Our Afghan Interpreters Need More From Us

Last week this podcast talked about Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko scrambling a military jet to ...

By

Last week this podcast talked about Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko scrambling a military jet to force down a Ryanair flight carrying a dissident journalist. Now, as more reporting reveals how involved Russian President Vladimir Putin was, Steve asks whether President Biden should be holding a summit with Putin in a few weeks. Also in the foreign policy vein, Jonah laments the fact that translators who have been helping the U.S. military in the Middle East aren’t able to get the help they need to remain safe. Plus, check out the discussion on the merits of ranked-choice voting and Ezra Klein’s interview with President Barack Obama. 

Show Notes:

–Putin summit announcement 

–Biden floats sending Iran money after 9/11

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (52)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Jason Gibson

    On Obama as this great chess player:

    I agree that Obama was extremely talented and potentially brilliant. And I think that his legacy will be better than anyone says.

    However the thing about Obama that many were right about was his experience. Obama's attitude was a miscalculation due to inexperience.

    If I was to distill down to it's essence the Obama presidency its that he was the blueprint for the liberal college professor who just expected that reality would bend to the force of his personality.

    In fairness if he had been a senator for more than three minutes his presidency would have been very different

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jason Gibson

      Steve has the best take on Obama revisionism.

      I really admired how Obama wanted to engage with the right. I just think that his failure to do so was a reflection on his lack of experience.

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    E7a56c3893

    Just listened to the entire podcast. I was very eager to listen to the last part in their discussion of Obama and was mildly disappointed. But of course this is a conservative podcast and I deeply appreciate them revisiting the subject.

    I am young enough that I recall Obama's election, but not old enough to be entirely plugged in to the politics. Obama, in nearly every moment to the best of my recollection, was the protagonist of American politics. I am extremely eager to seek conservative reflections on the Obama years to understand why he was such a despised figure. I acknowledge my partisan bubble limited my exposure to his shortcomings. But every criticism I hear, whether on this podcast or the National Review just feels short.

    I take that Obama, in his interpersonal reactions, was a pompous person. I have heard these anecdotes enough that I do not deny it. But does this constitute a justifiable reason for absolute government obstruction, political brinksmanship and public aspersions on the character of the president (birtherism, insults to the First Lady, etc.)?

    Steve and Jonah offer what they perceive to be Obama's "misrepresentations" of conservatism and what they sought to accomplish. But even hearing them recount it, I can't help but be confused. Is it really that egregious that a Democratic politician did not give a 100% accurate/honest take on conservatism? They describe a two step where Obama acknowledges the good faith of the opposition, but then proceeds to an unfair conclusion. Is this really such a catastrophic descent in our political culture? Because to me, it sounds like a politician being a politician in a way that is, all things considered, endearing.

    Is the way Obama conducted himself in *substantially* different from how a Bush Sr., Bush Jr or Reagan would conduct themselves? Were previous Republican presidents really more gratuitous or fair in their description of the liberal project? For me, this is not a whataboutism; I ain't complaining about those presidents because in retrospect, minus Bush Jr., all of them are considered good presidents in my Latino, liberal-leaning household.

    I will always thank Sarah, David, Jonah and Steve for bringing up the subject. I appreciate their thoughts. But in the end, I think their perspective lacks historical context. Obama's initial triumphalism, while obnoxious, must be understood in the context of two unpopular wars and an economic meltdown presided over by Republicans. It must be understood in the context of a deeply unfair and vicious conservative media (National Review and Fox News certainly did not provide good faith representations of liberal positions). And the immediate mobilization against his presidency (reporting that McConnell would "vow" to make him a one term president) did much more to poison the culture, much more than the uncharitable-but-cloked-in-kindness rhetoric that Obama practiced. Liberals, not unfairly, felt a deep mandate in 2008 to change the country but was met with a fierce opposition that was unapologetic about the failures that led to their defeat just a second ago.

    The gang is right that Obama was engaging in revisionism to salvage his name; unfortunately, they too are engaging in a sort of revisionism that downplays how unreasonable conservative media had been to the president despite Obama's serious shortcomings in his personality and self-importance. The truth will always lie somewhere in between. But regardless it was a good and necessary discussion to have.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Steve Hayes

      Lots of good observations here. Two quick points by me (with the understanding that we'll revisit this conversation down the road.

