Stake. Out.

Your Humble Blogger can’t remember which particular links led to Dana Milbank’s Washington Post column Retreating to Small Talk When the News Isn't So Good, in which he observes that in a press conference on Wednesday, Our Only President mentioned the stakes thirteen times. The transcript makes it clear that this is a Talking Point, one of those phrases that his Party wants to drum into us all: the stakes are high. Here’s a list, culled from that transcript:

• I'm pleased that the nations in the region are making clear to North Korea what is at stake.
• “The enemy is doing everything within its power to destroy the government and to drive us out of the Middle East, starting with driving us out of Iraq before the mission is done. The stakes are high. As a matter of fact, they couldn't be higher. If we were to abandon that country before the Iraqis can defend their young democracy the terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America.”
• “The stakes couldn't be any higher, as I said earlier, in the world in which we live. There are extreme elements that use religion to achieve objectives.”
• “Our policy is to help this country succeed, because I understand the stakes. I'm going to repeat them one more time. As a matter of fact, I'm going to spend a lot of time repeating the stakes about what life is like in the Middle East.”
• “And my vow to the American people is I understand the stakes, and I understand what it would mean for us to leave before the job is done. And I look forward to listening how -- what Jimmy Baker and Lee Hamilton say about how to get the job -- I appreciate them working on this issue because I think they understand what I know, and the stakes are high.

  And the stakes are high when it comes to developing a Palestinian state so that Israel can live at peace. And the stakes are high when it comes to making sure the young democracy of Lebanon is able to fend off the extremists and radicals that want to crater that democracy.”

• “Jim, I understand how hard it is. And I also understand the stakes.”
• “I know this sounds -- I'm just saying it over and over again, but it's -- rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe, Mike, that that is the best strategy to solve the problem.”
• “But the stakes are high if we were to leave [Iraq]. It means that we would hand over a part of the region to extremists and radicals who would glorify a victory over the United States, and use it to become -- use it to recruit. It would give these people a chance to plot and plan and attack. It would give them resources from which to continue their efforts to spread their caliphate. The stakes are really high.”

The astonishing thing about this theme, to me, is that I have no idea what the stakes actually are. When other nations make it clear to North Korea what’s at stake—can they make it clear to me, too? Because honestly, I have no idea what the stakes are. Yes, it’s bad that they have Da Bomb, but not much worse than India, Pakistan and Israel having it. What were the stakes in Pakistan? What does North Korea stand to lose? None of it is clear to me. And then in Iraq—what Our Only President says is at stake is an extended and powerful “caliphate”. So what? Why do we care if there’s a big old caliphate in the Middle East and the Arabian peninsula? I mean, I care, because I don’t really like despotism and I think living conditions would be worse under a caliphate than under a good, secular and democratic government, but then why does it matter what I like? And that’s ignoring the preposterous claim itself, as if there was a Caliph who has some chance of claiming the loyalty of the majority of Islamic countries.

But, you know, if Our Only President wants claim that these things really do constitute high stakes, he has to do more than just claim it. He has to persuade us. He has to back up his claim with something more than vague bad stuff might happen. More specifically:

“It is conceivable that there will be a world in which radical forms, extreme forms of religion fight each other for influence in the Middle East, in which they've got the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon. And when you throw in the mix a nuclear weapon in the hands of a sworn enemy of the United States, you begin to see an environment that would cause some later on in history to look back and say, how come they couldn't see the problem?”

In other words, the stakes are generally increased instability. And a bad rep in history classes. This is not making it clear what the stakes are, this is what Harry G. Frankfurt would call bullshit.

So. I suspect, Gentle Reader, that if you live in an area with a closely watched election, and surprisingly many of us do this time around, you will hear a lot about the stakes over the next four weeks. If you get a chance, ask the person blathering about it—Democrat or Republican or whatever—what those stakes actually are, and how we know they’re high.

chazak, chazak, v’nitchazek,
-Vardibidian.