Fair and Balanced

Ah, Brookings, where a diverse and bipartisan group of war supporters can debate "The Future of Iraq and Afghanistan." The 60-70 percent of the public who's to the left of the Pollack/O'Hanlon axis will just need to stay quiet. There's lots of good people at Brookings, but I think those people need to give some thought as to the direction the high-profile people working on Middle East issues are taking their brand.

Note that Brookings is by far the most cited think tank by the press, and by super-duper far the most-cited "left of center" think tank.

Comments

"... but I think those people need to give some thought as to the direction the high-profile people working on Middle East issues are taking their brand."

That "brand" would be the brand of Haim Saban, the money-man behind Brookings who has his own views about how America should be fighting wars in the ME on behalf of Israel. Saban believes more the better. He is also leaning on Pelosi for Hillary regarding the superdelegates.

Saban can influence American elections and American war policy. Not too bad for a multi-national billionaire.

Posted by patrick | March 27, 2008 12:39 PM

Matt should be a little careful in these posts...

After all, they'll end up embarrassing him once he's working as a junior O'Hanlon speechwriter in the Obama Administration.

Posted by RKU | March 27, 2008 12:41 PM

Are you trying to tell me that the Saban Center for Middle East Policy tilts towards American militarism in the Middle East? I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked!

Posted by J.B. | March 27, 2008 12:44 PM

There's a reason it's called the "Brookings Concensus".

Although you now oppose them with all the zeal of the converted, you, Matt, you used to be a member (You still are in issues other than the War).

It's a specific point of view, closely aligned with the Clintons, and for a long time, it was the Democratic position on every issue. The Dems have changed, but Brookings has not - they're a think tank, not a political party.

So why the surprise?

Posted by heedless | March 27, 2008 12:53 PM

Bugger, should be "Brookings Consensus"

Posted by heedless | March 27, 2008 1:05 PM

"...the 60-70 percent of the public that's to the left of the Pollack/O'Hanlon axis..." ?

What on earth are you talking about? There is nothing "left" about opposition to giant Federal program to spend trillions attempting to bring liberal democracy to people who have never known it in the interests of international stability. Pat Buchanan has been an outspoken critic of invading Iraq for years.

The "Pollack/O'Hanlon axis" is way left.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 27, 2008 1:23 PM

Re Robert Powell's comment "Pat Buchanan has been an outspoken critic of invading Iraq for years.

------------------
1) Pat Buchanan is so far to the right that he's left on some issues. That's why he was supported by the US Socialists in his Presidential bid. That's also why he LEFT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

2) Re " The "Pollack/O'Hanlon axis" is way left."
-- Oh, yes. They're over there with those other "Leftists" -- William Kristol, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, etc

3) Why is it that whenever Robert Powell speaks with such sincerity, I --for some strange reason -- instinctively feel that I'm in the presence of a truly deceitful man??

Posted by Don Williams | March 27, 2008 1:49 PM

Jeremy Shapiro and is on the panel and is the kind of guy most people who dig this website would agree with.

Posted by Name Withheld | March 27, 2008 3:13 PM

Don: "Why is it that whenever Robert Powell speaks with such sincerity, I --for some strange reason -- instinctively feel that I'm in the presence of a truly deceitful man??"

Too rhetorical for you, Don. It's because you instinctively know that he's a complete fucking troll.

This particular comment of his is amusing on several levels. First, he appears to be proclaiming that it's "right wing" to oppose the Iraq war. That's a new perspective, certainly.

Then he appears to be admitting that it will cost "trillions" to "bring democracy" to the Middle East. That's an interesting admission.

Then it's amusing to see how much "international stability" we've gotten for the trillion or so we've spent so far.

Truly a complete asshole. He just doesn't rant in the same way that Ford does. We can all dismiss Ford as a lunatic KKK member. Powell is more subtle - but no less ridiculous in his assertions.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 4:05 PM

Don, nutbag isolationists like Pat Buchanan and RSH are not leftists. They are, however, significantly represented among those who advocate the Neville Chamberlain approach to international relations that's currently so popular on the left.

If you've got concerns about honesty, you need to audit the arguments in terms of who's presenting data and historical facts as opposed to the current fashion in opinion. If you've got evidence to support a different view from the one I express, bring it on. I'm always willing to acknowledge better information. Usually, though, it's just ad hominum wisecracks as evidence of weak arguments from you guys.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 27, 2008 7:53 PM

Actual, Robert Powell is, in my opinion, correct.

