Obama's Limits: An Interview With Andrew Bacevich

"We have presidential elections as a substitute for serious democratic politics" – that's what Andrew Bacevich says. He's been writing and teaching history and international relations at Boston University, after spending 23 years in the army and retiring as a colonel.

What would serious democratic politics look like? First of all, Bacevich says, we need a real debate about the idea of a global war on terror. Then we need a debate on what he calls our "empire of consumption."

"Obama and McCain agree on the global war on terror," he points out: McCain wants to fight it in Iraq, Obama in Afghanistan. "My own preference would be for an election in which we had one candidate making the case for the global war on terror – that would be McCain – but we would have an opponent who would make the case that the concept of global war as the response to violent Islamic radicalism is flawed. We ought not be in the business of invading and occupying other countries. That's not going to address the threat. It is, on the other hand, going to bankrupt the country and break the military."

How then should we respond to the threat? Bacevich favors a "defensive" strategy of "containment." We need a president who acknowledges that it is not our job to "tutor Muslims in matters related to freedom and the proper relationship between politics and religion." He concludes, "Let Islam be Islam."

But he's not one of those radicals who argue there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. "I call myself an Obama-con, Bacevich says, "a conservative who will vote for Obama – because of the Iraq war. He has vowed that he will end the war and withdraw US combat forces. If he does that, it will render a verdict on the Iraq war: that it was a mistake and a failure. That verdict might open up the possibility for a debate about the fundamentals of US foreign policy. If McCain gets elected, the chances of us having that debate are close to zero."

We shouldn't blame George Bush for the underlying assumptions of the global war on terror, Bacevich argues. "Really it was Bill Clinton who more than anybody else made armed intervention a routine aspect of American political life. Yes, George Hebert Walker Bush started the ball rolling with the overthrow of Noriega in Panama followed by Desert Storm followed by the intervention in Somalia. But Clinton picked up the baton in Somalia; Clinton went into Haiti; Clinton went into Bosnia, Clinton went into Kosovo, Clinton pummeled Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan with bombs and missiles. So there's blame to be shared by both parties."

But weren't Clinton's actions "humanitarian" interventions?

"And Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein because he wanted to liberated the Iraqi people," Bacevich replies. "When the US uses force, it advertises its purposes in idealistic terms. But the US does not use force primarily for the purpose of advancing democratic values or freeing the oppressed. The US, like every other power in history, uses its power in order to satisfy concrete interests."

And Democrats agree with Republicans on the "concrete interests" of Americans: preserving what Bacevich calls our "empire of consumption." (He borrowed the term from Harvard historian Charles Maier.) After WWII, the US was an "empire of production" – "we made the stuff that everybody else wanted." So the country did not go into debt. "But we have increasingly become a culture that emphasizes consumption – limitless consumption – regardless of whether we have the money to pay the bills, while others, notably China and Japan, have become the source of the goods we consume. There's something fundamentally out of whack here. This disparity between what we produce and what we consume is simply not sustainable."

Neither Obama nor McCain, he says, realizes the seriousness of this problem of "limitless consumption." I asked whether any president in recent history had.

"Jimmy Carter," he replies. "His famous ‘malaise' speech in 1979 was enormously prescient in warning about the consequences of ever-increasing debt and dependency. Carter's argument was that energy independence provided a vehicle for us to assert control of our destiny, and to reassess what we meant by freedom: is it something more than simply consumerism?

"But that speech was greeted with howls of derision. Ronald Reagan said we could have anything we wanted. There were no limits. Then we the people rejected Carter's warning and embraced Reagan's promise of never-ending abundance. That was a fateful choice."

I pointed out that, at the Democratic National Convention, the Democrats said the same thing Reagan did. Hillary Clinton for example said "there are no limits to what is possible in America."

"That's the language of American politics," Bacevich replies, "for both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. But that idea is not really sustainable when we look at the facts."

Andrew Bacevich's new book is "The Limits of Power."

Comments (19)

1. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/28/2008 @ 6:02pm

   Veto-proof majority doesn't apply to the general population, which is why no one "noticed" it.

   There is a candidate questioning the global war on terror, that's Bob Barr. If your vision is only to the left side of the fence, you could make the argument Cynthia McKinney is also addressing this issue. Interesting this professor and the writer of this article both missed that point.

