GADFLY

Today is John McCain’s 72nd birthday. First: Happy Birthday, John McCain. I’m not voting for you, but I hope you have a cake and see your friends and so on.

Now: yesterday, watching the convention, I was thinking about the presidency as an occupation in the abstract. One of the commentators referred to it as “the most important job in the world,” and it probably is. The responsibilities are enormous and so must be the stresses. Think of how the presidency aged Clinton, aged the younger Bush. Dark hair turns white; the lines in the face deepen. The demands on the body and mind–so much to do, so much to keep track of, so much traveling–must be absolutely tremendous. 

At the end of his first term, John McCain would be 76 years old. He is now a vigorous 72, but it seems that presidential years are akin to dog years; perhaps the ratio isn’t quite 7:1, but 4:1 seems plausible. Given that base age, that rate of aging, and the demands of the office, I must ask: is electing John McCain a good idea? Is electing to the presidency any man of his age, per se, a good idea?

I’m surprised how seldom that question is posed in the media; I imagine that’s due to fears of appearing ageist. But when you’re talking about “the most important job in the world,” it seems that any discussion relevant to the execution of that job must be worth having, however uncomfortable. Knowing the responsibilities and demands of the office, should it be held by a 72-year-old man, however rigorous? All other things equal, would not a rigorous 45-year-old be preferable to a vigorous 72-year-old, if their abilities were comparable? The obvious answer, based merely on the physical demands of the presidency, seems to be “yes.” 

I’m not in favor of some kind of age cap for the presidency or for any office; I think, as with all things, a case by case analysis is better than a gross or coarse generality. We would be remiss, though, to ignore what we know generally about the decay of mind and body. McCain, at 72, is without question past his prime. He appears to be physically vigorous, but he is reportedly forgetful, occasionally appearing confused. He has a history of cancer. Sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, he will age, and if observations of past presidents are a reliable indicator, he will age very quickly. The retirement age for most every job is 65; for the most important, possibly the most demanding job in the world, should it be substantially higher? Common sense would seem to indicate that if anything, it should be lower. Many think that people of McCain’s age should not be allowed to drive a car; should they be responsible for the security and well-being of the most powerful nation on earth?

As I said above, I don’t think people of advanced years should be summarily excluded from office. The public would be deprived of many terrific public servants. Yet the presidency is an extraordinary office with extraordinary power and responsibilities, far exceeding those of a Senate seat or other office. Perhaps would be better suited to a man in his physical and intellectual prime.

Like it or not, age is an issue in this election — I think we should be debating it more openly and vigorously.

– PETER C. D. MULCAHY  

Yours for $100,000.

— ADAM GOLDENBERG

On Sunday morning, Mr. Saakashvili said he was also thinking about Finland. “I’ve read all the books about how Finland fought this kind of war in 1939,” he said. Finland held out heroically against the far larger forces of the Red army for months, eventually forcing Josef Stalin to settle. [WSJ]

The Red Army may have outnumbered the Finns by at least 4-to-1 in 1939, the Russian officer corps was also freshly purged, with peacetime losses in the neighbourhood of 80 percent, thanks to Stalinist paranoia. And though Finland survived the Winter War, it was forced to negotiate away 20 percent of its industrial capacity in the process.

Assuming a parallel settlement were even possible in Georgia, its terms of disengagement would disembowel the fledgling state’s efforts to modernize and industrialize. This, of course, is probably exactly the sort of “settlement” the Russians are looking for; it would neuter not only Georgia’s economic wellbeing, but also its autonomy and its ambitions to NATO and EU membership.

Sakaashvili might want to start shopping for some better bedtime reading.

– ADAM GOLDENBERG

Aafia Siddiqui is an MIT-trained neuroscientist, a mother of three. She faces 20 years in prison for attempting to kill her American captors at a facility in Afghanistan, where she was being questioned as a suspected terrorist.

Chiming in on the case is NRO’s Candace de Russy, whose insight is, as usual, equalled only by the ancien régime charm of her name. Surely, says Candace, this only strengthens the case for more closely vetting student visas! Surely tighter checks would have kept this mad mother away from the terra sacra of MIT, with its precious supply of good, clean American geniuses!

