Washington Post columnist David Broder sees one way for Barack Obama to demonstrate leadership after the midterms–push for war with Iran. Lest one be accused of misrepresenting his argument, this is what he wrote in his October 31 column, which starts out talking about the how a president can influence the economy:
What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.
Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.
Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran’s ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.
I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
“I am not suggesting” inciting war with Iran, Broder insists. He’sjust sayingit will bring the country together, fix the economy and make Obama one of the greatest presidents of all time.
David Broder’s dwindling powers of observation and increasing resort to rambling truism, as evident in his twice weekly WaPo column and frequent Meet the Press appearances, have indeed made him the nation’s “bloviator-in-chief,” as Frank Rich has put it. Broder’s indifference to the consequences of “a showdown with the mullahs,” however, also qualifies him as the nation’s jingoist-in-chief.
It is a sign of our decline that a major newspaper and a major public affairs program could offer such foolish commentary on a regular basis.
Let’s forget the moral implications for a moment – most everyone else in a position of responsibility has.
Two wars have played a major role in sucking the US down into a depression – and make no mistake, it is a *depression* to many millions, isn’t it?
By deductive reasoning then, a third will pull us out?
Broder may be an imperialist, but he sure as hell ain’t no empiricist.
I strongly agree with DL’s above statement – – – even leaving aside the ‘war crimes’-level immorality* of Broder’s suggestion, there’s NO guarantee that starting a third war would meet with overall public approval at this time. The FDR analogy (ie; that WWII pulled us out of the Depression) is questionable at best, since 1.) the ‘military Keynesianism’ that he’s advocating somewhat worked in the 1940’s because there were strong unions and a more equitable distribution of income to spread the federal spending across and slowly buoy the economy, & 2.) people put up with a lot of deprivation/high taxes/war bonds to pay for WWII – – – the last few boutique wars have been built upon opposite levels of sacrifice, 3.) the Axis powers (Germany, Italy, & Japan) were being VERY aggressive and we HAD been attacked, so people were rightly concerned about international safety (and trade).
Also, as Obama should know by now, the Republicans are NOT going to support him, even when he does things that they themselves advocated last month! They might go along with war-planning, but they’d probably find some way to attack him on it later…
It sounds like Broder is just phoning it in, just collecting a paycheck and coasting. Trying to be vaguely ‘clever’ but not making much of an effort.
(* And how far HAVE we fallen as even a pseudo moral-force on this planet when this sort of suggestion can be glibly thrown out?? The horrible death, injury, destruction, deprivation that wars entail is casually posited as a re-election strategy? Jeez, I’m not really too crazy about firing journalists for their controversial opinions [eg; Juan Williams, Rick Sanchez, Helen Thomas, etc], but it sure seems to me that IF it’s going to be done then there SHOULD be a ‘severity scale’, just like we have for civil crimes. If as a journalist you advocate people picking their nose in public, then you get a verbal warning. If you advocate vaguely racist ideas like Williams and definitely Sanchez, then you get a written warning. But if you advocate PROVOKING a war out of whole cloth, seems to me then you should be fired on the spot. Of course that assumes the majority of people in this country actually want a moral society, vs the reality of a lot of people just wanting to BELIEVE that they’re moral.)
War on iran on november
I read this when the article was published, and as good as Broder sometimes is/was I still cannot fathom why he has written as he does.
If the US bombs Iran then the country will hit the buffers for the last time. The Fed can print all the money it wants, but nobody will buy them or bonds backed by a worthless currency. If Iranian oil supplies cease then the price of oil will go into the stratosphere and it’s game over.
The Chinese have been blackmailed into paying for America’s adventures in the Middle East. Does anyone seriously think they will bankroll the nuclear bombing (because that is what will ensue very quickly) of a client/supplier?
Broder is 81 and has spent too much time inside the Beltway. Probably a good time to put him out to grass.
“Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century”? What are these people on? Does it ever occur to them that it’s the US that has killed and/or just-old caused the death of maybe millions of people? I mean it’s happened before their very eyes. Why don’t they get it?
His war mongering is unforgivable. It serves no purpose but filling newspaper space and at best wishing for the worst. Get a life! Try thinking, stimulating discussion, considering the unintended consequences! We must mature in our abilities to smell a rat, follow the money, and replace propaganda with policies benefiting the common good. For-crying-out-loud, let’s get with it !!@!!&))!
