Clark for President?

    Okay, so I had a crazy thought today, and since crazy thoughts do no good kept to myself, I thought I'd share it with the rest of you.  I have had several friends ask me recently who I currently like for president in the '08 election.  As a general rule, I have said that I currently favor John Edwards.  However, I also recently noticed an article in which Wesley Clark commented about his own thoughts on entering the race.  Now, that's when this crazy line of thought started rolling around in my head.
    You see, my studies of the history of the Christian tradition as well as my study of Scripture lead me at least to lean toward pacifism.  Dennis Kucinich is probably the candidate who most explicitly identifies himself with pacifism, but as much as I like Kucinich, I am not yet persuaded he has much of a chance of getting elected.  That's when I started to reflect:  if you are a person who leans pacifist as I do, which of the current (or potential) candidates should be most attractive to me.  That's when it occurred to me:  Wesley Clark is probably the closest thing to a pacifist that I could ever hope to have elected.  Now, I hear you already, "Chuck, you're crazy!  Clark is surely a man who embraces the just war theory.  He is, after all, a retired general."
    Well, that's where some insights from a friend of mine come into play.  He reminded me that, though Just War Theorists and Christian Pacifists are often viewed as opposites, these two positions are actually united against those who see war as just another foreign policy strategy to be deployed whenever it seems convenient.  It is worth noting the Clark has consistently called into question the war in Iraq and has repeatedly been correct in his predictions about how things would unfold.  As I reflected on this fact coupled with the behind the scenes reports of the extent to which other military experts had opposed the war, it hit me that we are at a place where the military leaders are much more cautious in their use of military force than the civilian leadership.  It seems that the actual experience of seeing first hand the killing of troops that one has ordered into war has a sobering effect.  It creates a genuine hatred for war that gives a much more concrete reality to the words of the Just War Theory "only as a last resort." 
   We live in a culture where candidates feel they must avoid "looking weak."  So, they posture and threaten and saber rattle so as to assure an anxious constituency that they can be trusted to "leave all options on the table" and that they are willing to use them all, "including war," in order to protect us.  Interesting, isn't it?  We have come to the point that our many within our military leadership are actually less anxious to use the military than our political leaders who feel the need to "be tough."  Perhaps, if they had Clark's experiences, they would be much more cautious in their willing to put troops in harms way.  But, as I noted at the outset, these are just a bunch of crazy ruminations.....

Comments

[Jonathan Davenport]

Not too crazy a thought Chuck. Perhaps in lieu of a pacifist leaning candidate (probably unelectable), someone who takes just war thinking SERIOUSLY would be a good alternative.

[zero]

support clark because you believe in him not because he's electable where the other pacifist is not. goodness. that we think this way....won't vote for someone who is unelectable....is why they don't get elected. a vote isn't a sure thing, it's a position taken. and as such, mcgovern said, a person who votes for what they value, believe in never wastes their vote regardless of outcome. (i would rather vote that way then "lesser of evil" and NO, i did not vote for nader, the traitor).

[Jonathan Davenport]

I don't disagree zero. But if a serious candidate emerges with an agenda other than "leaving all (war) options on the table," I'm glad to listen even if he/she is not a committed pacifist in theory. I know of few candidates--even those who oppose the Iraq war--who speak of total non-violence as a national foreign policy. Would such a candidate really have a serious chance of winning the '08 election? I hope so, but I guess the pragmatic side of me knows my values are not shared by most.

[Jai]

The main point, Wes Clark is the most likely Democrat to keep us out of unnecessary war, and to get us out of the one we're already in. He's not a total pacifist, but he knows the horror of war as well as any. And he knows that all wars have "unintended consequences," most of which cannot be controlled or managed. So war for him will always always always be a last resort.

Too many of the leading Democrats are way too worried that they will look like pacifists, whether they are or are not. Worse, some of them are just afraid of looking weak.

That is Clinton's problem. As a woman (and I'm female too so I understand it), she has to convince voters she would be a strong defender of the nation. So she overcompensates... by voting for the IWR, and for standing by that decision now.

Actually, Edwards is in sort of the same boat. Maybe because he's so inexperienced, or maybe because his image is soft, "pretty," and nice. But I'm sure it's part of why he voted for the IWR, and why he talks so tough about Iran now.

I haven't seen enough of Obama to know how he will come down. He was against the war in the beginning, and that's good, but he really didn't run any political risks by being so, given his constituents back then. He hasn't struck me as particularly courageous in his Senate votes so far, but I think he may get his chance to show us soon enough.

A guy like Clark will never seem weak on defense, so he can afford to take the right stand against unjust and illegitimate wars like the one in Iraq and the one that's looming in Iran.

And speaking of war with Iran, Clark and an outfit called VoteVets.org is trying to fight it now at a website called stopiranwar.com. If you haven't been there, signed the positions, written the letters, and most important, passed the information along to 100 or so of your closest friends, you're not doing all you can to keep the US from murdering more soldiers and civilians than we already have.

