Mark Kleiman finds that Andrew Sullivan doesn't know what "first refusal" means:
Mark A. R. Kleiman: Will someone please explain to Andrew Sulivan the meaning of "first refusal": Andrew Sullivan criticizes Wesley Clark:
An interesting position from Wesley Clark:
And I would say to the Europeans, I pledge to you as the American president that we'll consult with you first. You get the right of first refusal on the security concerns that we have. We'll bring you in.
The right of first refusal. I'm with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal? That's tantamount to Howard Dean's view that we should seek the "permission" of the United Nations before military action. Permission?
If you give X the right of first refusal on piece of property Y, that means that before you can sell Y to Z you have to give X the chance to buy it on the same terms that Z would buy it on. In this context, it means exactly what Sullivan says he believes in--try first to do the things we want to do within the framework of the western alliance, and if that doesn't work then go outside it.
But Sullivan doesn't have the vocabulary to understand what Clark meant...
Posted by DeLong at December 22, 2003 05:18 PM | TrackBack
Great post, but for clarity's sake, may I suggest you use "property A", instead of "property Y"?
Posted by: Draeton on December 22, 2003 05:39 PMSullivan doesn't know the meaning of the word "imminent" either, as Josh Marshall pointed out.
Someone buy that man a dictionary.
Posted by: fabio on December 22, 2003 06:18 PMActually, the right of first refusal cannot be maningfully used in this context - it is Clark that is clueless, not Sullivan.
Posted by: Leopold on December 22, 2003 06:51 PMActually, the right of first refusal cannot be meaningfully used in this context - it is Clark that is clueless, not Sullivan.
Posted by: Leopold on December 22, 2003 06:54 PMActually, the right of first refusal cannot be meaningfully used in this context - it is Clark that is clueless, not Sullivan.
Posted by: Leopold on December 22, 2003 06:59 PM>>Actually, the right of first refusal cannot be meaningfully used in this context<<
Yes it can. It's a metaphor--a reasonable one, and an understandable one. Few people called FDR clueless for using the metaphor of a neighbor borrowing a firehose to put out a fire.
Posted by: Brad DeLong on December 22, 2003 07:01 PMBrad,
Well, lets see. The right of first refusal is just that, a right - an option if you prefer. What option can Clark convey to Europeans on American security concerns? The option to partricipate is meaningless - it is always offered, for example by Bush in Iraq. The option to affect American actions (which is exactly what Sullivan is talking about)? No US President ever offered or will ever offer the option to another country to decide whether US goes to war or takes any other military-political action. Clark would be horrified if anyone assumed he said that. QED
Posted by: Leopold on December 22, 2003 07:26 PMBrad,
Well, lets see. The right of first refusal is just that, a right - an option if you prefer. What option can Clark convey to Europeans on American security concerns? The option to partricipate is meaningless - it is always offered, for example by Bush in Iraq. The option to affect American actions (which is exactly what Sullivan is talking about)? No US President ever offered or will ever offer the option to another country to decide whether US goes to war or takes any other military-political action. Clark would be horrified if anyone assumed he said that. QED
Posted by: Leopold on December 22, 2003 07:31 PMBrad,
Can you illustrate the meaning of the "metaphor" by a specific example or two? E.g, consider the situation in February. The US believed that diplomacy and threats had failed to persuade Saddam to cooperate, so it decided to attack him. What would it have meant to offer France a "right of first refusal" at that moment?
Posted by: David on December 22, 2003 10:20 PMWait, wait; Sullivan may have a point, because Europeans, when consulted by US, are likely to say "let us do this through UN".
Sullivan's (whomever he is) problem here appears to be that he thinks it is OK to attack a country for failing to comply with a UN resolution and attack without a UN resolution to do so.
Posted by: Bulent Sayin on December 22, 2003 11:58 PMBTW, Wesley Clark comes from one of the two professions (doctors and soldiers) the practitioners of which I believe to understand mathematics of necessary and sufficient conditions better than other professions, however he fails the leading qualification that I think should be sought in a US Presidential candidate; being an incumbent state governor.
