Wes Clark - America's (and all humanity's) best hope?

[ConsAreLiars]

(You can skip these first few paragraphs and jump straight to the last one, where the poll question is asked.)
I'll briefly set out my point of view. I believe corporatism (transnational capitalism) is the enemy of all mankind, and that we here in the US are only beginning to experience what that means. I don't believe that Clark would agree with me. He would probably argue that some regulation is sufficient.

But I (like to) think he shares my basic values -- that working together for the benefit of all is good for us all; that we are one family; that the the common good isn't assured by the drive for profit and the accumulation of wealth, but by how well we treat one another; that the best measure of a society is the living conditions experienced by the bottom 1%, not the top 1%. This sort of value system, in one variation or another, is present in all cultures around the world, all religions and all populist social movements. The contrary pole -- greed is good, might makes right, and all that -- is also present in those cultures and belief system. But this "communitarian" or humanistic impulse seems to be essential if we are to survive, and Clark seems to see things from that perspective.

Just guessing about all that, he may "really" be a closet fascist, and others may see Clark quite differently. But, as I see it, that kind of perspective is what sets him apart from many other candidates who appear to be just "politicians" who will say whatever seems expedient in order to gain corporate money and/or votes.

All that prologue aside, I've noticed that Clark's advocates and critics seem to be found scattered all across the Democratic Party spectrum.
(End of wordy prologue.)


The question is not if Clark would be your first choice, just whether or not you would be reasonably happy to see him as our Presidential candidate in 2008 and reasonably hopeful about our future if he won. Using Dean as representative of the center of the party base, I'm interested in seeing how people at different political positions regard Clark. ANd I' especially interested in hearing your explanations of your views on Clark.

[pstans]

1. Aren't these choices the same?

"I'm right of Dean and would not want Clark as our candidate" and "Dean is left of me, and would want not Clark as our candidate." Those seem like the same choice.

I am all for Russ Feingold as our next president. Clark would make a great member of Feingold's cabinet.

www.russforpresident.com

[sellitman]

4. Bingo!

I'm left of Clark and I think a Feingold-Boxer Ticket rocks.

Sub Conyers for Boxer if you care to. Either would light my fire.


Clark would make a GREAT Sec. Of Defense!

[alittlelark]

13. To be Sec of Defence he would need to have been out of the military

for 15 (?) years. He wouldn't qualify.

[Clark2008]

26. 10 years.. eom

[Bucky]

29. It's a pretty simple law to change, tho. US Grant was Sec of War in 1866

In the past men who were only recently out of uniform served as secretary of war... and not one of them attempted to overturn the government. It's a laudable precaution, but not an absolutely critical one.

[ConsAreLiars]

5. Thank you for catching that error

I fixed it (I hope). My typing, cutting and pasting is erratic at best. I'd like Feingold also, based on what I know. The poll wasn't so much about first choices, but just attitudes toward Clark as a candidate.

[Roland99]

2. All we've heard from Clark is his stance on Iraq.He's quickly becoming....

a one-trick pony.

He better start broadening his message.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. "What we've heard" is much less than what he has been saying.

He put out what he calls a "A 100 Year Vision." There is much I don't agree with, as you might gather from my comments in the original post, but you are being misled if you think he is only concerned about Iraq. Here are the first three paragraphs. More at this link: http://securingamerica.com/vision

-----------------------
Looking ahead 100 years, the United States will be defined by our environment, both our physical environment and our legal, Constitutional environment. America needs to remain the most desirable country in the world, attracting talent and investment with the best physical and institutional environment in the world. But achieving our goals in these areas means we need to begin now. Environmentally, it means that we must do more to protect our natural resources, enabling us to extend their economic value indefinitely through wise natural resource extraction policies that protect the beauty and diversity of our American ecosystems -- our seacoasts, mountains, wetlands, rain forests, alpine meadows, original timberlands and open prairies. We must balance carefully the short-term needs for commercial exploitation with longer-term respect for the natural gifts our country has received. We may also have to assist market-driven adjustments in urban and rural populations, as we did in the 19th Century with the Homestead Act.