There is nothing "left" about opposition to giant Federal program to spend trillions attempting to bring liberal democracy to people who have never known it in the interests of international stability.

Correct, although I would phrase it differently:

There is nothing "left" about opposition to a giant Federal program to send trillions down a rathole in an attempt to graft liberal democracy onto a culture that we do not, and do not attempt to, understand, without regards to whether or not it is feasible and with no attention to the possibility of unintended consequences, and which is ultimately based on the idea that every person in the world, of every race, creed, and culture, wants nothing more than to emulate the behaviors and desires of North Eastern middle class WASPs and New York Jews.

Richard Steven Hack writes:

This particular comment of his is amusing on several levels. First, he appears to be proclaiming that it's "right wing" to oppose the Iraq war. That's a new perspective, certainly.

No, it isn't. I am opposed to the Iraq War (was from the beginning), and have considered myself a right-winger since at least late 1993.

Posted by Glaivester | March 27, 2008 11:53 PM

But it's a new perspective to consider that opposing the Iraq war is a GENERALLY "right wing" position, which was Powell's implication.

Clearly that's not the case.

Sure, plenty of "paleo-conservatives" like Buchanan and Justin Raimondo opposed the war. But the vast majority of "right wing nuts" like Ford, Fred, Al, and the like definitely didn't.

Powell tries to seem like a liberal on things like the "War on Drugs", etc., but as Don says, fundamentally he's lying.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 28, 2008 12:25 AM

I was against the war too but the whole Atrios/Yglesias/etc/etc whining about anti-war types not being represented is getting old fast.

It might not just be a conspiracy. It might be that the only war critic with anything interesting to say was Al Gore (and Obama had he been better-known). After that you're mostly left with pacifists and no-blood-for-oil types, for whom being right about the war is a little like the economist who's been right about 10 out of the last 5 recessions.

Posted by Steve C | March 28, 2008 1:05 AM

The basic problem here is that some people don't really understand what's involved in the "left-right continuum". They think Bush and his supporters are "conservatives" because that's the label such politicos prefer. This administration has, in addition to creating a gigantic government program to reform the Middle East, vastly increased the size of the Federal government in general; supported farm subsidies and tariffs on steel; put the Feds into every local school district through "No Child Left Behind"; significantly increased the power of the Executive branch; undermined civil liberties; and etc.

Today's trendy "leftists", on the other hand, want to turn back the clock to the days of isolationism, protectionism, small-group identity politics, and in some cases to a pre-industrial economy.

In terms of these discussions, anyone presenting an argument that doesn't comport with the current media script is immediately said to be a lying troll, etc. The tip-off for intellectual deficiency is that they quickly give up on dealing with the arguments, and simply attack the person they can't argue effectively against.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 28, 2008 3:17 AM

Re Powell's comment "They think Bush and his supporters are "conservatives" because that's the label such politicos prefer. This administration has, in addition to creating a gigantic government program to reform the Middle East, vastly increased the size of the Federal government in general; supported farm subsidies and tariffs on steel; put the Feds into every local school district through "No Child Left Behind"; significantly increased the power of the Executive branch; undermined civil liberties; and etc"
-----------------
You left out the important part: that was all done while the REPUBLICANS controlled all three branches of the US government.

You also left out an another important part: Our federal debt is approaching $10 TRILLION. The first $700 Billion was run up in the period 1776-1980. $8 TRILLION of the remainder was approved by the personal signatures of "Fiscal Conservatives" Ronald Reagan, George H Bush and George W Bush.

To argue that Republicans are not real "conservatives" is disingenous.

The Republicans are WHORES --EVERYTHING about them is FAKE. Their religion, their ideology, and most of all, their patriotism.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 9:53 AM

I actually like Pat Buchanan -- although I despise his social policies. Pat fell on his sword for the sake of principle. He's one of the few people in Washington that seem to actually give a shit for the people of this country.

But to suggest Pat Buchanan is the standardbearer of the conservative movement is ridiculous. Pat's out of the Republican Party and stuck as far out in the wilderness as the Republican Establishment can stick him. John McLaughlin is the only one I know of who gives Pat air time.

Posted by Don Williams | March 28, 2008 9:58 AM