Posted by: Bulent Sayin on December 23, 2003 01:05 AMUmmm, Brad, this is an example of an instance
where you write a letter to Andrew Sullivan
saying "Andrew, actually the right of first
refusal means that blah blah blah..." and
most of the time he posts a correction even
if it is a half hearted one. Even if you are
right, insulting someone's "vocabulary",
particularly when it does concern a somewhat
esoteric nomenklature that can be easily confused, is a very very very low blow.
Does it really deserve a seperate entry in
your otherwise excellent blog? I'm sure if
one was willing it would be possible to go
back through your archives and find similar
examples of muddled confusion. Hmmm, this
seems a bit like a personal thing to me.
Radek
Posted by: radek on December 23, 2003 01:16 AMHoy! You're getting fried on this one, Brad.
Which means you are probably an OK guy.
Posted by: Bulent Sayin on December 23, 2003 01:33 AM"he fails the leading qualification that I think should be sought in a US Presidential candidate; being an incumbent state governor"
It's usually a FORMER state governor rather than an incumbent, e. g., ex-governors Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, not to mention Dean and Dukakis.
Posted by: rea on December 23, 2003 04:02 AMClark is using a perfectly reasonably metaphor, and using it properly. If he is to be faulted, it's for using language that is not immediately apparent to an 8 year old.
Posted by: richard on December 23, 2003 04:14 AMForgive my ignorance, rea, my impression was that Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and Dukakis were all incumbent governors and, believe it or not, I thought Howard Dean was in office right now!
Well then I revise my "rule"(!) to incumbent or former, since former appears to be reality in general. And thank you.
----
Richard, Sullivan is not faulting Wesley for the metaphore he uses; he faults Wesley for not favoring US unilateralism. (That's what I gather but then what do I know, after the flop about incumbent versus former govs? Hoy!)
Bulent Sayin -- I sort-of agree with you, except for a quibble regarding your use of the word "unilateral". In fact, Bush's decision to attack was made in conjunction with Britain, Spain, and some other countries.
As I read it, Sullivan faulted Clark for supposedly giving France and the UN veto power over our actions. DeLong faulted Sullivan for misinterpreting an allegedly clear metaphor.
I don't think the metaphor is clear. Suppose the President had offered France "right of first refusal" before going to war. Let's say that means offering to try France's approach before resorting to war. France would have said we should negotiate more. Bush would have responded that we had negotiated for months, so France had already been given their "right of first refusal".
Posted by: David on December 23, 2003 06:28 AMYeah, Brad -- as Radek said, when dealing with Andy Sullivan you should be punctilious about civility and that kind of shit, because we all know what a paragon of decency and integrity that man is.
Posted by: Zizka on December 23, 2003 07:32 AMDavid,
I did indeed mean "unilateral". And I'll agree to disagree with you on that one.
The clarity of metaphore is not too important here.
If you want to act through UN, you are subject to veto of France and other permanent members of Security Council.
US did feel the need to go to UN in case of Iraq.
In case of Afghanistan, the whole world said to US "more power to you" in pursuit of Al Qaeda and offered every possible means of cooperation and support and no one spoke of any vetos or even any conditions for support.
Wesley thinks US should consult with Europe and international community on security and defense matters to an extent considerably beyond what Bush administration did. Sullivan apparently stands adamantly against such substantial consultation, against even the slightest hint of it. And so he equates right of first refusal to permission.
But let this be a lesson to Wesley so that he may get himself familiarized with diplomatic jargon and use it, instead of farmer/merchant turned politician kind of language.
When reading something that is clearly absurd, I oft too quickly want to think the author is dishonest. But sometimes people generally believe the absurdities are valid points - and to confuse "right of 1st refusal" with "permission" does appear stupid. But in the Christmas spirit, maybe we should refrain from such thoughts and simply form a pool to buy three gifts: (1) a good dictionary for Mr. Sullivan; (2) tuition at Yale so Don Luskin can attend those economic classes he dropped out of; and (3) more tuition money so the other NRO 'economists' can also attend Econ 101.