Institutionally, our Constitution remains the wellspring of American freedom and prosperity. We must retain a pluralistic democracy, with institutional checks and balances that reflect the will of the majority while safeguarding the rights of the minority. We must seek to maximize the opportunities for private gain, consistent with concern for the public good. And we must institute a culture of transparency and accountability, in which we set the world standard for good government. As new areas of concern arise -- in the areas of intellectual property, bioethics, and other civil areas -- we will assure continued access to the courts, as well as to the other branches of government, and a vibrant competitive media that informs our people and enables their effective participation in civic life. And even more importantly, we will assure in meeting the near term challenges of the day -- whether they be terrorism or something else -- that, we don't compromise the freedoms and rights which are the very essence of the America we are protecting.

If we are to remain competitive we will have to do more to develop our "human potential." To put it in a more familiar way, we should help every American to "be all he or she can be." For some this means only providing a framework of opportunities -- for others it means more direct assistance in areas such as education, health care, and retirement security. And these are thirty year challenges -- educating young people from preschool until they are at their most productive, helping adults transition from job to job and profession to profession during their adult lives; promoting physical vigor and good health through public health measures, improved diagnostics, preventive health, and continuing health care to extend longevity and productivity to our natural limits; and strengthening retirement security, simply because it is right; first for our society to assure that all its members who have contributed throughout their lifetimes are assured a minimal standard of living, and secondly to free the American worker and family to concentrate on the challenges of today. Such long-term challenges must be addressed right away, with a new urgency.
-----------------------------------
(more follows)

[Roland99]

7. I'm aware of what's at his website. I'm talking about what he says when

he speaks in public.


He's become a one-trick pony.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Please view listen to or read this speech Clark made in January

THE REAL STATE OF THE UNION 2006
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
Monday, January 30, 2006

General Wesley K. Clark Addresses New America Foundation Audience (1/30/06) on Capitol Hill: "The Real State of the Union 2006"

http://securingamerica.com/node/560

Clark covers a full spectrum of issues here, and quite powerfully. If you read any reports from the field from people who attended Clark's live appearances at various Democratic Party and Candidate fund raisers and events (usually gathered and found at Clark Community Network), you will always hear that Clark speaks passionately about Domestic as well as International issues. A major problem is that the Main Stream Media is rarely willing to quote Clark on any issue other than National Security.

[Roland99]

9. Preaching to the choir isn't going to win many supporters

Whenever Clark is interviewed by the M$M it's always about Iraq.

[ConsAreLiars]

10. Thanks for your perspective.

I didn't know if you were basing your views solely on what gets through the corporate media, or if you had access to what he has said on subjects other than Iraq. You suggest that since his views on Iraq are all that gets media coverage that he is "a one-trick pony." It might be accurate to say he gets portrayed that way, but I don't think it is accurate to characterize "him" that way. But still, the fact you (and others, presumably) see him that way is instructive, and something that is a negative as far as his potential candidacy is concerned.

[Bucky]

30. He took a wide range of positions in 04: health care, soc security, taxes,

Education, building strong international relations, regulation of businesses, protection of the environment... He was extremely well prepared to start being a 100% president from day one. Lately he's done speeches on civil rights, deficit reduction, carving the Patriot Act down to within Constitutional boundries, and the need to return to the Democrats to control of Congress in November. Admittedly, he mostly gets asked onto the Sunday shows to talk about Iraq... but that's certainly understandable, given his resume. He holds (and writes) opinions off the air, too.

[FightingIrish]

3. Clark and Feingold are national treasures who

sure as hell better be in the fight come 2008.

