Why was Powell even part of the Republican party?

[wacki]

Here is an interesting quote:

"That Powell would endorse Obama was not entirely shocking — their politics are not far apart "

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=14783&cat=topnews

Reading powell's wikipedia page shows that he does have a ton of liberal views (pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, gays in the military, gun control, etc).  When it came to Iraq he appeared to be left of many democrats.  He also referred to Bush & Co. as 'bleeping crazies'.   In fact, I can't seem to find a single issue that he sides with Republicans on.  It's amazing.

Now, I'm not saying I disagree with him on all or even any of his stances (except the obvious Obama endorsement of course).  I'm simply wondering why he was involved with the Republican party in the first place.

[De Selby]

In what way was Powell to the left of democrats on Iraq?  He did just say that he thought it was the right decision at the time, given what we knew, and blames the mess on later mismanagement. 

Powell is similar to George Bush, Governor of Texas, not George Bush, President of the US for two terms.  I read an article recently (linked off of realclearpolitics) attributing the shift primarily to September 11-before that, this article argued, GW was all about improving education and reconciliation of the racial divide.  It pointed out that GW actually increased his percentage of the black and hispanic votes in his re-election by leaps and bounds over his first election as governor, and that his education policies were widely praised.

After September 11, the issues that GW had mastered in Texas took a distant back seat, and as a consequence, his legacy has been destroyed.   I thought it was a very fair and honest look into what's happened, and I'll try to find it for a repost.

[Waitone]

Powell owes his ascent into the elites solely to a succession of republican presidents starting with Reagan moving to Bush I and ultimately Bush II.  The military ethic in those days was one's political affiliation was a private matter and it stayed that way.  Powell has what some call left of center views and so does republican Guiliani and a host of others.  My guess is Powell's craw took as much as it could after he was hung out to dry in 2003.

[Standing Wolf]

The token black didn't stay bought? Why, how shocking!

[wacki]

In what way was Powell to the left of democrats on Iraq?  He did just say that he thought it was the right decision at the time, given what we knew, and blames the mess on later mismanagement. 

wikipedia says otherwise:

In an interview in July 2007, Powell revealed that he had spent two and a half hours trying to persuade George W. Bush not to invade Iraq but that he did not prevail. At the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado[42] Powell stated, "I tried to avoid this war. I took him [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."[43].....


Powell was the subject of controversy in 2004 when, in a conversation with British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, he reportedly referred to neoconservatives within the Bush administration as "*expletive deleted*ing crazies."[40]

......
In a letter to Sen. John McCain, General Powell expressed opposition to President Bush's push for military tribunals of those formerly and currently classified as enemy combatants.

He quite clearly opposed the invasion.  Hates the Bush administration.  And it looks like he believes that non-us citizens that are terrorists should get civilian trials.  Right or wrong, these are typical left wing talking points.  Do you disagree?

[BryanP]

wikipedia says otherwise:

He quite clearly opposed the invasion.  Hates the Bush administration.  And it looks like he believes that non-us citizens that are terrorists should get civilian trials.  Right or wrong, these are typical left wing talking points.  Do you disagree?

Disagrees with != hates.  I get very tired of the word hate being thrown around by both sides incorrectly.  Powell is a centrist, which is why he's taken a lot of flak over the years from the far left and the far right.

[MicroBalrog]

And it looks like he believes that non-us citizens that are terrorists should get civilian trials.

If a person has not been convicted, why are you referring to them as a 'terrorist'?

He quite clearly opposed the invasion.

So did quite a few Republicans.

[buzz_knox]

Powell was a Republican because he switched sides back in the '90s.  He said in an interview that it didn't look like there much chance for advancement in the Dem party as they were losing, so he switched to the Republicans, who were gaining power at the time.

Now that the situation has reversed, he's gone back over.  He's a pure politician, nothing more, nothing less.

If a person has not been convicted, why are you referring to them as a 'terrorist'?

"Terrorist" isn't a designation that can be conveyed only via conviction in a civilian (or even military) court.

[slingshot]

I feel Powell is simply choosing the side that he feels is the winning one publically.  I'm sure he still feels "used" with regard to his UN speech about Iraq.  I suspect he wants to be Secretary of State under Obama if I had to guess.  Race does come into play whether or not folks want to admit it. Powell is poltical but he does not want to run for president.  My impression is that for the average black person, they would vote for a candidate because they are "smart", and hence qualified.  That judgement does not seem to hold as much weight for other races.

