Rubio and the Twitter Mentality

 

I haven’t been listening to any of the confirmation hearings, and I’ve only got a moment to give a quick opinion, but it’s one that has been irritating me for about an hour now. I heard a question that was asked by Marco Rubio to Rex Tillerson; it was played by @andrewklavan on his podcast this morning.

The question asked, essentially: “Is Putin a war criminal?”

What an amazingly absurd question. I’m not just ashamed of Rubio for asking such a stupid question, I’m ashamed at him for playing along with the popular demand for low-information knee-jerk Twitter condemnations or praises. On the one hand, it makes me think that this disposition would be terrible in a president (and, at one point, I supported Rubio); on the other hand, it is the disposition of our actual president-Elect.

So what is he expecting as a response? Does he seriously want for our Secretary of State to start throwing out inflammatory language and condemnations based on news reports before ever taking office? How many bridges would he like to see burned right at the outset? Does he think that a person who would give that question a full-throated “yes! He’s a war criminal, may he burn in hell, and we should try him immediately!!” would make for a good Secretary of State?

Vladimir Putin is a thug. He may even be a murderer. He is essentially a dictator, and it may very well be that he is a war criminal. I can say these things. But I’m not the flippin’ Secretary of State! I don’t have to recognize the legitimacy of his regime and actually go to work representing my country globally. Tillerson’s answer was perfectly appropriate, though perhaps not as indignant as mine would have been (any wonder I’m not on anyone’s list for … um … well … anything?). He said that there’s a lot of information out there. Absolutely. He said that there is a lot of public information out there, a lot of classified information out there. He didn’t say — over Rubio’s childish talking-over of his answer — that it would be foolish for a Secretary of State to go around throwing out statements like that unless he had a pretty darned good reason to do so. He didn’t mention that blasting insults on Twitter or that launching hashtag #bringbackourgirls campaigns may be all well and good for virtue signaling, but have not yet proven an effective foreign policy tactic. He didn’t discuss the fact that there are many ways to deal with a war criminal, especially when you’re in a position of power, and that beating your chest in confirmation hearings is but one strategy … and possibly not the best.

These hearings have become a sort of joke. They are designed for soundbites and 140 character duels of (somewhat limited) wit. They are good for memes and Facebook posts to gin up, over issues we don’t care about nearly enough to understand or even inform ourselves about, an anger so temporary that we can’t be bothered to pause the scrolling of the page long enough to do anything more than type in our own 140 characters of tribal affiliation.

That may work fine for a candidate who needed to run a celebrity campaign. It may work fine for a president who needs to circumvent a hostile media. But if that becomes the primary tactic of American politics, we haven’t just solidified ourselves as the stupid party, we’ve chosen for our country the path of knee-jerk emotional blinks, which exist for as long as the battery charge on our phones until the next fake outrage comes along to distract us from the hard work of living our actual lives.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 276 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I agree with every word of this.

    Marco Rubio, you have so much potential. Please grow up a little faster.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    This sounds like leftover anger from the Presidential debates. Marco, it’s time–really time–to get over it and move on.

    I can’t figure out otherwise who Rubio is representing? The Left? Disgruntled conservatives? This is one time, with all the flack that Trump and some of his nominees are taking, to protest when it’s truly called for–not over old grievances. Nice post, Ryan.

    • #2
  3. Sweezle Inactive
    Sweezle
    @Sweezle

    Marco Rubio was embarrassing today.

    • #3
  4. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    Ryan M(cPherson): So what is he expecting as a response? Does he seriously want for our Secretary of State to start throwing out inflammatory language and condemnations based on news reports before ever taking office? How many bridges would he like to see burned right at the outset? Does he think that a person who would give that question a full-throated “yes! He’s a war criminal, may he burn in hell, and we should try him immediately!!” would make for a good Secretary of State?

    Perhaps this is also an indication of his lack of depth (an issue in the campaign). Didn’t see the session but I assume this was easily handled by Tillerson.

    It is a bit on the line of “have you stopped beating your wife”.

     

    • #4
  5. Vectorman Inactive
    Vectorman
    @Vectorman

    Rubio continues to disappoint. I thought he would easily beat Hillary, and be better than Jeb!

    I don’t think he is truly independent, and believe someone is telling him what to do and say.

    • #5
  6. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Bill Nelson (View Comment):
    It is a bit on the line of “have you stopped beating your wife.”

    I agree. It is reminiscent of the Bork-Kennedy hearings.

    • #6
  7. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    What a maroon!

     

    • #7
  8. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    So what did the would be Secretary say? From his responses what do we know about his opinion of Putin and his Russia? Or did he just doge, and say noncommittal things?

    • #8
  9. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    So what did the would be Secretary say? From his responses what do we know about his opinion of Putin and his Russia? Or did he just doge, and say noncommittal things?

    Mr. Tillerson said he would have to see the evidence after Sen. Rubio elaborated on Putins military orders vis-a-vis civilian bombings in Aleppo and actions in Grozny, but that’s not relevant to this thread. We are here to beat up on the child Rubio.

    • #9
  10. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Paul Dougherty (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    So what did the would be Secretary say? From his responses what do we know about his opinion of Putin and his Russia? Or did he just doge, and say noncommittal things?

    Mr. Tillerson said he would have to see the evidence after Sen. Rubio elaborated on Putins military orders vis-a-vis civilian bombings in Aleppo and actions in Grozny, but that’s not relevant to this thread. We are here to beat up on the child Rubio.

