Past is prologue, or The Passion of Samantha Power
In June 2013, thirteen years ago, President Obama nominated Samantha Power to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations. During her Senate hearings, Power was grilled by Marco Rubio, then serving as Republican senator from Florida, about an article she had written many years earlier in The New Republic, suggesting that the United States should take stock of its history and acknowledge with humility some of the mischief it had made in the world.
The following exchange ensued. Which makes for some grim reading today, when people wonder how the US got into the mess it has gotten into under Trump in Iran. Reading Power’s words, knowing who became Rubio became, it all seems there, in black and white, in every word and sentence of their mutually shared assumptions, which are entirely Trumpist.
SEN. RUBIO: “Which ones [crimes] did the United States commit or sponsor, that you were referring to?
MS. POWER: Again, sir, I think this is the greatest country on Earth. I — we have nothing to apologize for.
SEN. RUBIO: OK. So you don’t have any in mind, now, that we’ve committed or sponsored?
MS. POWER: I will not apologize for America. I will stand very proudly, if confirmed, behind the U.S. placard.
SEN. RUBIO: No, I understand. But do you believe the United States has committed or sponsored crimes?
MS. POWER: I believe the United States is the greatest country on Earth, I really do. (Chuckles.)
SEN. RUBIO: Well, that’s — so your answer to whether we’ve committed or sponsored crimes is that the United States is the greatest country on Earth.
Discover more from Corey Robin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
9 Comments
-
Daniel Edelstein
Isn’t this also, among other things, what happens in a two party democracy where politicians worry (and have to worry) about what the average voter thinks? One of many reasons why proportional representation is better, left parties can be honest and still survive, and possibly eventually convince people.
-
I strongly agree that proportional representation would be preferable.
Gore Vidal: “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party… and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat.”
-
-
David Bloom
I don’t read it that way. It’s awful, but I don’t think Power is “sharing” Rubio’s assumptions. I think she’s simply hiding from the question. She’s got answers in mind–she shows it with the examples of the Rwanda genocide and the horrors of Abu Ghraib, and basically lying when Rubio brings up another with her 2008 reference to “imagined crises” in Iran https://time.com/archive/6683486/rethinking-iran/, but she’s simply refusing to answer the questions because she won’t get confirmed if she answers them honestly. She’s reinforcing the assumptions, and it’s a disgrace on her and the whole setup, but it reminds me more of Trump nominees using set phrases to refuse to answer the question whether Biden won the 2020 election. Like them, she has a secret answer she’s afraid to give.
-
TheRick
Grim indeed, however when I read that exchange my intuition tells me that Samantha Power’s answers reflect what she believes she needs to say to be confirmed, not what she believes with respect to crimes sponsored by the United States. I take it you disagree.
-
I’m no Hegelian, but when presented by the Zeitgeist with a nasty thesis, even an armed and vicious one, I marvel that anyone familiar with history’s atrocities could ever think it wise to forego advancing an antithesis, even at some considerable personal peril.
-
For some reason the image of Tulsi Gabbard just flashed before my eyes
-
-
Mikey78
So any words are justified as long as the speaker is trying to get a job or get elected? Which means we can’t hold anyone accountable for what they say because we –the listeners– can never be sure what ulterior motivations any speaker has.
-
Justified? Hell no, it’s a wicked Faustian bargain. Everyone loses.
-
-
-
Glenn
Greatest in the same sense as the Great White Shark.