[Vidar]

11. Left & right no longer have any meaning. The world's hope lies

somewhere other than America. I do support Clark though, as America's best hope.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Your OP title threw me off a little

Because it was so straightforward and immediately down to the bottom line. But I think you captured it exactly in your text, and I want to compliment you on how well you articulated that basic underlying difference in the two fundamental world views. I think your second paragraph was a bulls eye to the heart of why so many of Clark's supporters are people who identify ourselves as left of center. The "communitarian" position, as you describe it, is exactly where I see Clark, and I've been paying really close attention to him now for almost three years.

The Clark supporter community is not so large that one can't get to the heart of it if you are committed and earnest about wanting to make a positive difference in the world by doing political work through it. I say that because that is the story of my own slow personal journey, and once one makes that journey one will inevitably get to meet and really know some wonderful people who themselves have personally known Wes and Gert Clark extremely well for years and sometimes decades. I've met Clark on several occasions and heard him speak in person more often than that. Still I will not claim that I personally know Wes Clark, but I do now know great people who do, and they confirm my own impression of Clark which is EXACTLY what you described above.

Clark is a brilliant guy, he could have had anything he wanted in the world, but he devoted himself to the defense of our nation for idealistic reasons, not for money fame or power. And money and power at least were always dangled out in front of Clark by the Military Industrial Complex which was always trying to lure him out of uniform early and into their board rooms and the halls of Congress on their behalf, for very lucrative rewards. Clark is a man of principle. He believes in "Honor Duty Service" just as fervently as Karl Marx believed in "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The Arny has always been one of America's least stratified institutions. The differential between the Pay rate of a Private and a General is tiny compared to what is common in private industry. And the reality of Warfare makes a slogan like "leave no man behind" a lot more than empty marketing. Clark was seriously wounded in Viet Nam, he understands team work and the need to take care of each another, and he understands America's diversity.

Anyway, think I'll stop here, but I just want to thank you for expressing your thoughts so clearly.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. I'm a bit surprised by the results so far.

During the 2004 primaries I heard a lot of talk show callers who seemed more right wing say they thought Clark would be a good option because of his "General" qualifications. At the same time I heard "leftists" I respect express distrust. But thinking about it, it is not really so surprising that "lefties like me" have the broad overview of where we are and what we need to change direction.

My own view, and that of my S.O., who is much savvier than me, was that he had the insight needed to actually do the right thing and the basic integrity needed to win the support of the (basically decent, however misguided) "masses." His cover shoot for The Advocate (and interview) was the first thing to suggest to me that he found it far easier to stand up for basic human rights than to act based on polling data or "consultant" advise. An honest person whose candor is easy to see. A rare find in politics. And something we need, desperately.

[Pastiche423]

15. I can't get passed his adoration of the School of Americas

Any person that can not see the evil that the SOA is, should NEVER lead our country.

[ConsAreLiars]

16. That is the best argument against him I have heard.

And I agree. But I don't have any expectation that the next step in preventing corporatism-fascism will be accomplished by voting in a true progressive. Not as bad as candidates who supported the invasion of Iraq, but a definite indicator of where he is weakest when it comes to understanding and denouncing US imperialism. In my OP I pointed out that his failure to understand/address the inherent evil of multinational capitalism is his greatest flaw, and this is one of the most glaring examples of that weakness.

Still, he seems more honest than most. Nader understood what the SOA represents; so did the SWP and CP (did they run anyone?) candidates, but none of the Democratic Party candidates (except maybe Kucinich? maybe Sharpton?) were any better. So the question is who will take us forward, who will do more good than harm. Not who is perfect.

[loyalsister]

17. Very thoughtful thread

I have tried very hard to articulate my concerns and only just now figured out how to do it.
I have put it in a context of the influence of the salient characteristics of presidents and the influence that may have on culture.
I truly believe that the perception of Bush as dumb has contributed to an environment where people in this country feel like it is okay to be disintrerested in the world around them. The "tough guy" persona has made antiintellectualism even more popular. Combine that with the flags and uniforms everywhere- the wartime president creating a fervor of nationalism and you get masses of people who will go along with an illegitimate poorly argued war, and continue to support it after they know they have been lied to. The fact that Clark was a General may continue that element of militarism that contributes to the nationalistic culture we live in now. That is something that I think needs to change.
While the intellectual facts may work, politics is a perception and image game with a lot of the decisions made about who the president is and what they should do made instantaneously. Our culture has potential to drive what happens with the next presidency. I think we may have a more difficult time going from 'roid rage to moderation and peacemaking if the image of the president is still one of militaristic testosterone overdrive.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. A General In Politics