      1) I remember covering Republicans in the early days of the Obama administration. They were afraid to challenge him directly b/c he was so popular. If you study their rhetoric during the debates over the stimulus, they talked about "Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid" or "Washington Democrats" or "liberals in Congress." They were afraid to take him on and, in my view, some of them were willing to work with him on a stimulus bill compromise. But he made pretty clear that he wasn't interested in this and effectively outsourced the legislative build to Pelosi and her staff. I don't think we would have had a kumbaya moment in Washington if he'd really explored working with Republicans, and you're right about some of the aggressiveness of knee-jerk Obama opposition, but the Republicans I talked to got the message that they were going to be the full-time opposition whether they wanted to or not - and many acted accordingly.

      2) If you haven't already, give a listen to the Hangover episode three with Chris Stirewalt and Matthew Continetti. I've got some minor differences with the history as recounted there but one thing that really stood out was the very good discussion of Obama's "pen and phone" moment and what it meant. There's a chicken-and-egg debate that we'll probably never resolve, but I think Chris/Matthew were right to focus on what that said to Rs after 2014 and the radicalizing effect it had in the shift towards Trumpian confrontational politics. Rs did well in 2014 and then Obama told the voters who'd supported them that he was simply going to set them aside -- that they didn't matter politically. They did matter two years later, of course.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        WKDawson

        Dear Steve Hayes,

        Thank you for including your remarks here. When I listened to the comments here, I kind of felt I wasn't hearing the same thing, so I went back and relistened to Obama's comments. ... but was still lost. So I really appreciate finding these comments. I start to see some of the issues now.

        I have lived outside the US for more than 20 years, so the sort of flow of information I get out here is certainly filtered. I'm also basically an egghead (PhD, physics), so maybe there are differences where we talk past each other. Also, I evidently was reading a bit too much NYT and too little from other perspective (before Trump was elected).

        I start to see what you are saying. Even NYT's Maureen Dowd would complain regularly about Obama's aloofness and his tendency to talk down to people rather than talk to them. I even noted a prior revision of the New Republic (after everyone walked out around 2015 I guess) where the author noted that Obama didn't particularly even want white people on his staff (when he entered the WH). So maybe there is a real problem there. From over here in Japan (and Poland), mostly, the message I got was R-intransigence. Obama sounded like the intellectual with the "10 point plan of recovery" -- just read __my__ book [insert: so I make the money] -- but there were the (apparent) outreach gestures he purported made.

        If we add to that, that Obama handed the job to Pelosi, perhaps I begin to see part of the problem. In a way, getting Republicans to accept anything across the isle takes enduring some eating of crow (and likewise the other way), but she seems determined to serve up a 10 course meal of it, and not even a good wine to help wash it down.

        If I put together Dowd's observations with the TNR article
        https://newrepublic.com/article/137798/important-wikileaks-revelation-isnt-hillary-clinton with what you mention here, I get a better picture.

        One of the things that easily happens to neophytes in ministry is they subtly allow a difficult project to become about themselves; their ministry, their success, their milestones, etc. We make the ministry about ourselves. Perhaps in a similar way, Obama subtly allowed the presidency to become about himself. So I might conclude that a president should see his/her role to be in the light of the nation, leading but also learning from those for whom he/she serves. Hard to imagine any president who didn't have an overinflated ego, but some of them did do better at working __with__ and talking __to__ people rather than at them.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          WKDawson

          *We make the ministry about ourselves. -> we end up making the ministry about ourselves rather than about God and wherever God leads.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        E7a56c3893

        Thank you very much for the response. Discussions like these are why I value this podcast because, like I said, I was too young at the time to understand the full political climate so hearing your perspective definitely gives me a lot to think about and keeps me rounded when reflecting on the Obama years.

        I'll be sure to checkout that Hangover episode!

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Steve Hayes

        Also, on the McConnell "one-term" vow, that happened right before the 2010 midterms rather than at the beginning of Obama's presidency. So it came after the period I described above where Obama made pretty clear he wasn't going to work with Rs as he muscled through his top priorities. And even in that interview, McConnell said he'd be willing to work with Obama if Obama pulled a Bill Clinton and decided to work in a bipartisan way with Republicans. It's fair to wonder whether McConnell would have made good on that promise -- particularly heading into the 2012 presidential election -- but it's what he said at the time.

        Here's a good Washington Post fact-check on it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

        Collapse
        1. Fudrock

          And would Obama had been more conciliatory, ultimately, if he didn’t have 60 Senators for the bulk of his first two years in office? Or would he drawn the ire of conservatives, elected officials or pundits, regardless? Is it possible to be above the fray? Was it only ever Republicans engaging in good faith? No doubt ya’ll on the pod feel that way. I have my doubts in both directions, however.

