Re: He Needs to Be There
- 10.19.2009 - 9:44 AMRick, for the reasons you enumerate, it is almost unimaginable that Obama has chosen to absent himself from the Berlin Wall commemoration. It is disappointing — and telling — considering how much he has relied on presidential presence as a tool of foreign policy.
Recall his heartfelt desire to travel to the “Muslim World” as part of his Middle East outreach and embrace of the Palestinian-ized view of history (e.g., enslaved victimhood, Israel’s legitimacy rests on the Holocaust). However objectionable and counterproductive the strategy, he well understood the symbolism of a presidential appearance.
So too at the UN Security Council, where he became the first American president to chair the proceedings. His message again was clear — multilateralism is swell, the U.S. takes the UN very seriously, and our aim is to integrate America into that “international community,” whose institutions have become our institutions and whose goals (global warming, international wealth redistribution) have become ours.
And think of the other high- and low-lights of Obama’s travels — sitting through Daniel Ortega’s rant and grinning with Hugo Chavez and bowing before the Saudi king spring to mind. The message — and his presence, his physical posture, in fact — conveyed his intentions: to humble America, reduce its status, bolster those who have been hostile to the U.S., and endear ourselves to those most antagonistic toward Israel.
So, Rick, the decision not to be present has superadded meaning: the triumph of the West and a reminder of Soviet imperialism are not part of the agenda. They are inconvenient truths that Obama would rather not dwell on. It is another in a series of unmistakable symbols that this president’s vision of America and its role in the world is radically different from that of his predecessors — and comes with potentially tragic consequences.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