I think Clark is the antidote to, not a continuation of, the problem of military influence in America. Clark through his carefully reasoned statements, embrace of public debate and the importance of dissent, advocacy of a model of international cooperation over international domination, stress on the critical role of diplomacy in resolving international disputes, and passionate repeated emphasis that force should only, only, only be used as a last resort, reorients the aura associated with the military that jingoist propaganda attempts to capitalize on. There is nothing that more thoroughly discredits civilian chickenhawk efforts to glorify War as a means to pursue imperialistic policies than a thoughtful well spoken General contradicting each and every one of their carefully rehearsed arguments.

Clark is the man best able to put the military back into the role first established for it by George Washington. In that way he is like an Eisenhower for the current times. The fear articulated is the General Douglas MacArthur path not taken. I hear that fear and respect that fear, but it was MacArthur's peer, Dwight Eisenhower, who restored the militarys proper civic role in the publics perception, and Ike was invaluable to our Democracy in having been able to do that for us all. But there is another maybe even more critical role that Wes Clark is playing for our Democracy right now. He is powerfully challenging what had increasingly been becoming "conventional wisdom", that the military is linked to the Republican Party. That linkage was not accidental, nor is it a side event in the American political struggle that is shaping this new century.

The Republican Party has done everything in its considerable power to link itself to the military, and the military to itself. That, I hold, is a threat to our Democracy. Americas military has historically been non partisan. If the public is ever successfully sold a bill of goods that says support for the Republican Party is equivalent to support for our Military, then our Republic will be in grave danger. General Clark has provided a strong Democrat Party persona to challenge the Military equals Republican equation. He does so at a critical time when George Bush is running around the country using the American military as his personal stage prop. Wes Clark is helping restore an essential equilibrium to our political system at a critical time.

[loyalsister]

24. I may not have been clear

My concern is the expectation that the public may have could be just a flip side of Bush.
Very very very few people think hard about politics. Simplistic connections have great potential for unintended consequences.
As far as the Republicans hijaking the military, currently that problem is far more simple and real than your lofty explanation. People may be tired of this war, but many still want an "ass kicking" president. Whether it is a Dem. or a Rep. he better have the guts to kill.
Electing a Dem. general may bring comfort to the people who hold those views, but the trouble is that it may create an expectation that he will be a hard ass militaristic nationalist like Bush and their buddies at the bar. IOW, they may vote for him because of his moderation on social issues, and trust him to stay the course on foreign policy at least in spirit, despite his rhetoric, because Bush I was his commander in chief.
So, what happens when those guys take to the streets because he hasn't met their expectations of "patriotism"?
Re: Eisenhower, he did not fill presidential seat vacated by a fascist.
My argument is that the political realities of symbolism should be considered. For this administration which can reasonably be argued as being in the camp of a fascist, to be replaced by a general seems almost ironic or if a person were invested in it it could be some kind of Stockholm syndrome.
The people were so deep into it they actually needed to keep the jingoism going. They think if it comes from the Dems it will be better, but the fact is, this excess nationalism has always been poison to our country, and that will not change in the foreseeable future.
Just a concern about potential unintended consequences. We should always watch for them.

[LWolf]

18. Since you asked:

<snip>

School of the Americas

As a long time human rights advocate, Congressman Kucinich has actively fought to end funding for the School of the Americas/ Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation. He has consistently cosponsored legislation that calls for closing the SOA/ WHISC and has made several statements on the floor of the House of Representatives advocating the closure of the School. Graduates of this school have been responsible for numerous human rights violations across Latin America. Among the many victims who have died at the hands of SOA graduates were Clevelanders Sister Dorothy Kazel and Sister Jean Donovan.

