I Like Leon
Yesterday on the Lehrer News Hour Judy Woodruff had a segment on Mr. Obama's reported intelligence picks, with guests Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer. I agree with Ray, Leon Panetta is a good choice for CIA, not least because of who doesn't like him. When Jane Harman, Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller — prime W. enablers — all start muttering bad things that's got to be good. Something Ray couldn't say on the Lehrer program, that Leon Panetta is a Catholic, I also like. And the point Ray emphasized, that he's got a lot of managerial experience, is critically important, as is the fact that he's not compromised by 'old-boy' networks. What seals the deal is that Leon Panetta is on record having a bright line against water-boarding and all other forms of torture. Mr. Obama might have done a bit better but certainly could have done much, much worse. My only question is, Leon Panetta being low-key and self-effacing, will he stand up to Mr. Obama when necessary? Does he have the guts to threaten to resign if critical intelligence is in danger of being manipulated away from the truth? Regarding Afghanistan, for example, or China? Otherwise his personality seems quite suited to slip into the shadows...
Posted by George Kenney on January 7, 2009 8:04 AM 
« How Republican Is Mr. Obama? | Main | Stupid Senate Democrats »
Comments
What does Catholicism have to do with this? I am befuddled. Please explain.
I was delighted to see Ray McGovern on the NewsHour, but sad to see him ramble and digress. Not much of a forum for a real evaluation of these issues.
Posted by: Peter | January 11, 2009 12:15 PM
One might go back to Max Weber, or even Thomas Aquinas, to see the utility of categories for certain behavior of different groups. I wouldn't want to try to update The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism or Economy and Society — the latter which I've read fairly closely — here, so instead I'll offer a Zen-ish observation: There are too many conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court, laying down fundamental law, but too few Catholics of any political coloration who implement policy within the Executive branch of government. And I'll add: it would be very foolish, I think, to fully embrace the notion that because we're modern and open-minded there are no important differences to be observed among different groups of people.
Posted by: George | January 11, 2009 2:41 PM
I am decidedly ignorant of Weber and St. Thomas Aquinas so I thank you for the Zen-ish version of your Panetta evaluation. I filter things differently but I think that our ideas here end up the same. I agree that being open-minded and modern is no excuse for failing to understand how groups of people are different.
It can be handy, even safe at times, to use groups and their historical backgrounds as filters for satisfying one's judgment or evaluation of a person's likely bent towards or away from a train of thought.
But. I just didn't and don't have the background to catch why a Catholic here or a group or smattering of Catholics there makes things better or worse. Or improves the chances of things being "better."
I have learned over that past few years that fundamental adhesion to religious teachings (ethical or otherwise) is, at best, a perilous way to approach social governance.
So, if Panetta is good for the job, excellent. If he's Catholic, bully for him.
I always root for diverse background s in the workplace.
A good way to avoid group-think.
Hooray for a melting pot.
Posted by: Peter | January 11, 2009 6:26 PM