The “greatest threat to the world in the young century” is David Broder. His recommendation makes as much sense as Israel’s developing 200 to 300 nuclear bombs–a cause celebre in the Moslem community! I’m rminded of General Curtis LeMay during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1963) for his lobbying Kennedy to preempt (shades of Hitler and Bush) the Soviet Union.
Too many peole think war is just a football game.
Frank Walter
I’m no fan of Broder, after all he’s admitted in the past that he liked, or at least was friendly with, Karl Rove, but to be fair he’s saying “to confront the threat and contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions”, which could involve stategies other than war, which he plainly states he does not support. One should perhaps take him at his word? Obama could do so without direct military intervention, perhaps a true test of his cleverness.
If David were right, we won’t be in the worst economic state since the Great Depression.
I mean, we’ve been at War 9 years plus. Where’s his ‘Common Sense’? It’s what happened after WWII that took us to a whole new level. It was called the ‘Marshall Plan’.
I regret David Broder has outlasted his effectiveness and any meaningful judgment. He once earned some admiration. How foolish he is now is illustrated when he says Iran is the greatest threat to the world. Like too many other columnists, Broder has become a pimp to the actual greatest threat to the world, Israel. – George Beres
I agree with Michael Moore on Democracy Now! this week when he chided liberals for not facing up to their shame in supporting the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (obviously only applying to those many who did support at least one or the other of the wars at some point). We need to come to grips with our imperial role in the world. Broder is regurgitating the Beltway commonsense that Bush is alleged to have imparted to Argentine President Kirchner (sadly recently deceased) that war is the lifeblood of the economy. The US is fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, that I am aware of and probably many other places (including possible destabilization of Iran). It sounds to me like we need to push to return the wars to the agenda and hold Obama accountable for getting us out of places he promised to get us out of (Iraq), stop getting us into new places, and give up on this Afghanistan surge.
George….no basis for your words or logic.
We have been at war longer than at any time in our history.Our men have done multiple tours.We are force bone tired.The dead, the wounded…such a tragedy.We are probably not capable of any more wars at this time.Simple logistics.Iran and Pakistan are enemies to sanity.What we can do about it is the question this president is dealing with.He is at the watchtower hearing the intel as Bush was before him.This is not a political question.This is war in one form or another against an intractable enemy.Worthy of all your prayers.
A sad and outrageous denouement for the Great Journalist, his stupidity and madness evident to all who bother to read what he thinks. Broder’s slow death-spiral is simply Beltway journalism made very clear; unwavering support for mass-murder, general mayhem, and the continued economic destruction of all but the super-rich here and elsewhere.
The only way the mullahs will be removed is when the Iranian people overthrow them.
DBIA: DAVID BRODER IS an ASS!
The difference between WWII and all the “wars” since is like day and night. All the post WWII “wars” have all been UNDECLARED!
The US Constitution, Article 1, Section7, clearly states that only Congress can declare war. The last time Congress declared war was WWII!
David Broder is either suffering from the early stages of dementia, or is just a truly reprehensible a$$hole.
Can someone explain to me why the actions of one southern preacher intent on burning a Koran is more of a threat to our men and women serving in Iraq than an article like this by a major columnist in one of the largest newpapers in the country…one centered in Washington at that? No one thinks that the “real terrorists” will be using this as a recruitment tool throughout the Muslim world? And herein really does lie the danger of living and breathing and thinking solely within the Beltway world of politics…or the Wall Street world of banking. It reminds me of a scene from the movie The Corporation where one of the Wall Street traders confessed that, amid the horror of 9/11 in his “neighborhood”, he suspected that other traders like him also had the flashing thought about the price of gold shooting up. He said it wasn’t that he wasn’t filled with horror at what was happening, he just couldn’t help himself–“that’s the way our brains think.”
Scares the crap out of me!
War…………..To be considered as a political stepping stone?I think I will go throw up now.
This is a criminal argument. Fix the economy by going to an unnecessary war…wait has this been done before…wait it’s still going on…and it is failing!
We need someone who is not inbred to make policy.