    I like Rubio. But I think he should have taken the time (and maturity) to word his query with specifics the way you have here. :)

    • #10
  11. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Agreed.

    • #11
  12. skipsul Inactive
    skipsul
    @skipsul

    Well said!

    • #12
  13. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    While I agree with Rubio’s less than stellar mode of asking the question, I also found Tillerson’s answer whole inadequate.

    • #13
  14. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    While I agree with Rubio’s less than stellar mode of asking the question, I also found Tillerson’s answer whole inadequate.

    I didn’t make it clear, but that also motivated my post. He needed to give a clearer answer, calling out the stupidity of the question, but also displaying a level-headed type of leadership and wisdom in approaching these questions of foreign policy.

    • #14
  15. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    I’d say it was a legitimate question.

    • #15
  16. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Meh.

    First of all, the only point of these things is to see how they handle this sort of question. He asked, he answered. So what?

    Second, anyone who watches and/or reads about these things is the problem with America. The high-information voter.

    Reality is better than this stuff. Watch it.

    • #16
  17. Paul Dougherty Member
    Paul Dougherty
    @PaulDougherty

    Or, it could be that in a era of ridiculous ambiguity about Putin’s stature in the global community, the position of at least one senator on the foreign relations committee is clear. Forgive my naivety.

    • #17
  18. TKC1101 Member
    TKC1101
    @

    Looks like Marco never left the Gang of 8. He is playing with the McCain- Graham -Collins-Schumer wing.

     

    • #18
  19. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    A better way to phrase the question: “What do you think is the most effective strategy for dealing with war criminals like Vladimir Putin?”

    • #19
  20. Sweezle Inactive
    Sweezle
    @Sweezle

    OMG. Rubio came back to the Hearing to “explain” himself. A massive fail. Humiliating.

    • #20
  21. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    anonymous (View Comment):
    What is the upside of this question?

    What’s the downside?

    • #21
  22. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    I think Marco Rubio knows exactly who Putin is. The question was asked to determine if Tillerson knows who Putin is. Mr. Tillerson didn’t have to call Mr. Putin a war criminal, but after eight years of  Obama, Clinton, and Kerry my expectations of Mr. Tillerson are fairly low when it come to Russia.

    • #22
  23. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    I’d say it was a legitimate question

    Sure it is a good question. However, as the post correctly pointed out, a confirmation hearing is not the correct place to ask it. A secretary of state should not say things that set foreign policy positions without intention.

    I agree with the author.

    Also, I dislike the idea of using “war crimes” in international politics as Rubio seemed to be pointing to.

    If you ask the question of Putin, should you also ask the question about Obama? Drone strikes and collateral damage anyone? Military actions without the declaration of war?

    What does “war crimes” actually mean? We all have things that we would consider immoral even in war. But a “war crime” means something more specific. One would first need to specify what the convention is that the individual or country has violated. A “crime” implies a law that has been broken. In this case, that would be international treaties.

    Therefore, what Rubio actually was asking was for Tillerson to do was to be the judge and jury of Russian actions (and executioner due to what his position and power would be as sec. state).

    For all the reasons above, bad Rubio.

     

    • #23
  24. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    I’d say it was a legitimate question.

    I absolutely agree that it was a legitimate point.  As I mentioned in my post, Vladdy (as Obama might call him) Putin may very well be all of those things, and worse.  I don’t support him in any way.

    But it was an ill-conceived and foolishly worded gotcha-question.

     

    • #24
  25. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    TKC1101 (View Comment):
    Looks like Marco never left the Gang of 8. He is playing with the McCain- Graham -Collins-Schumer wing.

    I sincerely hope not.  As Doug Watt points out, the question may very well have a legitimate basis in fact.  But you are absolutely right that Rubio is playing the same game as those 4 you mention, and if he is going to continue helping Republicans in the Senate, he needs to develop a stronger personality that is his own.  If he is able to do that, I certainly won’t hold this (or gang of 8) against him, but it is something he needs to do sooner rather than later.

    • #25
  26. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    A better way to phrase the question: “What do you think is the most effective strategy for dealing with war criminals like Vladimir Putin?”

    Actually, I completely agree with this.  If he must ask the question at all.  He gets the virtue signaling and the sound-bite, but he also accepts the reality that a secretary-of-state must operate in the real world.  We’ve already seen (over the last 8 years) that the real world doesn’t respond to soundbites and hashtags quite as strongly as our local college campuses do…

    • #26
  27. Casey Inactive
    Casey
    @Casey

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    it was an ill-conceived and foolishly worded gotcha-question.

    But that’s the whole point of these nonsense hearings so why feel anything about it?

    • #27
  28. James Of England Inactive
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Is there any historical figure that you consider to have accurately been labeled a war criminal and that you feel it would have been appropriate for a Sec. State to have condemned as such? At what point did they become that? When, for instance, did Hitler become someone who could sensibly be labeled a war criminal, or did that point not arrive?

    • #28
  29. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    I’d say it was a legitimate question.

    It’s all Putins fault eh?

    Not oh, the last 6 years of war in Syria?

    • #29
  30. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Casey (View Comment):

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    it was an ill-conceived and foolishly worded gotcha-question.

    But that’s the whole point of these nonsense hearings so why feel anything about it?

    True enough.  But I don’t expect Republicans to be playing this game in the way that Democrats do.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.