I attended Khazei’s speech at Harvard today where he announced his detailed plan for Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Although the other candidates have statements out about the Afghanistan, none of the other three candidates even come close to Khazei in terms of the level of detail and knowledge of the issues.
(On their websites, Capuano and Pagliuca each have about 3 generic paragraphs saying nothing new or intersting, and Coakley has but a couple decent points…)
Now, I know he’s not always the most fiery speaker ever, but you need to give Alan credit for his content. Give his speech a read, it’s worth the time – it’s intelligent and very thorough. While not easily summarized into a couple clean and simple bullet points, his 10-point plan actually presents a plan and tells voters what they’ll actually be getting if they elect Alan as the next U.S. Senator. And his speech demonstrated that his background in the non-profit sector has really honed his understanding (and solving) of social issues and social problems, which can be applied to a huge variety of issues.
If this is the kind of well thought out analysis he’s churning out on the campaign trail, instead of empty promises and generic statements that follow the party line, I can only imagine how great a U.S. Senator he’ll be. I’m sold.
I’m not terribly impressed. First it’s really a six point plan as points 1, 7, 8, 9, and 10 have nothing to do with Afghanistan. So let’s focus on points 2-7.
<
p>In points 3 and 5, Khazei pushes for a Western style-democracy’s notion of an opposition party but then in 6 tells us no western-style democracy.
<
p>In 2, he wants the central Afghan state to become stronger but won’t 4 weaken it (unfortunately)?
<
p>If Karzai doesn’t allow opposition and doesn’t weed out corruption, what then? Karzai shows no eagerness for either.
<
p>If corruption is not removed and if the central government lacks legitimacy, economic development is going to be tough.
Point 1 is “First, we should go back to our original mission of destroying Al Qaeda and ensuring that Afghanistan not become a haven for terrorists. Thus, we do not need to send more troops to Afghanistan but can draw down troops and bring them home.” How is that not related to Afghanistan?
<
p>Point 7 is “Seventh, we need to support economic development. That means building more roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and micro-enterprise as an alternative to selling opium.” How is that not related to Afghanistan?
<
p>Points 8-10 are not directly related to Afghanistan, but are clearly an outgrowth of the other points.
<
p>Do you really think it’s inconsistent to (a) insist that Karzai try to get rid of corruption within his government, and try to encourage alternate voices besides that of the Karzai government; and also (b) consider a Loya Jirga as opposed to a western-style plebiscite? They don’t seem inconsistent to me.
Yes, I goofed re point 7. Note, though, I said focus on 2-7.
<
p>This plan (Oh how want to use scare quotes!) seems like a collection of hopes. Despite his enormous unpopularity, Karzai got re-elected in part by making alliances with some rather unsavory politicians/warlords. Since he is politically weak, alienating those on whom he depends would seem to undermine the central government.
<
p>Further, I don’t understand how “insisting” Karzai root out opposition roots out corruption. Can he replace the entire police force?
<
p>
<
p>How do we transition counter insurgency operations to a corrupt and weak government?
I started quoting the speech, only to realize there would be more text than I wanted. Read the entire speech, not just the first few paragraphs.
<
p>Those quotes would seemingly be contradictory if he didn’t lay out planes to battle corruption in the government.
I read the speech and like what he has to say, but does it matter?
<
p>I’m reluctant to give too much credit to a candidate for more detailed plans than another, when it can only speak to his/her vision, and not be a blueprint for “what I will do when I’m your Senator”.
<
p>For one thing, the Senate seat in question will be 100th out of 100 in seniority. He’ll be holding the door for the likes of Sessions, Baucus, and Lieberman, not shaping our military strategy.
<
p>For another, we could elect one senator with the right vision, but you need 60 before that vision becomes policy. Because it’s not true that a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat, the party picked up as many seats as anyone could have imagined, only to find us a year later in abject stalemate.
<
p>How someone would vote on legislation that may or may not still be pending when the seat is filled, and where Congress will produce legislation (e.g., health care, energy bills, DOMA, etc.) is fair game. Beyond that, in areas of policy where there is no legislative solution, you risk exploiting voters’ naivete about the process. This is what makes me uncomfortable with Khazei.
<
p>Obama faces a problem now because people make the mistake of thinking a clear vision of what the world should be is a promise of action. If the President can’t wave his magic wand and make things happen, then no freshman senator can.
<
p>To be fair, Khazei talks about his vision in the context of what he would say on the Senate floor. But his campaign uses language that blurs the reality of how much influence he’ll really have.
Views, yes; but plans? As in, “When I am the freshman with the absolute least seniority in the Senate, and am able to grab the reins from the President and the Pentagon, and unilaterally and single-handedly implement my solution, this is what I will do”?
<
p>I’m sorry, but even if he says all the right things, trying to gain leverage on the basis of “I have a more detailed plan” — especially in areas where Congress has very limited power, or unless you are running for omnipotent dictator instead of U.S. Senator — is borderline bullshit.
So what should a Senator running for office say? Every candidate is running on what their plan for issue x or y is. If they’re all “borderline bullshit,” what’s the point?
…about the difference between “this is my vision” and “what I will deliver”? Or about areas for which Congress has legislative responsibility, as opposed to areas where appropriations are all Congress has to influence policy? That’s the gist of what I’m saying.
<
p>The discussion about health care and the “Stupitts” amendment is totally legit; that’s on the table. Whose side a venture capitalist is on when it comes down to legislation protecting workers and regulating financial markets is fair game. Although Congress won’t legislate the death penalty, I want to know where someone stands on that anyway, mainly because that signals other progressive bona fides. But there are positions that, while not completely moot, don’t call for more detail than will ever actually come into play, and it doesn’t cut any ice with me to provide detail for detail’s sake.
I prefer outlining plans with detail and concrete steps than candidates who run away from making any declarations of substance and debate to protect some kind of advantage that would be compromised by taking an actual stand.
<
p>Thanks Josh for the overview; it woulud have been cool to have been there. Darn work.
Taking the stance that whoever gets elected will have little to no influence because of their newness seems pessimistic and not relevant to choosing the best candidate.
<
p>Alan’s greatest strength is his ability to inspire. On this point, I am speaking from the experience of a City Year alumni. Whatever his seniority status, Alan inspires. He also does his homework. He is guided by sound research and historical perspective rather than gut feelings and knee jerk reactions. This is what will make him influential in the Senate.
Khazei’s plan is common sense. However, Karzai is corrupt — nearly any possible head of government there is corrupt, if not an outright murderer, and the system will corrupt anyone who isn’t. Asking him to please stop or trying to find an alternative isn’t a plan. It’s filler.
<
p>That said, I’m glad Khazei is clearly in the “declare victory and get out now” camp rather than the “stay for years, then smarten up, declare victory and get out”. That’s all I needed to see.
This is a good time to go to the Boston Public Library and visit their time machine. The microfilmed newspapers. Check out the 1964 papers. Richard Nixon (unemployed at the time) says that if the present, 1964, policy continues, the U.S. can look forward to “four more years of war”. (We got eleven.)
<
p>Now the powers that be tell us five more years.
<
p>I’ll save my vote for the politician that wants to get us out now. I don’t want my grandchildren, should I get any, getting maimed or killed for the glory of the opium crop.