Do we miss "Crossfire"?

Five years ago this month, CNN hosted its final “Crossfire” episode at George Washington University. For those of you that don’t remember, or have made the conscience decision to block it from your memory, this relatively popular show pitted two political pundits (one from the left and the other from the right) against each other in what CNN called “debate.”

For 23 years this show fell pathetically short of actual policy debate. It took a comedian, albeit a highly intelligent and informed one, to call out the final hosts – Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson – for this lack of substance.

There were many interesting and funny parts of “Crossfire,” but unfortunately this show (while providing great drama) missed an incredible opportunity to actually educate the public on the differences between the right and the left. Instead we tuned in to see Tucker Carlson “eat a shoe” when Hillary Clinton sold a million copies of her autobiography “Living History.” Again, entertaining, but hardly good for democracy.

We don’t necessarily miss this high drama (well, maybe some of us do), but many of us miss the potential benefit of bringing together experts from the left and the right to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country and the world. Imagine how much more civil our discourse could be if we left out the possibility of scoring political points. Imagine how much more effective our policy would be if we actually listened to each other before deciding on a course of action.

Although it would make for less marketable TV, America needs an honest discussion of policy issues from true experts, not political strategists. If these people are one in the same, fine; but let’s not pretend political expertise is the same as policy proficiency.

We need experts talking with experts with different opinions and views. As Americans, committed to creating a more perfect union, we must not only demand an honest debate of the issues, but then tune in if or when it happens.

Constructive Criticism or Insubordination?

President Obama recently removed Gen. Stanley McChrystal from his post as commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan because ofdue to remarks he and he staff made about members of the Obama administration in a recent Rolling Stone feature. In the article, McChrystal and members of his staff made frank remarks of other members of the U.S. diplomatic team, including U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, National Security Advisor Jim Jones; the Vice President; and members of Congress. Much of the vitriol in their comments focus on how the various players involved in creating a lasting democracy in Afghanistan, at times, work against the interests of McChrystal’s Counter Insurgency (COIN) strategy.

While frank and at times disrespectful, I don’t find anything wrong with these public leaders expressing their opinions about their job, their colleagues, or the strategy they, and others, are implementing. I do have issue with the venue. Whether due to the masculine bravado that comes from being in the military or a larger sense of self-importance that may come from talking with a journalist from the music industry’s news source of record, I think McChrystal and his staff were a bit too frank with a journalist.

Then again, it may have been intentional. Their frustration with the success and criticism of COIN may have led them to be more direct in their criticism than normal. The challenge with the current situation in Afghanistan is the political politicians need to show results for a strategy in a public climate that demands immediate results. One of the key points communicated in the article is the importance of long-term and patient engagement with COIN. With a rise in violence and U.S. casualties in recent months, the political leaders and press have been critical of how effective the strategy is. However, long-term success in Afghanistan relies on committed patience to the implement the strategy rather than changing course when you don’t like short-term results. That criticism, combined with outright disagreement with the strategy by Eikenberry and Holbrooke, may have created an environment of frustration by McChrystal and his staff. I’m not a military strategist, so I can’t comment on whether COIN is the “right” strategy for Afghanistan. However, the President endorsed and committed to this strategy in December, and he has re-endorsed the strategy. As a result, all members of his leadership team need to help it succeed.

President Obama has worked to create a “no drama” White House, and this incident with McChrystal has created a fair amount of drama. But, this drama may have been made self-inflicted. The “Team of Rivals” approach to management provides a good approach in considering options. But when a strategy has been committed to, that the “Team of Rivals” must work together to make it happen.

Is Utah the New Standard?

A few weeks ago, three-term Utah Senator Bob Bennett was denied the opportunity to hold his party’s banner in the 2010 general election, which he would have undoubtedly carried to his fourth term in the upper chamber. Okay, fair enough. The GOP in Utah grew tired of his representation of them and, after 18 years, wanted change. That is understandable and it is democracy (other than the fact that the vote was only open to the people that participated in the convention).

But now, Utah’s senior Senator, Mr. Hatch is on the hot seat; popular Congressman Chaffetz is contemplating a run against him in the 2012 GOP primary. Although Senator Hatch is a consistent conservative, he is being watched closely by the new tea party activists in his state, who are apparently worried he might actually give Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan a fair hearing. This assumption is based on the fact that Senator Hatch was one of only seven Republicans to vote for her when she was the nominee for Solicitor General last year.

There are also many Utah Republicans who point to his record of working across the aisle as a sign of his betrayal – specifically his work and friendship with the late Ted Kennedy. As the argument goes, if he is working with ultraliberal Ted Kennedy, he cannot be representing ultraconservative Utah. Conversely, Utah conservatives are sure they can trust Rep. Chaffetz to never do something as daring and reprehensible as working with the other side. It’s simply not his style.

Elected in 1976, Hatch shares the honor of the longest serving Republican with Senator Lugar. In a democratic body that places heavy emphasis on seniority, this is a big deal, especially for the people he represents. Given his seniority, he can have his pick of just about any committee he wants to chair when his party comes back into power, which will enable him to deliver services that a freshman member simply can’t. That alone should be enough to overlook the “betrayal” of working with the other side one percent of the time. But it isn’t.

To be clear, the Utah Republicans are not the only group that has kicked an incumbent out of office for disagreeing with his/her party (see the Democrats in Connecticut circa 2006). Selecting a Congressman or Senator should be celebrated, regardless of who it is, because the simple act of declaring your preference is an important practice in democracy, and American democracy has been the envy of the world for centuries. However, if we want to retain this envy and enjoy having other countries look up to us, we need to encourage, not punish, elected officials that put policy and collaboration ahead of politics and polarization.

We need less partisanship and less polarization, not more. We need more honest and fair deliberation, not less. Let’s hope Utah’s recent behavior is the exception, not the new rule.