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=1563

and <snip>

We need a new relationship between our government and corporate America, an arms-length relationship, so that our elected leaders are capable of independently affirming and safeguarding the public interest. Just as our founders understood the need for separation of church and state, we need to institutionalize the separation of corporations and the state. This begins with government taking the responsibility to establish the conditions under which corporations can do business in the United States, including the establishment of a federal corporate charter that describes and clearly delineates corporate rights and responsibilities.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/corp_power.php

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I knew this about Kucinich and I applaud him on this. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I too would rather that School was shut down

There has been too much blood under that bridge, and the symbolism of shutting it down would be powerful, along with a public statement about the reasons. But I used the word symbolism intentionally. When those in power in America choose to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations for their own self interests against the interests of most of those living in those other nations, they always find the means for doing so. It is the intent not the tool that is the root of the evil. Dick Cheney set up his own intelligence agency when he wasn't getting the results he wanted out of the CIA. Bush circumvented the F.I.S.A. Court when he feared they would not cooperate with his plans. Nixon had his plumbers. Reagan set up Ollie North to run Contragate and directly fund South American drug runners and death squads, to get around Congressional efforts to reign him in.

Clark made a public pledge that he would allow investigations of the current incarnation of the SOA and that he would shut the institution down if any evidence was found that it was intentionally being used to teach or advocate human rights abuse methodology. He is never given any respect for that position. Clark argues that there is a legitimate function for the institution which is the function that is actually laid out for it in the legislation that established it and in all of the appropriations bills that have sustained funding both SOA and son of SOA for multiple decades under both Democratic and Republican Presidents and under both Democratic and Republican Congresses. It is the equivalent argument to acknowledging that the Rodney King beating was perpetrated by police officers who were trained at the Los Angeles Police Academy, while still defending the actual intent of the Los Angeles Police Academy. Actually it goes beyond that.

Clark under Clinton worked with the Clinton Administration to review the official curriculum used at the institution to purge anything that violated human rights or advocated means to achieve ends that were antithetical to the values professed by our Democracy, as well as strengthen instruction in those values. Did those efforts go far enough? The official curriculum was thoroughly purged, while new efforts to promote human rights are undoubtedly insufficient. Can someone still abuse the new SOA or an other institution for ends that contradict it's formal charter? Just look at the Bush Justice Department for an answer to that question. Would closing down the Justice Department solve that problem?

Clark's actual involvement with the SOA in any capacity was minimal and short lived. It fell under his overall Command for less than two years when he was based in Miami as the General assigned oversight of all Army installations in much of the Western Hemisphere. In that role Clark delivered one commencement address at that School. I've seen wild claims made about Clark's involvement in the SOA that simply aren't true. It's been claimed that he taught classes there. Wrong. Someone got it confused. Clark taught classes at West Point, never at the SOA.

But here again is a sticking point for me. Clark has actually "hands on" done more (though not much in the larger picture) to correct abuses at SOA than the people who sit in Congress. SOA is Congresses baby. Congress under our Constitution appropriates the money that establishes projects of the United States Government. Congress debates and votes on appropriations to continue projects of the United States Government. If Congress cuts all funding for the Peace Corp, the Peace Corp ceases to exist. If Congress cuts all funding for Son of SOA, it too ceases to exist. Would the Current Administration jury rig some work around of Congress to continue anything shady that they might be pursuing under the table at the current "SOA". I have no doubt that they would, do you?

I know many of the hard core activists who are concerned about American military abuses in South and Central America probably know the answer to the following question, but I bet most of those who profess a concern about Clark and the SOA don't. Where do leading Democratic members of Congress stand on the revised SOA? And where have they stood on it during their tenure in Congress? I know some Democrats have at one time or another voted to close the SOA, but many voted to reform it and continue it also. Have you asked your own Congressperson about their stand, if he or she is a Democrat? Have you made this an issue with other leading Democrats who might run for President in 2008? Would you consider a vote against the SOA as more important in your evaluation of a Democrat than a vote in favor of the Patriot Act, or the IWR?