Of course, it would never occur to a conservative commentator of Candace’s pedigree to ask the real question: Why would a mother of three, having herself sucked from the teat of American high education, fall in with America-hating thugs in the first place?

In NRO’s black-and-(mostly) white world, the answer is obvious: Aafia Siddiqui is evil, and always has been.

Thank goodness the world is so simple.

— ADAM GOLDENBERG

Gadfly’s own Sahil K. Mahtani has a piece in the Far Eastern Economic Review this week, on Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono rhetorically acrobatic almost-apology for the Indonesian Government’s role in the late-1990s conflict in East Timor.

Read it here.

– ADAM GOLDENBERG

Former Obama foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, on selling Iraq withdrawal to American voters:

By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.

I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that?

I agree with Power’s sell-job, but I’m wary of dismissing the hazards of withdrawing so quickly, and for the sake of winning a political argument.

A fair calculus on Iraq has to weigh the risk to Iraqis and the region of a continued U.S. presence against the potential humantarian (and security) costs of withdrawal. I don’t buy Power’s reasoning, that since we’re not sure just how bad things will be if the U.S. pulls out, but we are sure how bad things are now, then the U.S. should throw the dice and go home.

Power, who made her reputation arguing for a liberal interventionist U.S. foreign policy, should know better than to argue the odds, when the U.S.’ presence stands to avoid creating a situation in Iraq that could deteriorate sufficiently to make intervention an ostensible moral obligation.

That said, the Democrats have an election to win, and the Iraqi’s don’t get a vote.

– ADAM GOLDENBERG

Why does the junior senator from Illinois get to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai?

I mean, sure, the man stands a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States, and so Karzai has every reason to meet with him. But there seems to be a serious protocol issue in someone of Obama’s rank and stature making an appointment with a foreign Head of State.

Never mind that they aren’t equals in status; as far as I know, not even Obama’s seat on the Senate foreign relations committee qualifies him to represent the United States abroad. So why the meeting? Why didn’t the State Department point out that there was something a little screwy with the trip?

It’s good politics for both Karzai and Obama, but I’m still baffled by the fact that Karzai’s people agreed to the leader of sovereign nation’s singing backup vocals for the Obama roadshow. I just hope he wasn’t accidentally physically injured in getting too close to Obama’s hubris.

— ADAM GOLDENBERG

On Saturday, the Arab League decided to denounce the genocide charges filed against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir by International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo. Their rationale:

The council decides solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal [sic] Criminal Court.

The resolution continued, to assert the sole competence of Sudan’s judiciary in the alleged case of genocide perpetrated in Darfur.

The decision is, needless to say, baloney. Denying the ICC jurisdiction over the crime of genocide rather completely undermines its mandate, which is all well and good, unless one has any attachment whatsoever to the principle of international jurisprudence. (Which I do, for what it’s worth.) The whole point of the ICC is to ensure that Heads of State and Government who undertake to exterminate, in whole or in part, swaths of their own populations are held to a universal standard of justice. You know, the sort of standard that al-Bashir is unlikely to encounter in one of his own courts back home in Sudan.

Keep reading →

Back in February, I wrote a column in The Crimson that satirized the opposition to JK Rowling’s selection as Harvard’s Commencement speaker.

In the piece, I make a number of claims that are so absurd I was sure that even the most credulous reader would be forced to see the irony. Examples:

• “This is, after all, a woman who is remarkable for her ability to dupe children into thinking that all they need to face their demons are grit, courage, and a handful of dead relatives.“
• “Last year’s speaker, Bill Gates, waxed so poetic about “appalling disparities of health, and wealth, and opportunity,” that hundreds of graduates quit the lucrative jobs awaiting them on Wall Street and set off to change the world.“
• “It’s universally recognized that only a world figure—political or diplomatic, that is—could possibly be worthy of the lectern in Tercentenary Theatre and the Harvard doctorate that goes with it.“
• “What happened to Oprah, who changed the world by inventing a book club completely free of interpersonal contact? Or Hillary Clinton, who surely deserves to somehow follow in her husband’s footsteps this year? The list goes on, full of individuals who are much more worthy than a woman who thinks it’s okay to write 700-page kiddie-lit.”

