In commenting on Obama’s recent statement about wanting to look forward, rather than investigate the Bush administration’s crimes, one of the guest bloggers at Dispatches says
Unfortunately, Obama doesn’t get it. If prosecuting people for their crimes was “looking backward,” there’d be no need to do it. Why did we prosecute poor Slobodan Miloscevic? He was out of power after all, so why didn’t we just “look forward?”
Looking forward, I see the prospect of future presidents thinking they can commit any crimes they want without fearing retribution. That’s a pretty good argument for prosecuting high-level Bush officials (I’m looking at you, Don R.), if not Bush himself.
Right, except for that first sentence. It seems rather unlikely that Obama doesn’t get it. It’s just that there are inescapable political issues involved. Investigations and prosecutions would probably consume our political debate for years. They would be very controversial and require political capital that could be spent in other areas. Obama has an agenda and investigating the previous administration to any significant degree means giving up on some of it. For Obama to make the right call here would require quite a bit of political courage and taking a big risk. I don’t think Obama is that kind of politician.
I would really, really like to be wrong, though.
For what it’s worth, this is my interpretation of Steve Hildebrand’s comments disparaging liberal criticism of Obama during the transition process.
It’s annoying, but useful to the incoming Obama administration. Fending off liberal criticism by repeating centrist mantras about the “most qualified” people broadens their appeal. What Hildebrand lists as what an Obama administration is going to do are arguably progressive priorities. If they can frame their solutions as centrist, it makes their jobs easier. It’s annoying, hinders self-identified liberals’ ability to advocate for policy, and runs the risk of making the left as a whole toxic to mainstream political debate. But it has a purpose and it isn’t necessarily a purpose that’s in opposition to what most liberals want.
So I’m still taking a wait and see attitude. Liberals should continue to critique Obama’s appointees, but they should keep some perspective. Which, by the way, they’re mostly doing, contrary to the claims of beltway apologists.
My thoughts on Obama’s transition process, in convenient numbered form:
1. I’m not much for criticizing Obama’s appointments. For the most part, I’m content to let him pick whomever he wants and judge his administration on the policies it implements. The exceptions to this are especially egregious nominations or nominations of people who are clearly incompetent. We’ve had one of those so far and he’s now withdrawn. So I’m relatively happy.
2. Clinton as Secretary of State isn’t a great choice. To some extent their differences in the primaries were more heat than light, but their respective foreign policy views actually seemed to be somewhat different. Not by a lot, but enough that in the context of an election that didn’t see debates about overarching foreign policy principles they’re significant. So, enough to vote on the basis of them, but not enough that I think Obama supporters should be actively hostile to a Clinton nomination.
3. Awesome:
[O]ne could forgive Geithner right now if his head swelled just a little bit. The Dow Jones Industrial Average shot up five hundred points on Friday as word of his appointment leaked. The Dow jumped close to another four hundred points yesterday after Obama officially introduced him. One has to wonder if, sometime this week, when Geithner’s wife asks him to do the dishes, he will be tempted to respond, “Have you caused the Dow to jump by more than ten percent? I didn’t think so!”
4. I have no use for weekly addresses on YouTube.