And just for the hell of it I'll play Devil's Advocate for a moment, since I've already said that I would like to see that institution closed. Speaking roughly here, prior to the 1970's there was an entrenched pattern in Central and South America of frequent military coups in support of Right leaning or outright Rightist military governments. It doesn't take much digging around in history to establish the truth of that statement. The result of Democratic elections, if they were held at all, were frequently over ridden by tanks. South and Central America, with a few notable exceptions like Costa Rica, had a very weak tradition of civilian control over the military. The military in many of those nations was not viewed as a servant of the popular will, or protector of people's basic liberties, it was viewed as the surest route to direct power and control of the economic resources of those nations. It looked a great deal like much of current Africa in that regard.

The professed purpose of the SOA was to change the view held by young officers in South America's various militaries of what the role of the military in society is meant to be, away from being the controlling institution of each nations destiny toward the concept of the military as understood in the United States, where the military firmly adheres to the principle of civilian control, protection of the Constitution, and a strict prohibition against involvement in domestic political affairs. A case can be made that some good came out of the SOA to date along with some bad.

[Clark2008]

27. The SOA is not like it used to be

Any person who can not see that should research a little more.

:eyes:

[eridani]

34. The only thing that changed is the name n/t

[RBHam]

19. Wesley Clark is compromised.

He's just another talon on the bird of prey that is the new world order.

He's the Serbian War's Tommmy Franks.

[ConsAreLiars]

23. Interesting results so far -- not what I would have predicted.

"Left of Dean" would be reasonably happy with Clark as our candidate by 5 to 1.
"Close to Dean" are equally split between those who would and would not want to see Clark as our candidate.
And the couple who consider themselves more moderate than Dean both do not want to see him as our candidate.

Maybe these late night voters are not a very representative group. I'd like to see more people participate in this poll, and more comments on why people would or would not regard Clark as a good candidate.

Thanks to all who have voted and commented so far.

[Gloria]

25. We could use a few decades of Wes' "100 Year Vision" plan right

about now......

[Warren DeMontague]

28. He's my third or fourth choice. But I would be fine with him. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

31. Food for thought....

How many Democrats OR Republicans speak like this?

Interview with Laura Knoy:
http://www.nhpr.org/node/5339

(Not an offical transcript, but) a transcribed version of what Wes Clark said:

"I think General Eisenhower was exactly right. I think we should be concerned about the military industrial complex. I think if you look at where the country is today, you've consolidated all these defense firms into a few large firms, like Halliburton, with contacts and contracts at the highest level of government. You've got most of the retired Generals, are one way or another, associated with the defense firms. That's the reason that you'll find very few of them speaking out in any public way. I'm not. When I got out I determined I wasn't going to sell arms, I was going to do as little as possible with the Defense Department, because I just figured it was time to make a new start.

But I think that the military industrial complex does wield a lot of influence. I'd like to see us create a different complex, and I'm going to be talking about foreign policy in a major speech tomorrow, but we need to create an agency that is not about waging war, but about creating the conditions for Peace around the world. We need some people who will be advocates for Peace, advocates for economic development not just advocates for better weapons systems. So we need to create countervailing power to the military industrial complex."
----------
Clark: Don't spare Pentagon
"We need to put all the government spending programs on the table, including the military programs," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/elec04.prez.debate/
http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Democrats'_Debate_NYC_25Sept_transcript.html

[eridani]

32. He may be the best we can do

We need someone who will be both our Gorbachev and our FDR. Clark is basically OK with economic and military imperialism, which rules out the Gorbachev part. We've never had a president who repudiated imperialism yet, which is unfortunate, as the cost of it is proceeding to destroy us internally.

[Ganja Ninja]

33. Gore/Clark 08!

:patriot: