Yesterday, The Note mentioned the revelations that Rudy Giuliani was effectively forced to quit the Iraq Study Group, but downplayed the significance of the story. As far as the political world was concerned, The Note said, the disclosure “land[ed] with a thud.”
I’m not quite sure what that means. The media blew off an important story for unclear reasons. The “thud” isn’t the story landing on unconcerned reporters’ desks; the “thud” should be the credibility of the political press corps taking yet another hit.
Taking another look at the story, one of the nagging questions is why, exactly, Giuliani chose money over public service on the most pressing issue of our time. The only explanation that is easily ruled out is the one Giuliani has offered — he was thinking about running for president. (On March 15, 2006, a reporter asked James Baker if Giuliani’s presidential bid would undermine the ISG’s credibility. Baker said, “I don’t think that’s going to affect the quality of his service on the Commission.’)
It seems to me there are two principal explanations for what happened: 1) Giuliani didn’t realize the ISG planned to do real foreign-policy work, so he bailed out of a combination of laziness and ignorance; or 2) Giuliani valued lucrative pay days over shaping war policy alternatives.
Slate’s Fred Kaplan makes a strong case for the latter.
Baker gave Giuliani an ultimatum: Start showing up for sessions, or quit. On May 24, he quit, noting in a letter (provided to Gordon) that prior commitments prevented him from giving the panel his “full and active participation.” … Meanwhile, Giuliani was raking in exorbitant speaking fees around this time — according to Gordon, $11.4 million in the course of 14 months, $1.7 million for 20 speeches during the monthlong period that coincided with the Baker-Hamilton sessions.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I doubt that I would have forgone six figures of easy income for the privilege of yakking about Iraq with a roomful of graybeards all day long. Then again, I wasn’t about to run for president — the highest office of public service — on a resume bereft of a single foreign-policy credential.
Rudy’s choice — to go for the money — speaks proverbial volumes about his priorities…. [G]iven a chance to elevate his standing, serve the country, and get educated on the nation’s most pressing issue — Rudy went for the money.
But Giuliani’s priorities aren’t the only problem here. Kaplan went on to explain that Giuliani is … how does one put this gently … something of a buffoon when it comes to foreign policy.
The fact is, Giuliani has no idea what he’s talking about. On the campaign trail he says that the terrorist threat “is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.” As the mayor of New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, he may have lived more intimately with the consequences of terrorism, but this has no bearing on his inexperience or his scant insight in the realm of foreign policy. He is, in fact, that most dangerous would-be world leader: a man who doesn’t seem to know how much he doesn’t know.
Well said. Indeed, we’ve had a certain occupant of the Oval Office who suffers from exactly the same condition for the last eight years — and it has not served anyone’s interests well (except, perhaps, America’s enemies).
Better yet, Kevin Drum notes there’s even a clinical name for this phenomenon: the Dunning-Kruger Effect. “Dunning and Kruger, in a famous series of tests, found that ‘Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.’ Also: ‘They will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it — be it their own or anyone else’s.'”
As for Giuliani, Kaplan concluded, “His shrugged blow-off of Baker-Hamilton offers a glimpse at the darker side of America’s Mayor: that he’s in it not for the country, but for himself.” Let’s hope this realization doesn’t land with a “thud” in the national media.