The Savior Complex
Can the real Wesley Clark match the fantasy version imagined by peacenik Democrats?

Sunday, Sep. 21, 2003
One of the collateral amusements of General Wesley Clark's nascent
presidential candidacy was the unseemly rush of certain liberals to
embrace a member of the U.S. Army after decades of knee-jerk loathing
for all things military. In an open letter encouraging Clark to run,
Michael Moore, the fastidiously unkempt left-wing documentarian,
wrote, "Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write
those words. But desperate times call for desperate measures." Wonder
what Moore thinks now, after Clark spent the first days of his
campaign stepping all over his epaulets on the most basic question of
the coming election: Was George W. Bush right or wrong to go to war
in Iraq? Actually, I have a certain sympathy for Clark's stumbles.
This is a difficult question, and the general has learned that while
truth-telling requires more than a yes or no answer, politics demands
the exact opposite. The most responsible position, which John Kerry
has been suffering with for a year now, is that it was wrong for Bush
to go to war in such a rush and unilaterallybut that it was right
for members of Congress to send a signal of deep concern about the
situation in Iraq to the United Nations and Saddam Hussein. In a
perfect world, that signal would have been a lot more nuanced than
the blank check Congress gave the President to go to war. But
politics is, as often as not, a choice between the awful and the
dreadful.
Clark's precipitate tumble from his white horse was entirely
predictable, as was the drumbeat from the cognoscenti and much of the
media for him to enter the race and save the day. Those of us
demented enough to follow electoral politics have been living with
the nine Democrats for most of a year now. They've become pretty
boring. They gather occasionally to debate one another and succeed
only in diminishing themselves. Howard Dean's exciting candidacy was
an exception for most of the summer, but he has spent much of
September stepping on his epaulets, too. What's a punditor a
despairing Democratic member of Congressto do? I have covered eight
presidential campaigns, and the answer is always the same: find a
deus ex machina. In my time, these have ranged from Jerry Brown
(1976) to Ralph Nader to Lee Iacocca to Mario Cuomo to Al Gore (1992,
when Clinton seemed to be stumbling) to Ross Perot. Most were wise
enough to stay away; those who jumped in failed.
This has been a boom season for would-be Democratic saviors. In
addition to Wes Clark, there have been all sorts of inane rustling
about Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Former President Clintonwho
really should go home and write his bookhas been dropping Hillary
hints for several weeks now; the Senator herself insisted on posting
Run-Hill-Run e-mail on her website until last Friday. This is
self-promotional cotton candy. The junior Senator from New York is,
if nothing else, disciplined. She knows she needs to spend time
bulking up her resume, especially on national security issuesit's
no accident she lobbied for a place on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. As for Gore, he is extremely smart, and he gave a terrific
speech in August about the Bush Administration's foreign-policy
fecklessnessbut does anybody remember what a terrible candidate he
was in 2000?
As for Wesley Clark, difficult days loom. Michael Moore's fantasy had
some plausibility. Generals aren't what they used to be. They're
better educated, more cosmopolitan than their predecessors. They
serve as unofficial diplomats: Clark spent most of his time as
Supreme Allied Commander of nato negotiating with allies over such
minutiae as bombing targetsduring the Kosovo campaign. As a result,
much of the current military leadership tends to be pragmatic,
nonideological and internationalist (which is why the uniformed
military is so displeased with the civilian neoconservative
ideologues currently in charge of the Pentagon). There is a certain
attractiveness, too, to the crisp, no-nonsense orderliness that is
part of the military ethosespecially in contrast to the procedural
and intellectual slovenliness of modern politics. Indeed, the most
mystifying aspect of Clark's entry into the race was how profoundly
unmilitary it washe seemed totally unprepared tactically,
strategically and substantively. His campaign message was,
essentially: Here I am.
Clark's entry should signal the end of the silly season. It is time
for the Democrats to get down to business and choose a candidate. In
an ideal world, it would be time to clear the stage. The three vanity
candidatesAl Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley
Braunshould repair immediately to the lecture circuit. John Edwards
and Bob Graham should return to the Senate. That's not going to
happen, but elections will be held soon enough, a winner will emerge
and, given their antipathy toward George W. Bush, most Democrats will
suddenly come to the conclusion that their new champion is Franklin
Roosevelt on roller skates. But that's a delusion we'll deal with
next spring.
BACK TO TOP
|