   Posted by srjenkins at 08/28/2008 @ 6:44pm

2. Thanks, Jon Weiner, for the nice post.

   I've been singing the praises for Andrew Bacevich's fanatastic new book here at The Nation's blog space since I read it recently.

   It's a compact 180 pages of well framed and powerful argumentation, and its central points ought to be thrust into the limelight in the run-up to and after this fall's election.

   Here's a link to the excellent interview of Bacevich by Bill Moyers:

   www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/watch.html

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/28/2008 @ 6:45pm

3. "empire of consumption"

   In 1914 Ford was building a (GAS GUZZLING) model T every 93 minutes.

   So I blaming Woodrow Wilson for this mess we're in....

   Posted by bleedingheart at 08/28/2008 @ 6:50pm

4. Also of note is the fact that Bacevich's book is heavily interwoven with hard hitting quotes from Reinhold Niebuhr who has been mentioned by Barack Obama as a favorite intellectual influence.

   Although Bacevich places a large share of the blame on the American people and says that he believes that nothing is likely to change in regards to the well established American habit of profligacy, the book looks to me to be a sharply focused attempt to spur Obama to courageous action.

   We should all hope that the attempt is successful beyond Bacevich's expectations.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/28/2008 @ 6:53pm

5. A thoughtful interview. Obviously no one is going to listen to this guy! As long as ending the "Empire of Consumption" does NOT mean a qualitative lowering of living standards in the U.S., it sounds like a debate worth having. I remember living in Italy during the late 1970's when train bombings, the assassination of Aldo Moro, the Red Brigades, and assorted mayhem produced a collective shrug by the Italian democracy. Italians ignored the "Terror" and refused to become frightened. They won their war against terrorism and kept their democracy. We could learn by their example.

   Posted by Hamiltonian at 08/28/2008 @ 7:09pm

6. If Obama were to apply Niebuhr's values to US wars abroad, there would be no wars except truly defensive wars.

   But Obama would never be given that chance. As soon as it became clear what his non-aggressive policies were, he'd be killed, as would any other president who tried nonaggression, regardless of gender or race.

   Posted by sloper at 08/28/2008 @ 7:10pm

7. "But Obama would never be given that chance. As soon as it became clear what his non-aggressive policies were, he'd be killed, as would any other president who tried nonaggression, regardless of gender or race."

   ~Posted by sloper

   That's a bit of a dark and somewhat jaded take I think, Sloper, although I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility.

   More likely, if Obama were to begin making rousing speeches that included references to the need for a downsized foreign policy and/or the need for the American people to reduce our massive appetites, he might find himself hamstrung by a media gone apeshit.

   I'd love to see him try it though. It'd be a hell of a brave thing to do and if he was somehow successful he might actually stake a claim as one of the greatest U.S. presidents along side Lincoln.

   One can dream.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 08/28/2008 @ 7:36pm

8. Abundance IS possible...it just may take another 30-50 years of nanotechnology research. (Ray Kurzweil for more info).

   But facts are facts...and telling the American people "Under our governance, you're going to do with less, be less prosperous, have less choice, and your children probably won't even see the benefit...maybe your grandkids"...

   is a loser. And if you lose, the OTHER extreme wins.

   That's just reality.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 7:49pm

9. And this is what is supposed to pass for first class commentary, that of Bacevich? Obama-con? More like schmeggegie-con.

   Yesterday, I thumped the tub for a single convention, one in which the system party selected two sets of candidates with the losing pair pledging together with its congressional slate to continue acting the part of sponge for public dissatisfaction and thus offer the appearance of a real opposition. The idea was to make the job of the lobbies a lot easier when it came to shopping and paying for work product. Then when Tweedle Deed, the other pair could more easily Tweedle Dum. It would be like a dance at which say, a drug company or an AIPAC, could commit the singularity Obama-Biden-McCain-? to a twirl simply by signing one card. And then, when time came for the "debates", no one would even need to appear in anyway contentious. Having long ago agreed to get along, they could announce that they'd found a way to achieve the average schlub's goal of their just getting along. The solution to philosophy's mind boggling dilema of the One and the Many would be seen as having been found and viola, Bacevich might even realize that he's a Tweedle Dee.

   Progressives should vote Nader.

   Posted by john lowell at 08/28/2008 @ 8:23pm

10. If we have limits to the words economic pie and the countries of; China, Russia and the United States have more multi billionaires than at anytime in history we have a problem with poverty that isn't going to be solved with guns or smart bombs.When a person can be convinced to blow themselves up for a cause we had better look at whether the cause has merit. China produces sneakers for ninety cents and they sell here for 90.00 dollars. When you legalize gluttony you end up with crimes on humanity never before seen in human history. Al gore writes legislation for Microsoft and makes millions for himself. The so called free market has come to mean; pay people less than they are worth to produce stuff and services for more than it is worth. T. Boone Pickens wants to own the wind. the united states is up for sale to the highest bitter with sovereign wealth funds. Those were not the promises made my dad who put fifty five years of sweat equity in this country working as a laborer for the rail road.

    Posted by lachatte at 08/28/2008 @ 8:46pm

11. CORRECTION: "If we have limits to the worlds economic pie". ADD; we have seen the greatest transfer of wealth from the working poor to the wealthy in the history of mankind.

    Posted by lachatte at 08/28/2008 @ 8:50pm

12. Phony Gore: Here he comes again. Well, let's just say comparing anyone to Lincoln isn't just phony, but laughable.

    ---------

    Gore Talks About What Might Not Have Been, Compares Obama to Lincoln August 28, 2008 9:08 PM

    DENVER, Colorado -- Former Vice President Al Gore started his speech tonight by talking about how the world would be different had he ended up in the White House in 2000.

    "Eight years ago, some said there was not much difference between the nominees of the two major parties and it didn't really matter who became president," Gore said. "Our nation was enjoying peace and prosperity. Some assumed we would continue both, no matter the outcome. But here we all are in 2008, and I doubt anyone would argue now that election didn't matter.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 08/28/2008 @ 10:38pm

13. BTW, did anybody note that Americans by a veto-proof majority approve of Israel taking it to Iran?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/28/2008 @ 6:02pm

    the ignorance of one's countrymen is not something to brag about.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:10pm

14. So I blaming Woodrow Wilson for this mess we're in....

    Posted by bleedingheart at 08/28/2008 @ 6:50pm

    how much debt do you have?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:12pm

15. As long as ending the "Empire of Consumption" does NOT mean a qualitative lowering of living standards in the U.S., it sounds like a debate worth having.

    Posted by Hamiltonian at 08/28/2008 @ 7:09pm

    how do you define quality?

    and what about the people we exploit for our "quality"?

    and what of the rivers and soils we contaminate for our "quality"?

    sorry, dude.

    we're pigs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:14pm

16. Abundance IS possible...it just may take another 30-50 years of nanotechnology research. (Ray Kurzweil for more info).

    ••••• mmmmm, nanotubes. lung cancer, anyone?

    ••••• we've already got too much "abundance". it's killing us.

    But facts are facts...and telling the American people "Under our governance, you're going to do with less, be less prosperous, have less choice, and your children probably won't even see the benefit...maybe your grandkids"... is a loser. And if you lose, the OTHER extreme wins. That's just reality.

    ••••• lie to me, baby.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 7:49pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:17pm

17. what better place than the Mid East!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/28/2008 @ 9:55pm

    nuke the towelheads before they eat any more kids.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2008 @ 11:19pm

18. Petit used U.S. census data and other government sources to compare states that voted Republican in the 2004 presidential election to those that voted Democratic. To rank the states, he used a set of 11 child-related statistics, several of which were measures of health, such as insurance coverage and prenatal care.

    According to his findings, nine of the 10 top states with the best outcomes for children today were blue states. The top 10 states, in order, were Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa (the sole red state in the group) and New Hampshire.

    All 10 of the bottom-rated states were red states -- Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi.

    According to Petit's research, a child in the bottom 10 states is twice as likely to die by the age of 14 than a child in the top 10 states.

    Children in the bottom 10 states were also 1.8 times more likely to be uninsured than their top 10 counterparts, and expectant mothers were more than twice as likely to receive inadequate prenatal care.

    The data show that "children fare much better today if they happen to live in some states instead of others," said Dr. Joel Alpert, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, during Wednesday's press conference.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/29/2008 @ 01:36am

19. I propose that Obama understands on a conceptual level the misgivings of even the idea of a "war on terrorism". However, because of political expedience required by rages of popular opinion, and the usual childish response by the public of being told it cannot do something, his intellectual position is more mated to the realities of the war than on the politics of being elected.

    Posted by RHLANGFORD at 08/31/2008 @ 11:57am