Posted by: Harold McClure on December 23, 2003 11:20 AMZizka,
Sullivan's "decency and integrity" is irrelevant
here. Even if your sarcasm is warrented, why
should one person, whom I DO hold to a higher
standard, stoop to the level of the other?
IIRC, Sullivan was editor of The New Republic for a bit [1], so one might well think that he would have encountered the term before.
[1] Again IIRC, Stephen Glass blossomed as a fiction writer under Sullivan's guidance.
Radek -- I really don't believe that Brad stooped to Sullivan's level, but in any case Andrew Sullivan is not the London Review of Books sort of guy to whom one sends polite letters of correction. He's a creepy jerk who should be slapped in the face whenever possible. Liberals do not need to sit quietly in the parlor like Stella waiting for a fine gentleman to come calling. Gentility doesn't work anymore.
If your respect for Brad is conditional on his treating Sullivan like the decent human being he isn't, I don't think that your respect will be worth much to Brad anyway.
Posted by: Zizka on December 23, 2003 04:47 PMIt's the David Brooks/Nicholas Kristoff type of respect, perhaps. The type that is awarded if the Democrats make like good losers, and don't fight back.
Posted by: Barry on December 23, 2003 05:20 PM"You're getting fried on this one"- B. Sayin
So, what does fried Brad look like anyway? Any similarity to fry bread?
And what about Eisenhower anyway? Don't generals get any respect anymore?
Posted by: northernLIghts on December 23, 2003 05:23 PMThey are not letting any MacArthurs or Pattons pass by any longer. Democracy prunes the type. Eisenhower has to live with democracy, then.
Michael Kelly was the Glass guy, not Sullivan, but what a couple of jerks!
Posted by: Zizka on December 23, 2003 08:25 PMZizka,
Having never interacted with AS in any capacity
outside of an occasional reading of his blog I
have no idea whether or not he is a creepy jerk. Actually I did send him a letter once correcting
some mistake he made (that time it was numbers,
not vocabulary) which he duly posted in his
letters section with a short reply beneath,
conceding the point. So perhaps my sentiment has
been biased by that one undoubtedly unfortunate
display of decency by an otherwise indecent
beast.
As far as the rest goes, it's not about waiting breathlessly in parlors or gentlemenly gentility.
I enjoy a poignant barb or even a witty ad
hominen taunt as much as anyone who thinks about
and follows political commentary.
However, insulting someone's vocabulary is a bit,
um, unsubstantial.
Furthermore I have no idea where you get the
notion that the liberals, as opposed to the
vast barbarian hordes of non-liberals who must be
busy pillaging the genial atmosphere of
intellectual discourse, are or have in the past
been the ones guilty of excessive civility and
politeness. These traits are certainly not
characteristic of many of the specimens that I
am familiar with. As with any group, the anointed
ones tend to be models of chivalry within the
group and pretty much bastards to those outside
of it. You yourself seem to be quite an epitome
of this trait.
Finally in regard to your assessmnet of the value
that Brad puts on my respect I will only note
the obvious; I'm just a guy who enjoys reading
his webpage. Since he has chosen to present his
thought in a public forum I feel no qualms about
posting my response, be it critical or venerable.
In truth, I don't even expect Brad to notice my
responses, and I don't spend much time thinking
about how much he respects my respect.
I'm gonna drop this since it's getting way off
topic anyway.
Ok. Actually I lied. One more thing. My respect
for anyone in general, be they Brad or mortal,
economist or scum, is always conditional on how
they conduct an argument and on how they perceive
their ideological foes - as human beings or
soulless heretics who are to be "slapped in the
face whenever possible". I respect Brad because
he is diplomatic in his criticism (there might
be some other reasons for respecting him too, but
I cannot presently recall what these might be.
Maybe something to do with his line of work.) -
that's why the vocabulary thing seemed so out of
place.
On the other hand, the respect that you earn from
me, should you care to know this, is a
natch above absolute zero.
