Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
JAMES WEBB AND THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS.
I've got an article coming on James Webb on Wednesday, so I don't want to cannibalize my commentary here. Suffice to say, a big frownie face to Kathy G. who wrote up the comprehensive political case against choosing him as vice president a few days before, rather than a few days after, my article came out.
But to expand slightly on a point she makes, James Webb has been a Democrat for about 30 minutes. A decade or so ago, his gender politics were, to say the least, retrograde, and his outlook was still shot through with anger at the dirty fucking hippies who had turned on his comrades in the military. I have more respect for that position coming from a veteran like Webb than I do from a chickenhawk like Cheney, but it still speaks of certain tensions he's got with portions of the party. Additionally, Webb has also endorsed some of the Vietnam, stab-in-the-back revisionism that's come out over the past few years, opposed Clinton for being too soft China during the 1990s, and In 2000, endorsed George Allen for the Senate.
All of which is to say, there's a lot about what James Webb thinks that we simply don't know. I just read the guy's book, and while I really loved it, and am convinced that he's an important politician in the Democratic Party, he's a bit of a complicated, idiosyncratic figure to elevate to standard-bearer level. Frankly, no one has any idea what a Webb presidency would look like. It's easy enough to theorize its take on grand international strategy and commitment to the military, but its social, cultural, and economic specifics remain anyone's guess. Webb speaks often and passionately of "economic fairness," but judging from his book, there's little in the way of meat on the bones of that vision. He says he doesn't hold his former views on "why women can't fight," but nowhere in the book does he address gender issues, or talk about why and how he's grown (an interesting omission given the attacks he's suffered on that issue).
This is not to say he doesn't hold brilliant and progressive positions on every one of those issues, but for now, no one knows, and it's a real risk. It is one thing, after all, for a Senator to have points of heterodoxy and unpredictable positions on various issues. A Senator can represent a particular wing of the party, or a particular strain of thinking, and as one of 100, an individual's idiosyncrasies, obsessions, and even resentments can do a relatively large amount of good and relatively little damage. I'm excited, for instance, to see Webb continue pushing against the incarceration state. Too few Senators are courageous enough to take up that fight. But the vice presidency is a position with a non-trivial shot at the presidency, and the presidency is a position where the individual is imbued with substantial personal autonomy and power. You really want to know what you're getting into. A potential Webb administration looks like a black box to me, and I'd want that opened up before I got behind an effort to make him vice president.
Picture used under a Creative Commons license from Waldo Jaquith.
COMMENTS (17)
I like him where he is. He's an excellent Senator, and would be hard to replace in that slot.
Posted by: jnfr | May 27, 2008 11:43 AM
There is only one reason to pick Webb as VP, and that's to supposedly guard against the Democratic ticket's weaknesses in foreign policy and having a veteran as a candidate.
I thought we learned that lesson in 2004. I thought Democrats might be done with letting GOP shills in the media lead us around by our noses when it comes to who we offer up as our candidates. But here we are again, getting excited about 1st-term, party-switching Senator because he's a veteran, has all this foreign policy experience and will somehow appeal to Republicans because Reagan once said something nice about him.
If we really want veterans who disagree with the Democrats on key issues and who have ties to the GOP, why not just nominate John McCain?
Posted by: Stephen | May 27, 2008 11:59 AM
30 seconds? He was a Democrat until Carter pardoned those who bolted to Canada instead of going to Vietnam. He came back when seeing the Republican party come off what ever moorings they had. He's no Russ Feingold, but then I don't know what we can do to get more committed progressives like Feingold to run for higher office. Also, you have to look at the state Webb represents. While Webb isn't the best choice for VP, there are worse(Evan Bayh for starters).
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | May 27, 2008 12:13 PM
...his outlook was still shot through with anger at the dirty fucking hippies who had turned on his comrades in the military. I have more respect for that position coming from a veteran like Webb than I do from a chickenhawk like Cheney...
Sorry, either the position in right or wrong. The veteran status of its proponent does not make it more or less respectable.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 12:23 PM
Epiphany usually happens more or less in a flash.
The whole of redemption is more laggard.
He has abandoned - in any case - the dark side.
So, good on 'im.
in passing... loved this...
Rigorous discourse, there.
[my brackets]
Posted by: has_te | May 27, 2008 12:37 PM
But here we are again, getting excited about 1st-term, party-switching Senator because he's a veteran...
Let's be honest, here. It was the cry of the liberal Democrats whining that Cheney and Bush had no military experience. It was the liberal left that challenged anyone who didn't have military experience as unfit to lead.
NOW, you wish to complain that this same standard has boomeranged back on you? Spare us the whining...
Posted by: El Viajero | May 27, 2008 1:12 PM
I wouldn't be talking any smack about this hombre if I was you since he's packing heat right now and may just open up on us.
Posted by: dpt | May 27, 2008 1:15 PM
jnfr has it right. Webb belongs in the Senate. He holds a seat that almost certainly would be taken by a Republican if he left. He has the potential to be another Moynihan, and that's a role that can't be played in the executive branch.