As said, in the old days, the political affiliation of military folks was private.  The elite were chosen for their knowledge and experience.  It is the way it should be.  The same should apply to Supreme Court justices; however they are appointed for LIFE, so it is a special circumstance that requires more analysis of the man or women versus just knowledge and expereince.

[buzz_knox]

As said, in the old days, the political affiliation of military folks was private.  The elite were chosen for their knowledge and experience.  It is the way it should be. 

That might be the official story, but even in the old days, political affiliations and the connections they bring were one way careers advanced or died at the higher levels.  The political controversies surrounding MacArthur and his career were the public example of a rule that likely went back to the first cavemen deciding on a military leader.

[longeyes]

Powell owes his ascent into the elites solely to a succession of republican presidents starting with Reagan moving to Bush I and ultimately Bush II. 

He apparently wasn't viewed as top-echelon material within the military but he found friends in the highest circles of the Republican Party.  They saw something useful in Powell.  They made his political career.   You get one prestigious job, you get others, and become a living resume', no matter how badly you screw up.  You use them; they use you.

Then there's the matter of everyone wanting a visible "minority" in high office, and the combination of Republican + minority was, is, and will be irresistible.  Powell has always had a halo that puts him beyond scrutiny, not unlike our current Presidential aspirant in the Democratic Party.

[ilbob]

He is basically an opportunist. When the opportunity was republican he was a republican, when he perceives it has shifted to the democrats, he becomes a democrat. There are a lot of guys like him in DC. I am guessing he was promised something for the endorsement. Maybe DoD. I don't think he would want to go back to state.

It is not all bad to have a fair number of experienced bureaucrats who really don't care much about which party is in charge that are available to help run things. usually they are a little lower profile than powell.

[longeyes]

Colin Powell is the prototype of the one-government New World Order august leader.  That is what he was groomed for.  He believes in the wise control of kind-hearted masters.  Behind the bland exterior lie dangerous ideas.

[slingshot]

He believes in the wise control of kind-hearted masters.  Behind the bland exterior lie dangerous ideas.

That is probably an accurate protrayal of my perception of Powell.

[Perd Hapley]

In what way was Powell to the left of democrats on Iraq?  He did just say that he thought it was the right decision at the time, given what we knew, and blames the mess on later mismanagement. 

Powell is similar to George Bush, Governor of Texas, not George Bush, President of the US for two terms.  I read an article recently (linked off of realclearpolitics) attributing the shift primarily to September 11-before that, this article argued, GW was all about improving education and reconciliation of the racial divide.  It pointed out that GW actually increased his percentage of the black and hispanic votes in his re-election by leaps and bounds over his first election as governor, and that his education policies were widely praised.

After September 11, the issues that GW had mastered in Texas took a distant back seat, and as a consequence, his legacy has been destroyed.   I thought it was a very fair and honest look into what's happened, and I'll try to find it for a repost.

Just so long as we understand that education and "the racial divide" are issues in which Presidents have no business meddling.

[MicroBalrog]

Just so long as we understand that education and "the racial divide" are issues in which Presidents have no business meddling.

Except to take an ax to the existing bureaucracies.

[wacki]

Powell was a Republican because he switched sides back in the '90s.  He said in an interview that it didn't look like there much chance for advancement in the Dem party as they were losing, so he switched to the Republicans, who were gaining power at the time.

link? source?

[De Selby]

Just so long as we understand that education and "the racial divide" are issues in which Presidents have no business meddling.

Nah, just other countries' education, power grids, racial and ethnic divides....then the President is commander in chief, so it makes sense to interfere away.

But seriously, this view of the Presidency that you have isn't one that either Republicans or Democrats ascribe to, so in the context of discussing the Bush presidency, it isn't terribly relevant.  Indeed, for someone who believes in a Presidency more restricted to enumerated constitutional duties...George W. Bush is probably the worst president since FDR, in that respect.

[De Selby]

He quite clearly opposed the invasion.  Hates the Bush administration.  And it looks like he believes that non-us citizens that are terrorists should get civilian trials.  Right or wrong, these are typical left wing talking points.  Do you disagree?