          Speaking as one who desires compromise and regards it as fundamental to the structure of our government, I am increasingly curious about what the contours of a compromise that either party deems successful actually look like, especially for highly contentious issues. More often than not, it feels like “compromise” doesn’t demand that each side give and take in roughly equal proportions, but that the side with more power at the time browbeats the other with maximalist demands, hoarding any ground for plausible compromise, and the opposition obstructs, sporting their own maximalist rhetoric. The first party to be seen spoiling “good faith compromise” pays a political price with independents. I’d be more offended by the Democrats current tactical positions if it wasn’t so familiar already.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Steve Hayes

            Just to clarify further. I don't believe only Republicans were acting in good faith and I'm sorry if I somehow left that impression. There's politics and performance from all sides. I think the mainstream press often takes Obama's good faith for granted and projects bad faith motives onto Republicans, in part because so many mainstream reporters agree broadly w/Obama's objectives (and often disagree just as strongly w/Rs).

            Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Michael Garrett

    I think it will take more than a few cycles for the candidates and the consultants to figure out how to approach ranked choice voting, at least those in New York City. I think we will have to first suffer through attempts to litigate, and judicial activists will be unable to resist tinkering with and the rules and gaming the outcomes. Given New York's history and environment, it seems very easy to anticipate messy cases about spoiled ballots. The abundance of mail-in paper ballots makes likely that a significant number of them (perhaps greater than a margin of victory, or margin of advancement) will be filled out in a way that does not comport with the plan. i.e. giving one candidate a first place vote, but then assigning multiple second place votes. Should that first place vote even count?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Jenny

    Thank you so much, Jonah, for bringing what is going on with the Afghan interpreters to our attention. I am so disappointed and disgusted with our failure to fulfill what we promised.

    Because this was brought to my attention, I have started contacting my Representative and Senators to ask them to take this up. I hope you guys keep this in the news. I’m sure the more that people who are aware of this situation, the more likely it is that something can happen to save these people who risked their lives for American interests.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jason Gibson

      You and me both lady

      i'll do the same.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jenny

        I LOVED the John Wick pod—although I disagree about Reeve’s under acting(: John Wick isn’t flashy, and that’s the point. He would never pull off being suave to the money counting ladies.

        How to I rate you guys? When I go to my saved pods, there doesn’t seem to be a way to do it.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jason Gibson

          Hey gal

          I'll have to ask max about that as he's the technical guy.

          Apparently you are team max on John Wick it sounds like.......

          I see what you are saying...I think that's where Max was coming from..........I just would have liked to see a little more about how his marriage had changed him. That just didn't land for me

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Anne W (Raw5254)

      Glad to see this at the very top. I feel the same way, and I find it difficult to understand how anyone thinks abandoning these people is okay.

      Collapse
  5. DJ

    Resistance to helping the translators is mystifying to me. I’ve never heard anyone oppose it on the left or the right. It seems like a no-brainer politically and morally.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    If we could aid Afghani interpreter's to get to Central America or Mexico, the rest would be easy!

    BHO may have been a masterful politician, but he was an awful leader and executive.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ryan Johnson

    I was a little sad that Arrow's Impossibility Theorem was never mentioned during the ranked choice voting discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
    Turn that nerd-dial up another level!

    Collapse
  8. AS Upstate

    There are so many great things about the Dispatch, but the best that Sarah always uses "less" and "fewer" correctly. So rare these days and it makes me so happy.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Michael Berkowitz

    Regarding the Putin summit: I've often though about how to judge government actions, given how much may be going on away from the public eye. I've come to the following modus vivendi: I generally don't use foreign policy decisions as proof of malice or incompetence, but the next time I vote I'll base myself on what I saw, not the speculative exculpatory data (unless the person involved has earned my good opinion in other ways).

    I rather wonder why you Dispatch folks are so inclined to assume that exculpatory data here, though, when it was clear to you that Blinken handled the China meeting so poorly.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Kyle Funk

    On the Obama piece, does anyone feel like he isn't stepping out the light either? I know the media constantly rails on Trump for being in the media light but I feel like I am constantly also hearing about Obama without any negatives. Even, though I think both former Presidents being in the limelight like this is a bad thing.

    Collapse
    1. DJ

      He has a book out. Nixon gave interviews for his books too, and W just did for his as well. Obama mostly stayed quiet until last year when the campaign started gearing up.

      That said, we’re in a new era for media so this is probably how it will be for (popular) former presidents going forward.

      Collapse
Load More