[zero]

i still don't get the position of no chance to win, mr chuck. what's pragmatic about that assessment?

[chuck]

Hey, Jai, welcome! Great to have you with us, and good analysis.
Zero, I am not suggesting electability is a key criterion, but it is one of many. If, for example, I like two candidates overall pretty equally, I would go with the one I thought had the best chance of being elected.

[Kate]

Well, what can I say...I've been a fan. I would have voted for him in 2004, but most everyone had dropped out by the time my primary rolled around. He has said a lot of good things in the last three years and if he continues to keep his "general moments"** under control then he would be a formidable candidate. Unfortunately, I think most of his campaign structure in 2004 came from Clinton people. So with Hillary in the race......

** They all have them.

[chuck]

Good point, so what do we do?

[Kate]

Draft Him?

I heard him on Ed Schultz last week and he said it was too soon to enter the race. He said that he wanted to have serious discussions about policies right now and if he was a candidate he would be forced to play politics.

It's kind of hard to argue with that.

[chuck]

I'd go with that. Wanna start a "Draft Clark" site?

[tc]

Chuck,
Odd that you currently support Edwards and would likely support Clark if he entered, given much of what you have written about this past year or so that I have been reading your blog.

I, frankly, like Obama, since he is sincere about his Christian faith, does place a high priority on fighting poverty, and is someone that is a fresh of breath air in the stagnant world politics has become. My only drawback on Obama is his Abortion stance, but I don't know as if the next president would be able to due that much about it from a legal standpoint. Given Obama's other stands, however, he could do something about it on other fronts, that may be much more important. His call today at Selma to the men of his own race to put down their weapons and gansta ways and remember the blood shed for them is a good start. If he could directly talk to the young males and get them to turn their ways into gentelmen (as Rabbi Shmuley puts it). It would start to attack the abortion issue from a fresh perspective. When one start removing the reasons why abortion is chosen, it will become less and less and the NOW stance that a women can (basically) think of abortion as another type of birth control will become a much more fringe view.

My pastor's sermon today was on Jonathan. It is a series on friendship between Jonathan and David. Today's sermon was a precursor to Jonathan and David's friendship and was about the story of Jonathan and is armour servant. Here is Jonathan, a quaint, couragous teenager (most-likely) and even younger, committed armour servant raising ruckess in the Philistine camp because they had faith that God was a lot mighter than the Philistines. To me, Obama is the Jonathan of the election. He is also the David of the election. As someone the same age as Obama, I feel it is time for our generation to have our voice and to give voice to the younger generation, much like JFK did in 1960.

[chuck]

Thanks, TC, I heard Obama at the Sojo event in DC last year and really liked what he had to say. His sincerity surely scored very high, and I was impressed. What might be oddest about my comments on president is that I've even opened my mouth this early:>) I am not at all settled, and this piece about Clark just came up as I was reflecting on my friends comments about how folks often, mistakenly, see JWT and CP as opposites:>)

[Matt Purmort]

Chuck I found this peice helpful if for no other reason than that you point out how just-war and pacifist actually hold more in common, when I think too often they are portreyed as polar opposites. I have often thought about how Bush senior was a WWII vet and how quickly he left Iraq once Kuwait was free, I've read his memoirs and his letters up to the war show how he agnozined about sending troops into battle and wanted to get them home safely as soon as possible. Looks like the fruit fell pretty far from the tree.

[jerry]

How about Academy Award Winner Al Gore?

[chuck]

Thanks, Matt, good comments.
Jerry, I could support him. Think he'll get in?

[jerry]

I thought he would announce as part of his acceptance speech. I think if dems aren't satisfied with the current field he could get drawn in. Clark and Obama would be good choices thus far - sorry Hillary. Watch for her to be VP/running mate though...

[zero]

hilliary won't settle for second.

[chuck]

So far, the dem candidates seem to far outstrip the quality of the repubs....

[jerry]

Hillary wants to make history. If there were a n Obama/Clinton ticket, may have a landslide on our hands.

[chuck]

I've wondered about that, Jerry. Would it matter which was pres and which vp?

[zero]

hillary won't settle for second.

[jerry]

Yes. Hillary is not electable as pres at this time.

[zero]

i don't think so either and if the dems want the white house back they won't nominate her. and she won't accept second (and if she did tthat might also keep the dems out of the white house in 2008).

[Mr Kate]

If you really want to see what an excellent candidate that Wes Clark would be, you should listen to his interview on Democracy Now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234

Not only does he discuss the War in Iraq and what is happening with Iran, but he discusses other important issues like torture and overall use of military force. He also shows what strong moral character he has.

[chuck]

Hey, Mr. Kate, great to have you with us and thanks for the link!