Anyone remember Martin, Barton, and Fish?
They were the trio that Franklin Roosevelt ridiculed for their somersaults over war preparation in 1940.
Now, as Maureen Dowd reports, there’s a new version of ‘Wynken, Blynken, and Nod’.
There are two more where they came from. Talleyrand won’t name names, but suffice it to say that neither is as catchy; both sound rather like a grade-b firm of ambulance chasers. Each speaks glibly to itself about the other (foreigners don’t get a vote in this election). Their positions are unoriginal yet popular. They are as follows:
War is coming/War is avoidable.
Wars are prevented by scaring the enemy/Wars are prevented by not exciting the enemy.
Wars are started by opportunists/Wars are started by the wicked.
Jus ad bellum and jus in bello matter/War is illegal.
Wars are won by having strong allies/Wars are won by allies standing on their own.
Wars end by superior force/Wars end by disarmament.
Wars may spread/Wars may be contained.
The state must prepare for war/War is the health of the state.
War is international/Peace is national.
War is indivisible/Peace is divisible.
Peace is invented/Peace is the natural state of affairs.
Peace is won by force/Peace is won by persuasion.
Peace is lost by abnegation/Peace is lost by over-extension.
Peace and war are humanity’s burden/Peace or war is humanity’s choice.
You’ll get yours/I got mine.
Members of each trio follow the traditional formula for ‘making it’: simplify and exaggerate; invoke the cause of ‘realism’; repeat a version of their main idea as often as possible; never turn down an invitation; write and promote ‘The Book’.
There are also significant differences. Though members of both trios hail from the Ivory Tower, the first have professional degrees and credentials after (brief) government service, whilst the other have remained in the Ivory Tower, if not in deed then certainly in mind. The first trio seek power. The other trio seek praise.
So, which one do you think will get its wish?