The Denialist Calculation
October 26, 2012 17 Comments
Bookworm on the politicization of Benghazi:
Obama made a cold, brutal calculation that, if he wanted the American people to believe that his (or Panetta’s) Osama kill order destroyed Al Qaeda, he would forever after have to pretend that Al Qaeda doesn’t exist. To do so, he would have to ignore completely all Al Qaeda activity, including the cold-blooded slaughter of four Americans.
Bingo. A perfect example of what I have been calling war denialism in action. And again, keep in mind that war-denialists think of what they are doing not only as clever/politically shrewd, but good for the country. It is this fact that will help you understand administration behavior, and lies, and misinformation, on this subject. As well as that of the Important Journalists who are assiduously not-investigating it.
This doesn’t make sense to me. If Obama is pretending al Qaeda doesn’t exist, why hasn’t he stopped drone strikes?
Pretending they don’t exist *for the purpose of public consumption*.
If you buy my ‘denialist’ theory, a ‘denialist’ would have no problem waging war (they aren’t pacifists). They just don’t want it to be disruptive, tear the country apart, be commented upon, make the country lose face, make *them* lose face, cause them political damage, ‘distract’ the conversation from important domestic causes, etc. (These may all sound like different things, but to a denialist the concerns are all mixed together and intertwined.)
In light of the above, drone-based warfare is the *perfect* tactic for a denialist. As you yourself have commented at length, the fact that we’re waging drone warfare, and it’s nature, goes largely unnoticed. Which is precisely the point! It’s a feature, not a bug – and an irresistible feature at that – to a denialist.
I’m thinking: if you could invite 3 people to dinner at your house: bin laden, romney and obama. Who do you think would be the most engaging to listen to?
(obviously you’re thinking that since osama is dead, he wouldn’t be very interesting to talk to over dinner but ignore that aspect). If Romney would be as engaging as the other two, he’d get elected.
Similarly, if you could have had bush and kerry over for dinner, I’d say most people would groan with boredom whenever kerry would open his mouth but not when bush did.
Those choices are easy for me. I think Romney would be very engaging. The other two would bore to tears. I think asking about his Bain years would be fascinating. I also think it would be fun to give him a hard time about how he expects that experience (and the Olympics and MA) to translate into success at the federal level. I also expect he’d take it pretty well in a private conversation.
I met Bush when he first ran for governor down here. Very friendly and engaging guy. Again, someone whose stories would be interesting. Oil patch, drinking life, etc.
Ah, but my choices align with my priors.
Also, I know some actual Mormons. Some of them even drink.
If Romney doesn’t, at least it’d help him and Osama find something in common.
Interesting about Bush. And makes sense somehow.
What Mike said. Romney is clearly the most interesting (and the nicest. Not sure why people focus on ‘interesting’ over ‘nice’ in these dinner-guest thought experiments. Who cares if someone is ‘interesting’ if they’re an a-hole?)
Romney has actually accomplished things in a multilayered career. Obama is boring, antisocial, unjustifiably arrogant, and has not done anything tangible in his life. (Unless the theories of him being a secret commie Manchurian candidate, sexually abused, closet homosexual are accurate. But would he share any of that at dinner?)
As far as OBL, I can sort of understand someone thinking he would have ‘stories and anecdotes’, since he seems to have done tangible things, like Romney. The problem is that ultimately the guy is (was) basically just a one-dimensional, sheltered fanatic. Remember the banal photos of the compound where he was killed. At the end his was presumably a life of puttering around inside the house and watching TV, kinda like (another notorious bore) JD Salinger. So I really don’t think a dinner with him, being lectured about Allah and all, would be all that enjoyable.
Romney in a landslide.
> The problem is that ultimately the guy is (was) basically just a one-dimensional, sheltered fanatic.
Well, probably. But he did experience a lot of strange and interesting things which we’d find exotic and he must have at least some charisma to have led so many people. He’d have a lot to bring to the dinner table. And as for Obama, I have this feeling that he’s been a socialite since high-school so he’s probably great at conversing with others. Bush was also very obviously warm and extroverted and I bet he loves to talk. Romney seems a little like Kerry, somehow reserved, a little blocked when it comes to talking in an engaging way. Evidence suggests that he’s extremely kind and definitely not the detached sort but it doesn’t show when he talks, just like it didn’t show with kerry. At the time I thought Kerry will lose not because people love bush but because it’s difficult to connect with Kerry. I remember thinking the same thing about Gore.
I understand the factors you cite, but I think they are superficial and would crumble on inspection. Obama has been a ‘socialite since high school’; doesn’t that bore you if you actually think about it? What are you going to talk about with him, basketball? He really likes ‘hoop’, I hear. And then what?
SImilarly, bin Laden would ‘bring a lot to the dinner table’ only that he’s a strange specimen that we don’t ordinarily meet. But at the end of the day it would be ALL ABOUT ALLAH. After 7 minutes you’d be like “ok enough, how do I get out of this conversation? fake a phone call?”
On the flip side, Romney ‘seems reserved’ – but you’re basing that entirely on public speeches and appearances. The whole point of the dinner-table is that it is a private gathering, and by all accounts, he is a very good guy to people he knows.
If your criteria aren’t superficial and overly media-influenced, the choice is pretty clear.
‘socialite since high-school’ is a little boring as a concept but it means he’s expert at being social and engaging and it’s not as though he lacks for stories, nor does it look like he lacks a sense of humor and I think if he’d want to be entertaining, he would be. The idea is to have light dinner chit-chat, not to start conversations about edward said, the 3rd world and socialism. For one dinner and without his speaking out of turn, I think he’d be very engaging.
Bush also seems like a man with genuine charisma and a sense of humor. He’d be fun too.
Now, I don’t know how amusing Osama would be but saying he’d begin talking about Allah is n some way beside the point. On the one hand, of course it’s an obvious flaw and would ruin his chances of being elected President (even running as a Democrat, constantly talking about Allah would seem a little divisive and I’m not sure his abortion and gay-marriage views mesh in) but we are really imagining a dinner party so there’s no need to bring in too much reality or else we’d have to consider he’d have us tied to our chairs with a video camera pointed at us and at masked men holding knives to our throats. If he’d genuinely try to be a good participant, I’m sure he’d have fascinating tales to tell (though you do have a point when it comes to that boring house and tv-filled existence).
Romney: well, he’s a terrific CEO but do I find that interesting? No. I think he’d be a pretty good president and I suppose he’s a genuinely nice person, but would he be able to hold his own at the dinner table? Are you sure he would? I draw a blank. Maybe he would be but the problem (for his odds of being voted in) are that it doesn’t show.
Charisma is important. Clinton had it. Reagan had it. They had it in spades. Even Bush did. Romney, I think not so much.
You can totally sit at the Obama/Osama table. Fine w/me.
lol
Do you really think bin laden’s stories and anecdotes would bore you?!
And come on, I’m sure Obama has terrific stories and knows how to tell them. Bush too. But Romney, Kerry? I think less so.
u don’t no mormons clearly.
You mean all mormons are riveting?
They know how to be interesting and engaging and amiable and quickly build rapport and affinity, although one cannot say this of every single Mormon everywhere, it is a noticeable tendency.
I play old guy hockey. I have a Mormon on my team that will kick anybody’s ass in this thread. He’ll kick anybody’s ass in any comment thread on the internet. He’s absolutely fearless. If you get him away from his wife he loves to drink and will occasionally smoke some weed. Really, he’s the toughest guy I’ve ever met. He’s fun at dinner; well, when his wife isn’t around.