For the record, none of these is factually accurate. (Except, perhaps, the first one.) But wait! Here comes the coup de grace:

• “Most crucially, Harvard seniors have every right to demand a Harvard-calibre speaker. Harry Potter—and J. K. Rowling—is just a flash in the pan. Writing bedtime stories is lame; just ask Tolkien and C. S. Lewis.“

A few months pass, I write a bunch of other columns, and I get ready to graduate. Then, in May, a freelance writer called Tristan Stewart-Robinson publishes the scoop of the century in The Scotsman. The headline? JK Rowling to speak at Harvard, but students say she’s a ‘flash in the pan’. Oy vey.

Here are some gems from Mr. Stewart-Robinson’s magnum opus:

• “Last year’s words of wisdom to graduates, from Microsoft boss Bill Gates, reportedly inspired a large number of students to opt for charitable work rather than Wall Street firms.”
• “Adam Goldenberg, a Canadian student who writes for the Harvard Crimson, the daily newspaper at the university, said: “Our commencement speaker tricked parents into letting their kids read books filled with sex, murder, and homosexual role models. Harvard seniors have every right to demand a Harvard-calibre speaker. Harry Potter – and JK Rowling – is just a flash in the pan. Writing bedtime stories is lame – just ask Tolkien and CS Lewis.“

Oh lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.

Alas, the story had legs.

Keep reading →

A Harvard Summer School student was just stabbed in the chest, at almost the exact spot where the shuttle drops off commuters coming from the Quad.

Fortunately, Harvard remains a crime-free zone.

- ADAM GOLDENBERG

Here.

According to two sources close to the College administration, who spoke on condition of anonymity, plans are afoot to remove scads of College administrators from their historic headquarters in University Hall. Their office space will instead be consigned to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the umbrella body which includes both Harvard College and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. I report the story in a piece (my last as an undergraduate) in the Commencement issue of The Crimson, published this morning.

According to the two sources, FAS Dean Mike Smith’s decision to shuffle undergraduate affairs out of the College’s most central building is being hotly contested by the incoming Dean of the College, Evelynn Hammonds. It well should be. Certainly the growth of the College’s Offices of Residential Life, Advising Programs, and International Programs mean that space allocation will need to be rethought, but it is distinctly unclear that Dean Smith is giving the College administration’s symbolic centrality its due in his decision-making. Sending whole offices of the College administration across Massachusetts Avenue (to the Holyoke Centre) ought to sound a very bitter note for any ally of Harvard’s undergraduates.

It is also telling that Dean Smith’s plans have been kept strictly secret to date. It would hardly be surprising were a quiet announcement to be made in a few weeks, once alumni—and most of The Crimson’s reporters—have left Cambridge. For shame.

— ADAM GOLDENBERG

Two solid columns today in the NYT, both about Scott McClellan’s bombshell book. Both discuss the way Washington has reacted to it: railing against McClellan’s disloyalty to the president and ignoring the revelations—if you can call them that—about the administration’s willingness to jettison the truth for political expediency.

One thought keeps resurfacing in my mind through all this rage about McClellan’s “loyalty” issues: what about loyalty to the American people and the Constitution, both of which our government is sworn to serve above all else (even above party)?

I think they’re making all this “loyalty” noise to shift attention away from his damning charges, hoping that the distraction will resonate with the public, particularly those who might still be sympathetic at all to the president. A larger part of me believes the rage is genuine—and that explains a lot about the last eight—forty?—years.

— PETER C. D. MULCAHY

The sixth aspirant looked a little like Hilary Swank and had recently graduated from Harvard. “I was an English and American literature major,” she said. Banks asked her to pose like her favorite character from an American novel, but she froze and could not come up with a character to play. “Let’s try an animal,” Banks said helpfully. “Be . . . White Fang from Jack London.” The girl got down on all fours and growled at the judges.

That’s exciting. Any guesses as to who that was?

— PETER C. D. MULCAHY

Another wrinkle in the “appeasement” rhetoric.

— PETER C. D. MULCAHY