ‘mean spirited’. Now anytime I disagree with PEBO I will be called racist, too. It is valuable discussion as long as the ideas can be discussed without resorting to attacking the person behind them. And that is the tricky line to tiptoe when discussing politics and religion- because our beliefs are so very ingrained into what we feel and who we are.
This has been the other very interesting part of politics for me- how family members with similar backgrounds end up with such opposed political views. For example- how did my liberal grandmother end up with two very conservative children?
I don't really have time for a long response, but I totally agree with your comments, Bill. I don't think religion/politics should be taboo subjects at all. I don't really love to debate, but I love hearing everyone's opinions. I loved Obama's quote, too.
Though I don't have a lot to say about each of Obama's choices, I am excited about Hillary. I really like her. (and she certainly deserves it!)
So, Emily, I'm in 'wait and see' mode, too.
p.s. Emily, I don't think you implied that everyone should agree with you.
Interesting discussion here. I think I would rather not have this blog always be a political one because, lets face it, that would be pretty darn boring. Our lives do not revolve around politics after all.
That said, I have to say that Rush Limbaugh(who I do not listen to) can not be blamed for all the categories and name calling that exists today. He is using his right of free speech. Everyone seems to call themselves something--dividing into categories...and often being attacked for it.
It might be easy on a personal blog or among friends to not "attack" each other for our different categories but it seems in the "real world" that is impossible. Everyone wants to claim tolerance but actions don't support it.
The out and out hatred spewed directly at supporters of Prop 8, and the LDS church is a good example. I attended a prop 8 rally and there was no hatred or anger expressed there. LDS people were by far the minority at the rally as well. Black church communities were a majority there. It was really very interesting to see how calm and peaceful the rally was. The anger toward Prop 8 supporters is by far some of the most intolerant behavior I think I have ever seen.
Tolerance is accepting that others have different opinions than you. It is not hunting them down and beating them into submission into accepting your views.
Really interesting conversations here on a multitude of points.
It has always been interesting to see how just a part of a statement can be the focus of a conversation. It seems that the focus here was a response to some degree based on two things I said in the posted blog. One was the comment I made which was "on both sides of politics" and the second seems to be the comment toward the end where I said "as long as they are respectful of other's comments."
But the main points of the blog (by the way, I do believe it is perfectly fine to divert from the main point), were really about the process of picking the new President's team, the idea of Hillary as Secretary of State, and I suppose to a certain degree, the challenges of the many issues that are facing the new President...not that comments need to reflect this...it is just interesting to see how different parts of a conversation get picked up...
On another note (and based in part on a comment by you Stephanie) yes I agree that I don't want this blog to be dominated by politics...so there are many other areas in which people can contribute, and which many of us seem to enjoy.
But I think it is interesting to hear different points of view on topically issues (some of which are political or have tended to have political solutions..or at least attempts at political solutions).
I believe the Richins have spent a long time in avoidance of sharing views, or we may just talk about some views with those of us who tend to agree. But as long as we are respectful of others, and hopefully curious of other's views...I believe we sometimes can see where others are coming from and sometimes that may even influence how we individually see things.
One of my professors called these viewpoints - our "social representations" and this is basically a platform by which we may approach things/ideas/decisions that come before us. An example might be that if we have a strong social representation that say - "growth and development are good" then when we see a new housing development going in or a new resort being developed...we normally would show or be supportive. If on the other hand we have a strong social representation that "natural heritage is very important to preserve", this could influence our views as less supportive on growth and development.
As part of our social representations, It has been interesting to see how emotional some people are when it comes to their own personal morals (And I agree here with Emily that some topics of high polarization such as abortion possibly are not as appropriate for debate/discussion...though aspects which surround the abortion issue might be useful such as issues of private lives/actions - how I choose to live my life vs. societal rights - what society can require of/impose on individuals).
Morals are often, I believe based on individual's values which are influenced strongly by that variety of experiences from childhood to today that each individual has in their lifetimes. I would hope that all of these aspects of individual's lives would be areas of ongoing exploration, questioning and learning, but I am not sure that always happens with everyone. Never-the-less these all may influence our platform of views regarding politics, issues in society and religious ways of thinking. And sometimes sharing differing views of people of whom we care about...can be enlightening or at least interesting, even if the are seemingly opposite.
Post a Comment