Posted by: allbetsareoff | May 27, 2008 1:56 PM
Ezra!
What are you doing citing a blog like Strata-Sphere for supposedly bad stuff about Jim Webb? I never saw the site before, but from a quick check Strata-Sphere appeared to be a wing-nut of at least the Second Order, perhaps of the first Order! Not a logical source for reliable information about the most authentic progressive voice in the Senate, next to Ted Kennedy.
C'mon! You link with approval to a post that says that George Macaca Allen has a devastating ad of female military officers criticizing Webb's sexism? Racist Allen criticizing Webb for sexism?
I think Webb left that station 20 years ago, and it sure did not hurt him with Democratic women voters in 2006!
Maybe there is some decent documentation of more recent Webb difficulties with women voters. If so, show it to us. Don't link to wing-nuts just because they're the only sites you can find to support a point you want to make!
Posted by: hardheaded liberal | May 27, 2008 4:11 PM
Please stop the "More..." s!! That's one of the reasons I hardly read the poor Carpetbagger Report anymore. If I don't want to read the whole thing, I'll just skip ahead.
Posted by: Steve | May 27, 2008 5:33 PM
EV: "It was the cry of the liberal Democrats whining that Cheney and Bush had no military experience.It was the liberal left that challenged anyone who didn't have military experience as unfit to lead."
i've googled variations on this assertion and have come up blank.
which leftists? when were these arguments made? before the 2000 election? before the war? after the war became a fiasco?
Posted by: dj spellchecka | May 27, 2008 5:47 PM
Jim Webb is far from inscrutable. On the contrary, he wears his heart on his sleeve. Paradoxically, this makes his detailed policy prescriptions all the more difficult to divine (not the least because he likely hasn't figured them out himself), and this certainly raises a red flag to those have thought out the issues with any level of detail.
With Jim Webb, we have neither a principled liberal nor a black box; we have a gut-progressive with a mean right hook, and that's a position that (anecdotally, at least) it seems a far greater percentage of the population can get behind. His almost-instinctual engagement with issues is not something that makes me particularly secure with respect to putting the lead on the nation's tax, health and social policies in his hands at a future date. Nonetheless, the prospect of convincing and having someone like Jim Webb adopt and expound upon progressive policy positions seems potentially a lot more promising than promoting someone from the "He cooks a mean stir fry" wing of the party.
Posted by: VasyaDC | May 27, 2008 8:31 PM
"But here we are again, getting excited about 1st-term, party-switching Senator because he's a veteran..."
Say what? Who is the other 1st-term, party-switching Senator who's a vet? Are you doing some weird conflation of Obama, 2003 vintage McCain and Kerry?
What I like about Webb is not that he is a vet, it is that the bills he has introduced are politically very canny (he has got Bush & McCain opposing college for returning vets!!!!) and that he likes to rail about economic inequality.
Not saying I want him for veep, he's an awfully good Senator. But he is special. He isn't 'just another' anything.
Ezra makes a lot of good points, but his first is the worst. So what that he switched parties? It means he had the sense to see just how far the Republicans have jumped the shark.
Posted by: tomtom | May 27, 2008 9:27 PM
The characterization of Webb as still having the stench of the GOP on him is way off. as others note, he was a Democrat, left the party essentially in disgust with the left's politicization of the military, left the Reagan administration for the same reason, and has been throughout a populist (describes himself as a Jacksonian Democrat, and quite rightly as Virginia's only statewide official ever with tattoos and a union card). Anyone who's watched him speak on the subject or read his books knows his love for the common soldier and the traditions of the US military.
There's a strong case to be made that the GOP's political use of the military is hurting both it and the country a great deal. Electing Obama-Webb could go a long way toward salving both problems, by turning the page on a certain strain of hostility to the military that has found too secure a home for too long in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: donald | May 27, 2008 9:41 PM
I have my own concerns about a Webb candidacy, though they center more on his inability to campaign, and his weak showing in Virginia polls than it does with and past statements he's made.
In fact, I've been taking a (reasonably) detailed look at the potential VPs over at my blog. The series has been generating a decent amount of buzz, brining the site more traffic than it's ever seen.
Our VP series can be found here:
http://www.theleftanchor.com/vice_president_profile/index.html
Posted by: Big Blue | May 28, 2008 4:42 AM
which leftists? when were these arguments made?
Throughout the left-0-Sphere. The common derrogotory term was "chickenhawk".
Also, use the shift key when applicable.
Posted by: El Viajero | May 28, 2008 11:23 AM
EV: "It was the liberal left that challenged anyone who didn't have military experience as unfit to lead."
me: "which leftists? when were these arguments made?"
EV: "Throughout the left-0-Sphere. The common derrogotory term was "chickenhawk"."
they weren't saying that bush/cheney were unfit to lead because they're chickenhawks, they called them chickenhawks because they, who didn't serve [well bush, sorta served,] shouldn't be sending people off to fight in unnecessary wars.
nobody ever called fdr or truman or reagan a chickenhawk.
Posted by: dj spellchecka | May 28, 2008 4:08 PM