The New York Times’s Peter Baker reports — with plenty of fawning quotes from foreign policy establishment types — that there is an Obama Doctrine emerging. He explains it this way:
If there is an Obama doctrine emerging, it is one much more realpolitik than his predecessor’s, focused on relations with traditional great powers and relegating issues like human rights and democracy to second-tier concerns. He has generated much more good will around the world after years of tension with Mr. Bush, and yet he does not seem to have strong personal friendships with many world leaders.
Perhaps it’s appropriate that Baker never describes the purpose of Obama’s ditching of human rights or the values that underlie his focus on the “traditional great powers” (which presumably does not include the Brits, whom we’ve continually insulted). He describes what Obama is doing but is curiously silent about Obama’s vision of the world and America’s role in it. This isn’t Baker’s fault, of course; Obama has yet to articulate a coherent outlook and has alternated between contempt for American “triumphalism” and a more traditional defense of American power and values (at Oslo, for example). Baker does correctly perceive that human rights and democracy have been shoved under the bus (although “second-tier” is overly generous considering the Obami’s track record on these issues).
But is it “realpolitik” to ignore or pick fights with allies? To imagine that paper agreements will induce despots to give up their nukes? To sign a START treaty that hasn’t a ghost of a chance of ratification and to disclaim use of nuclear retaliation in the case of a biological or chemical attack? To pare down our own defense budget and cut spending on missile defense? All this seems to be out of the Left’s 1970′s playbook rather than the stuff of hard-headed realism, given the conduct and nature of the regimes we face. And for realpolitik players, they seem to lack the ability to size up their opponents and discern that unilateral gestures are a hindrance rather than a help (e.g. Syria).
At times the sympathetic foreign policy gurus from whom Baker solicits input have difficulty trying to come up with compliments. Richard Haass (who now favors regime change in Iran, something Obama clearly does not) manages this on Obama’s efforts to date: “These are not transformational developments … but in foreign policy it’s important to keep the ball moving down the field in the right direction, and that’s what’s happening.” On Iran? On the Middle East?
The Obama foreign policy is a hodge-podge of bad ideas (multilateralism, American un-exceptionalism, disdain for human rights) incompetently executed. It is, moreover, one that refuses to confront in a serious way the greatest challenge we face — a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state that is replacing the U.S.-Israel alliance as the dominant player in the Middle East. No matter how hard the Gray Lady tries, one is hard pressed to find a coherent, effective, and principled foreign policy coming out of this administration.
Right on, Abe ! But please dont even dare to say such obvious things – you’d be accused of being a racist who called Obama an “uppity” by using the new “code word” – condescension !!
Heck, i think he is an “uppity”. I dont mind being called racist if it satisfies Barack Obama supporters. But this is one arrogant man who is arrogance is only matched by his ignorance on practically any major policy issue of the day from economics to national security.
But then again, this preachiness is common to any liberal – he/she “knows” more than you do about every thing you need to do in your own damed life. The world is a jungle full of ravenous capitalist predators/wolves and we the helpless need to be “saved”. The One will do just that.
I doubt if we will see another Obamamock ad from the McCain campaign – but the ads produced this week brought forth what needed to be said about his messianic arrogance and general insufferability. No wonder he is now tied in the polls now !
McCain needs to press his advantage by showing how a cult like figure is seriously wrong on energy issues (whether it is drilling/ nuclear fuel/ subsidizing ethanol which has only contributed to inflation of food prices). He needs to hit Obama hard on that 300Mil atrocious subsidy to the agricultural lobby which does nothing but to continue wasting more money on this ethanol farce.
What I want to know is why I have to be subjected to CNN in every damn airport in this country. Who’s making that choice? And does this mean that if Obama wins, the troops will have to watch CNN too?
Obama is just so weird. I bet at least 5 out of 10 Americans know exactly why the troops prefer to keep their workcenter TVs tuned to Fox: the extremely high incidence, on Fox, of blonde female newscasters. I don’t know that even that attraction would overcome an uncongenial political atmosphere at Fox. But it does make viewers less likely to seek other channels out of boredom, since after all, most of the 24 hours of cable news is spent reiterating the same stories.
That Obama doesn’t understand the protocol of workcenter TV for the military is also, frankly, informative. The idea that the Commander in Chief dictates what airs in military workcenters is hilarious. Unit commanders set general standards like “the news will be on except when you’ve arranged with the senior NCO to watch a football game, or if I say otherwise for some reason.” (In watch centers, the primary purpose of having a TV is to tune in to the 24-hour news.)
Commanders and subordinate troop leaders intervene in channel selection, for the most part, as rarely as possible. Troops have choices between AFN programming and, these days, satellite subscription offerings (which is the only way to watch Fox News Channel 24/7; AFN rotates constantly among the major news channels). Units, especially larger ones, also have movie libraries, which are refreshed often with the newest titles. And troops get movies and the complete seasons of popular shows sent to them from home, often arranging to watch them together in groups, sometimes in the workcenter, if work permits.
If junior officers — far less the Commander in Chief — have to do more than give the general direction to “keep the news on most of the time, and be responsible,” there’s something wrong. NCOs, and watch center leaders, handle the management of this combined alertment requirement and privilege. The Commander in Chief would probably cock a critical eyebrow at the news that the troops were watching “South Park” during a major terrorist attack, but other than that, he has about as much to do with workcenter TV in the military as, well, a rat’s ass.
You are so right J.E.!! I never thought about it before, but when I turn on Fox News in the mornings (I miss Fox & Friends because I am on the West Coast) the first thing I see is Bill Hemmer and the blonde with the long legs (lots of full-length shots of her, and she ain’t ever wearing long skirts)! BO just shows his ignorance and condescension, and also, a lack of interest in understanding anyone whose values/interests might differ from his. This, despite supposedly being raised in part by a “typical white person” (his grandmother). But then, he’s spent most of his adult life in the company of liberal elites (Harvard, etc), and pursuing special-interest politics (as reported recently by Stanley Kurtz) as a means to advance his political career.
I completely agree but I feel it is much more general than Obama. Take Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” for instance. It makes the great argument (aside from Fascism being a leftist cause) that this kind of government is totalitarian… the government is the answer for everything, the government will save you from your own bad decisions (by taking them away). It is the belief that human nature can be legislated away.
One of the objections to democracy raised by philosophers in the seventeenth century was that it would be only a matter of time before such a system would prove to be a vehicle for the strong or clever to dominate the weak and ignorant, and therefore an absolute monarchy or dictatorship would be preferable. I feel that Obama’s attitude of “looking out for the stupid” is a legitimate issue, for its consideration throws the arguments of the totalitarians into dust.
Obama obviously thinks all Americans are as gullible, pessimistic and immature as leftists. He’s going to get a wake up call in November–not that he’ll understand it.
Another Greenwald bullseye.
Obama intends to take care of America. to save people from their their foolishness, their sloth, their incompetence.
Michelle told us, Barack “will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage.”
In Obama’s America politicians make people work, engage, be better. As he said in his Iowa victory speech, “We are going to change America, fundamentally.”
There are moments when I think an Obama victory would serve the nation well. Obama is just the fellow to give it a taste of liberal governance. The experience would destroy the Democratic Left for good; at any hand shrink it to an insignificant rump.