"Furthermore I have no idea where you get the
notion that the liberals.... are or have in the past been the ones guilty of excessive civility and politeness. These traits are certainly not
characteristic of many of the specimens that I
am familiar with. As with any group, the anointed
ones tend to be models of chivalry within the
group and pretty much bastards to those outside
of it. You yourself seem to be quite an epitome
of this trait."
You certainly chose a silly little issue upon which to threaten to withdraw your respect from Brad. Can I surmise from what I copied that you personally are not a liberal, but are willing to tolerate liberals if they behave nicely?
Sullivan's beastliness is known to anyone who reads his work, or (as I do) reads the frequent egregious excerpts from it posted on the net. Brad (and most of us) have a history with the guy, so what Brad said wasn't starting from zero.
In my observations many conservatives are not themselves vicious, but are willing to flock to the defense of their vicious compatriots, well knowing that the success of the conservative project depends on the creeps. And many of them play a baiting game, waiting for incivility to get angry about about.
And then there are the weenie moderates (you?) who want the moderates to reform the world by sitting in their parloers and setting a good example ("higher standard") as they continue to lose. Hence the Stella metaphor.
Hey, don't feel bad. I know that if you could attain absolute zero, you would!
Posted by: Zizka on December 24, 2003 07:54 AMNorthernLights wrote:
So, what does fried Brad look like anyway? Any similarity to fry bread?
And what about Eisenhower anyway? Don't generals get any respect anymore?
Me responded:
They are not letting any MacArthurs or Pattons pass by any longer. Democracy prunes the type. Eisenhower has to live with democracy, then.
Me now revises response -- delete previous response:
Easy answer first: Please forgive my ignorance; I had somehow perceived Wesley to be the last name.
Concerning Brad, I think getting fried on this one (meaning he is getting vigorous critisizm from multiple sides) makes him look to me like an OK guy; because this means he can take critisizm pretty well. I do note your capacity for rhymes, however (fried Brad to fry bread) and I sure hope that "getting fried" does not have other meaning that I don't know of.
"You certainly chose a silly little issue upon which to threaten to withdraw your respect from Brad. Can I surmise from what I copied that you personally are not a liberal, but are willing to tolerate liberals if they behave nicely?"
I didn't threaten anything of the sort. Making
a critical note in passing is not the same as
withdrawing respect. And you can surmise whatever
is convenient for you. To indulge your curiosity,
I do not consider myself a liberal, although
I certainly have certain unhealthy leanings in
that direction and I am willing to tolerate
anyone who behaves nicely.
"Sullivan's beastliness is known to anyone who reads his work, or (as I do) reads the frequent egregious excerpts from it posted on the net."
I think this speaks for itself. In order to
earn the right to be critical one must
occasionally get dirty in order to know what
one's talking about. Egregerious excerpts are
a cheap shortcut to feeling smug, not much to
really base an opinion on.
" Brad (and most of us) have a history with the guy, so what Brad said wasn't starting from zero."
That's why I said that it seemed personal rather
trully warranted.
"In my observations many conservatives are not themselves vicious, but are willing to flock to the defense of their vicious compatriots, well knowing that the success of the conservative project depends on the creeps. And many of them play a baiting game, waiting for incivility to get angry about about. "
In my observations the exact same thing is true
of liberals. I think you're describing a general
human propensity, but your arrogance excludes
those whom you consider to be the courageous
bearers of truth from consideration.
"And then there are the weenie moderates (you?)"
Exactly. A spineless, wishy washy centrist
easily annoyed by firey eyed zealots on both
sides.
"who want the moderates to reform the world by sitting in their parloers and setting a good example ("higher standard") as they continue to lose. Hence the Stella metaphor."
I think by losing here you mean that the world
doesn't look like you would it like it to look,
but considering that we're not quite of the same
vision and our standards differ, from my
perspective I wouldn't call it losing.
Is anyone able to answer David's question?
"What would it have meant to offer France a 'right of first refusal' at that moment?"
Posted by: Michael S. on December 24, 2003 11:47 AMLosing means Bush being re-elected and Delay remaining majority leader. Something Brad and I greatly fear and Sullivan desires. And you too, perhaps.
Posted by: Zizka on December 24, 2003 08:40 PM