Andrew Sullivan calls our attention to this essay by John C. Hulsman and A. Wess Mitchell which attempts to view our current politics through the prism of “The Godfather.” While this is of course a noble exercise since “The Godfather” can shed light on all areas of human endeavor, the authors are sadly clueless.

In the authors’ scheme, Tom Hagen “shares a number of philosophical similarities with the liberal institutionalism that dominates the foreign-policy outlook of today’s Democratic Party.” (See? Liberals can make even “The Godfather” boring!) Firebrand Sonny Corleone, meanwhile, is the neocon: “One can imagine that Sonny’s shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach would meet with the firm approval of arch-neoconservatives such as Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen, given their stance on how to deal with Iran.”

Michael Corleone is of course the ideal. The authors write, “In today’s foreign-policy terminology, Michael is a realist.” Left unsaid is who represents Fredo. I’m guessing Howard Dean. I’m also guessing that Moe Green is Bill Clinton, lecturing Obama on how he was making his bones while Obama was dating cheerleaders and later bragging to Obama how he had cut a deal with the super delegates, only to have things end rather poorly for him.

You don’t have to parse the essay very closely to discern the authors’ political biases. The crack at the neocons is especially risible. Far from rashly shooting first and asking questions later, people like Norman Podhoretz and Michael Ledeen have spent lifetimes studying foreign affairs. One can disagree with their approach and their conclusions, but to argue that foreign policy for them is anything other than just business and nothing personal is ludicrous. Sonny responded to all provocations viscerally, a well known habit that made the fatal tollbooth ambush of him a reality. Neocons tend to gravitate to a more cerebral decision making process.

Still more ludicrous is lumping in Michael Corleone with the realists. Realists are guys like Warren Christopher, fellows who are forever constricting the definition of what can and what cannot be done. Can you imagine Warren Christopher pining for a meeting with the Turk and Captain McCluskey where he would go into the men’s room, find a hidden gun and then use said gun to – bada-bing! – blow the men’s brains all over his nice Ivy League suit? Even the trigger happy family neocon (Sonny) found that plan ridiculous at first. Or can you imagine Warren Christopher coming up with a plan so audacious that he would settle Christopher family business with all five of New York’s families on one blood-splattered Sunday morning so he could then peaceably consolidate power on the far more lucrative playing fields of Vegas?

In his blog post on the matter, Andrew Sullivan speculates, “I don't know whether Obama fits more the ‘liberal institutionalist’ role or the realist, more Tom or Michael. I'm hoping for a Niebuhrian fusion (Ed. Note – There they go making “The Godfather" boring again!), with the emphasis on Michael's cunning. As I said: hoping.”

Obama acting decisively and cunningly like Michael Corleone? Ah yes, there it is in bright blogging lights – the audacity of hope.