THE LESSONS OF CHAS FREEMAN.
If they manifest, Freeman will likely fall. If they don't, he'll survive. The backlash to Freeman's ideas has generated a backlash-backlash to the narrow band of opinions that's permissible to his critics. Over the weekend, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Josh Marshall, and James Fallows weighed in with eloquent defenses of Freeman. "This job calls for originality, and originality brings risks," wrote Fallows. "Chas Freeman is not going to have his finger on any button. He is going to help raise all the questions that the person with his finger on the button should be aware of." In The Wall Street Journal, A politically diverse collection of 17 former ambassadors jointly signed a letter supporting their former colleague. Charles Freeman, a conservative Bush appointee, also weighed in angrily and passionately in defense of his father. "The problem with - and the great virtue of - my Dad is that he has no political sensibility at all," said the younger Freeman. "Things none of us would say while we watch our flanks, he says flippantly. He jabs at Congressional perfidies and at established wisdoms and has punched the odd sacred cow in the face. But he's seriously smart."
But for Freeman's detractors, a loss might still be a win. As Sullivan and others have documented, the controversy over Freeman is fundamentally a question of his views on Israel. Barring a bad report from the inspector general, Chas Freeman will survive and serve. But only because his appointment doesn't require Senate confirmation. Few, however, will want to follow where he led. Freeman's career will likely top out at Director of the NIC. That's not a bad summit by any means. But for ambitious foreign policy thinkers who might one day aspire to serve in a confirmed capacity, the lesson is clear: Israel is off-limits. And so, paradoxically, the freethinking Freeman's appointment might do quite a bit to silence foreign policy dissenters who want to succeed in Washington.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (5)
Kind of makes it clear what BS your 'criticizing Israel never cost anyone a job' post was, doesn't it?
A lot of people are serving in this administration, even with Senate confirmation, after financial improprieties have surfaced.
but hey, the elite never notice how corrupt they are. Even as the entire country collapses around them, they are still struggling to justify their privileges and the way the government privileges their opinions.
Posted by: soullite | March 9, 2009 9:18 AM
Ezra, I don't follow your ironic logic. "And so, paradoxically, the freethinking Freeman's appointment might do quite a bit to silence foreign policy dissenters who want to succeed in Washington."
That seems to me to imply that his failure to be appointed would somehow open up space for foreign policy dissenters to speak their minds more fully without risking success in their Washington careers. Do you mean to imply that? If so, can you flesh out the logic, cuz I'd think that blocking Chas Freeman from getting the job would be an even stronger hint to other dissenters to keep their mouths shut than complaining about him without any observable effect on his appointment.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 9, 2009 9:38 AM
I want to see one person-just one!-defend Freeman's views on Tiananmen. Quit saying he's a free-thinker, blah blah blah. He said he wanted the Chinese government to be MORE repressive. If any conservative nominee had said that, he would immediately be labeled a fascist and his career would be swinging from the gallows.
Posted by: jamie | March 9, 2009 10:36 AM
I disagree that a loss is a win here for Freeman's detractors. Every time the Peretz/Kirkchick-type of Israel supporters go to war against somebody and lose, a little more of the veneer of omnipotence is worn off. This is progress.
Posted by: Outsider | March 9, 2009 12:44 PM
If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!
Posted by: jewelry fashion review | December 23, 2009 3:36 AM