I don't agree that you're representing his statements accurately.  Here's what he said when endorsing Obama, which I think is an accurate portrayal of his position on the war from the start:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/19/powell.transcript/

I'm well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn't get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I've never blinked from that. I've never said I didn't support a decision to go to war.

i.e., Powell has always maintained that war with Iraq was the last option, and that the changes needed there could not be achieved by any other means, even though he and the President did not want to go to war.

I don't agree that wanting trials before punishment is a leftist issue-indeed, the most strict textualist I've ever seen (Sanford Levinson) called the laws that the administration came up with for "enemy combatants" something appropriate for a banana republic:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801763_pf.html

I don't think anyone would describe Levinson as a leftist, and I don't think he's alone amongst conservatives in calling the "enemy combatant" business what it is: unlimited executive power to imprison for life, without answering to any authority or needing to provide any justification.

[Perd Hapley]

Just so long as we understand that education and "the racial divide" are issues in which Presidents have no business meddling.

Except to take an ax to the existing bureaucracies.

Well, yeah, there's that.

Nah, just other countries' education, power grids, racial and ethnic divides....then the President is commander in chief, so it makes sense to interfere away.

You have an arresting talent for making perfectly sensible statements, the logic of which you can't understand, and must therefore mock.   

But seriously, this view of the Presidency that you have isn't one that either Republicans or Democrats ascribe to, so in the context of discussing the Bush presidency, it isn't terribly relevant.  Indeed, for someone who believes in a Presidency more restricted to enumerated constitutional duties...George W. Bush is probably the worst president since FDR, in that respect.

What is irrelevant (or just mis-guided) is the notion that President Bush was supposed to be building a legacy on education and racial goodwill, rather than silly little nothings like national defense, or lowering income tax rates or reforming failed socialists policies like Social Security. 

What's likewise mis-guided (if not an intentional straw man) is the attempt to make my comments some sort of defense of George Bush.  As if I were holding him up as some hero of constitutional, limited govt.  Riiiiight.  The point, of course, was that this analysis of George Bush's legacy seems to be miss the point. 

[De Selby]

You have an arresting talent for making perfectly sensible statements, the logic of which you can't understand, and must therefore mock

Well, I don't hold a degree in polytactics, but I did stay at a holiday inn somewhere near FrontSight once, so I think I've got a handle on this one.  The logic that you missed was this: If the President is not to interfere in such issues in America, what kind of sense does it make to make him solely responsible for those issues in other countries? Suddenly the basic political principles of government by consent, federalism, and competence just become meaningless when America invades another country? 

Of course they don't-good government here is good government elsewhere, as many of the founding fathers understood, being the enlightenment era universalists that they were. 

hat's likewise mis-guided (if not an intentional straw man) is the attempt to make my comments some sort of defense of George Bush.  As if I were holding him up as some hero of constitutional, limited govt.  Riiiiight.  The point, of course, was that this analysis of George Bush's legacy seems to be miss the point. 

Yeah, but the point here (i.e., the topic of this thread) is Powell's connection to and place in the Republican party, of which George Bush was clearly the ranking officer for the past 8 years.  Maybe in another thread on the role of the president in America Bush's plans and agenda would be irrelevant, but it's hard to imagine how "the more important point" you cite has anything to do with why Powell would or would not be a republican. 

Sometimes you need to read the thread to comment sensibly on a particular post.

[Perd Hapley]

Um.  You're the one who brought up the completely off-topic subject of Bush's legacy. 

And then you pulled a Riley by retreating to the supposedly safe polemical ground of Iraq-war-bad. 

Well, I don't hold a degree in polytactics, but I did stay at a holiday inn somewhere near FrontSight once, so I think I've got a handle on this one.  The logic that you missed was this: If the President is not to interfere in such issues in America, what kind of sense does it make to make him solely responsible for those issues in other countries? Suddenly the basic political principles of government by consent, federalism, and competence just become meaningless when America invades another country? 

Of course they don't-good government here is good government elsewhere, as many of the founding fathers understood, being the enlightenment era universalists that they were.

Uh.  Yeah.  If Iraq had been doing that whole enlightenment thing, we wouldn't be there.  And if we hadn't taken on the task of rebuilding Iraq, you would most certainly be whining about that, too. 

And, no, I'm not being inconsistent or hypocritical.  I doubt the founders were so naive as to think that toppling dictators was all that was required for freedom to flourish.  In fact, I think they knew that very well, from experience. 

