I watched some of the talking heads on the Sunday morning interview programs today. Many of these dealt with some fairly contentious foreign policy and national security issues - the issue of torture (whether applied by CIA interrogators to prisoners, or by Nancy Pelosi to her syntax), the closing (or not) of Guantánamo internees camp, the Obama decision to continue with special tribunals, albeit with changed rules. Yet despite the differences of opinion expressed, the feature that drew my attention was the amount of agreement there was between parties on certain questions.
When George Will can say it's OK for the President to change his mind (on the prisoner issues); when Senators John Kyl and Jim Webb can agree with each other on several points relating to how we should proceed with the internees; when the Democratic and Republican Party Chairmen Kaine and Steele can find some common ground; and when no one is rushing to excoriate Obama on these issues, something a little different is afoot.
Obama has played his hand matter-of-factly and doesn't appear ready to follow the path that Pelosi and some other Democrats have taken toward absolute moral righteousness, while of course Republicans (with notable exceptions like Richard Cheney) are pleased to see him accepting some of the points they've been pushing about national security. Though the most extreme wings of the two parties are not yet into the swing of things, I see a glimmer of hope for a degree of nonpartisanship, at least in foreign policy. As Senator Arthur Vandenberg said in 1945 (I think), "politics stops at the water's edge." Even if it's not always true, it's a good thing to aim for.
Comments