“The Griner-for-Bout deal exemplifies major flaws in the Biden ethos and that of the modern Democratic party: Lack of respect for military service (about which Sen. Tom Cotton has written an excellent new book); over-eagerness to please the celebrity culture (especially its African-American wing); failure to appreciate (or worry about) the long-term consequences of short-term, feel-good arrangements; and (most alarmingly) unwillingness to drive hard bargains with enemy leaders.”
That is a succinct summary of the rot within the modern Democrat Party.
However wicked various politicians and political movements have proven themselves to be, rushing to insinuate corrupt motives without evidence takes us one more step down a road that is tearing America apart. Naturally the thought occurred to me that Biden might have made Griner a priority because of celebrity culture and her race, but stating this so quickly and confidently is as misguided as attributing a black woman's success to preferences without evidence.
Then I read Allahpundit's take at The Dispatch:
"But I wonder if Moscow didn’t insist on excluding Whelan from a deal involving Griner simply to inflame cultural tensions in the U.S. ...On the other hand, if the president did what he eventually ended up doing, bringing Griner home while leaving Whelan behind temporarily, he’d end up taking cultural flak from the right. Offering Griner while holding back Whelan was probably the Russians’ way of teeing up American conservatives to complain that our woke Democratic administration values the life of a famous gay black woman more than it does the life of a white man who served this country in the Marines."
I don't think it's wicked or corrupt for a public figure to prioritize the concerns of his base. Public figures do this all the time. However, it's not the best way to make policy decisions, and in this case it led to a bad one, in my view.
What's the evidence that Team Biden prioritized the release of Griner to satisfy a core constituency? First, the Hollywood-sports-celebrity gang is a core constituency. Second, it clamored incessantly for Griner's release. Third, Biden entered into a one-sided deal to secure her release -- one that left Whelan, who is of no concern to a core Biden constituency, behind.
It's possible that Biden had some motive for making this bad deal other than pleasing a core constituency, but I don't know what that motive would be. It's possible, I suppose, that Biden thinks the deal was a good one. But I don't see how he could reach that conclusion independently of his desire to please his supporters.
Allapundit's take is interesting, but highly speculative. I think it reflects what he obsesses over -- how "the right" reacts -- rather than what Putin does. Putin has greater concerns than riling up American conservatives.
More generally, maybe it's time, after the events of this year, to stop viewing Putin as a mastermind -- an evil genius. Evil, yes. Genius, no.
“The Griner-for-Bout deal exemplifies major flaws in the Biden ethos and that of the modern Democratic party: Lack of respect for military service (about which Sen. Tom Cotton has written an excellent new book); over-eagerness to please the celebrity culture (especially its African-American wing); failure to appreciate (or worry about) the long-term consequences of short-term, feel-good arrangements; and (most alarmingly) unwillingness to drive hard bargains with enemy leaders.”
That is a succinct summary of the rot within the modern Democrat Party.
However wicked various politicians and political movements have proven themselves to be, rushing to insinuate corrupt motives without evidence takes us one more step down a road that is tearing America apart. Naturally the thought occurred to me that Biden might have made Griner a priority because of celebrity culture and her race, but stating this so quickly and confidently is as misguided as attributing a black woman's success to preferences without evidence.
Then I read Allahpundit's take at The Dispatch:
"But I wonder if Moscow didn’t insist on excluding Whelan from a deal involving Griner simply to inflame cultural tensions in the U.S. ...On the other hand, if the president did what he eventually ended up doing, bringing Griner home while leaving Whelan behind temporarily, he’d end up taking cultural flak from the right. Offering Griner while holding back Whelan was probably the Russians’ way of teeing up American conservatives to complain that our woke Democratic administration values the life of a famous gay black woman more than it does the life of a white man who served this country in the Marines."
I don't think it's wicked or corrupt for a public figure to prioritize the concerns of his base. Public figures do this all the time. However, it's not the best way to make policy decisions, and in this case it led to a bad one, in my view.
What's the evidence that Team Biden prioritized the release of Griner to satisfy a core constituency? First, the Hollywood-sports-celebrity gang is a core constituency. Second, it clamored incessantly for Griner's release. Third, Biden entered into a one-sided deal to secure her release -- one that left Whelan, who is of no concern to a core Biden constituency, behind.
It's possible that Biden had some motive for making this bad deal other than pleasing a core constituency, but I don't know what that motive would be. It's possible, I suppose, that Biden thinks the deal was a good one. But I don't see how he could reach that conclusion independently of his desire to please his supporters.
Allapundit's take is interesting, but highly speculative. I think it reflects what he obsesses over -- how "the right" reacts -- rather than what Putin does. Putin has greater concerns than riling up American conservatives.
More generally, maybe it's time, after the events of this year, to stop viewing Putin as a mastermind -- an evil genius. Evil, yes. Genius, no.
Excellent post.
Makes me wonder if Biden was the brains behind Obama's Bowe Bergdahl swap.