From what I know of political science, as opposed to polytactics, the Iraqis were/are a bit lacking on basic foundations that make a free state possible.  Little things like rights, the rule of law, competitive elections, "civil society" (as the political scientists put it),  etc. 

So, yeah, we're imposing democracy and freedom on them, in hopes they will no longer be such a threat to us and to the region.  And that makes perfect sense.  When you can wrap your head around that, we might get somewhere. 

[De Selby]

Insert Quote
Um.  You're the one who brought up the completely off-topic subject of Bush's legacy.

The connection is quite clearly explained above. Here's a summary:  the Republican party wasn't all that out of touch with Powell's positions when Powell joined the government, as evidenced by the intended legacy and past works of its chief.  See, the fact that George Bush was the most senior Republican in the country does in fact make the Bush history and legacy relevant to what policies and positions define the Republican party. 

And, no, I'm not being inconsistent or hypocritical.  I doubt the founders were so naive as to think that toppling dictators was all that was required for freedom to flourish.  In fact, I think they knew that very well, from experience.

Yeah, they also knew that central management from a single Federal leader would result in disaster, which is why they didn't organize the government of the U.S. that way.  You can't gift freedoms and functioning government to yourself or others via an authority figure similar to a monarch; that's why there was no "transitional monarchy" or "emergency dictatorship" called to transition the country from colonial to self-government.

The political theory works in other places too-you don't solve the problem of a despotic society by making one person 10,000 miles removed the final authority on that country's civic institutions.  This idea, of course, is entirely consistent with Washington's warnings against entangling alliances, and Jefferson's enthusiastic support for the race to extinguish monarchy of all kinds across the globe.

Imposing government from above virtually guarantees a government that is unresponsive and ignorant of the local concerns.  And you can see that in Iraq today: when they get a vote, they vote for the parties that are the most ideologically and fundamentally opposed to the United States that they can...the contest is now between the agents of Iran and Muqtada al Sadr.  Some "success" in making the place safer for the world that is, but then again, that's the sort of thing that happens when you try to govern by remote executives rather than by the principles of federalism.

[buzz_knox]

link? source?

He stated it in an interview back in 1994-1995, after the tide turned against the Dems at that time.  I didn't tape the interview but I listened to it.

I always thought this was common knowledge.  He's always been a RINO.

[makattak]

Yeah, they also knew that central management from a single Federal leader would result in disaster, which is why they didn't organize the government of the U.S. that way.  You can't gift freedoms and functioning government to yourself or others via an authority figure similar to a monarch; that's why there was no "transitional monarchy" or "emergency dictatorship" called to transition the country from colonial to self-government.

The political theory works in other places too-you don't solve the problem of a despotic society by making one person 10,000 miles removed the final authority on that country's civic institutions.  This idea, of course, is entirely consistent with Washington's warnings against entangling alliances, and Jefferson's enthusiastic support for the race to extinguish monarchy of all kinds across the globe.

Imposing government from above virtually guarantees a government that is unresponsive and ignorant of the local concerns.  And you can see that in Iraq today: when they get a vote, they vote for the parties that are the most ideologically and fundamentally opposed to the United States that they can...the contest is now between the agents of Iran and Muqtada al Sadr.  Some "success" in making the place safer for the world that is, but then again, that's the sort of thing that happens when you try to govern by remote executives rather than by the principles of federalism.

Obviously you haven't read Aristotle.

Federalism is not the only way to freedom. Federalism is a good form of government. However, if people have no idea of rule of law rather than rule of man; if people have a tendency to fight family battles with weapons rather than words; if people beleive that corruption is the status quo, then these people are highly unlikely to be able to govern themselves: otherwise, shouldn't a class of 4th graders be allowed self-governance?


Good government comes from good principles and good men. Period. The founding fathers knew this- they set up a system that attempts to restrain the evil in men, but even they realized that: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

The founding fathers knew that central management from a single Federal leader could lead to disaster faster, but the problem is: ALL government leads to disaster sooner or later. Every single type of government can become evil. Every single type of government can be good. A monarchy can devolve into a tyrrany, an Aristocracy can devolve into an oligarchy, a democracy can devolve into mob rule. No government is safe- I would venture to say no government is safer than any other- all can trample freedom. We are seeing in this election how easy democracy/federalism can fall apart- just promise the people enough "entitlements" paid for by others and watch freedom fall.