Praktik
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 5,244
Ok. A few issues here. First this assumes we accept the conservative spin that Obama was cravenly "apologizing for America". I dispute that's what happened. I suggest re-reading the entirety of the speeches where it is alleged that this what he did. Read commentary from outside America. Was this the way the speeches were perceived?
I'm a graduate of international relations and have access to materials from around the world. The only place this was perceived was in the conservative quarters of America. Its a gross oversimplification of what Obama said and is predicated on a comic book/schoolyard understanding of international relations and obsession with projecting the image of "strength" and never appearing "weak" (where is the substantiation using foreign sources to show that a "weak image" is what was understood in foreign quarters?). Add in a dose of "my country right or wrong" and I can see why the shrill on the right could see it this way: they're just living in a bubble.
Bush should be applauded for portraying the conflicts of the new millenium in a Manichaean manner more appropriate a few millenia ago?
In any event, it's not as if Obama has discarded this approach:
Gingrich told The Takeaway, a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International, “He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said: that there is evil in the world."
Is Nile Gardiner even paying attention? Or regurgitating pablum he thinks is true because all his friends say so?Ah yes, Mr. Gardiner cloaks a Godwin and invokes the specter of WWII by using the familiar "appeasement" meme that Americans have been fond of using on such various targets as Ronald Reagan (for arms control) and Eisenhower.
Forgive me if I immediately grow nauseous here... hang on.. <deep breath> ok... that's better.
In any event, it's not as if Obama has thrown away the Wilsonian approach to world affairs that Bush adopted. After all, he surged in Afghanistan, America is still in Iraq, still funding democratic organizations around the world to the tune of billions, lobbying for democratic reforms in key countries. And this is besides the issue of whether all of these American actions are truly deserving of attempts to put them on a pedestal of "advancing freedom". To accept the premise of this point implies that one has accepted certain pre-requisite beliefs about America's role in the world.
Again, Gardiner is assuming Obama doesn't share these prerequisite beliefs and that he has somehow forsaken America's noble role - this is the kind of thing that is truly bipartisan:
And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.
And for this Gardiner doesn't offer any evidence apart from things he thinks Obama might do, chief among these worries that the US would lose sovereignty when Obama "signs treaties". Was he worried when Bush signed the SORT treaty in 2002, which limited America's nuclear arsenal?
Once again the understanding of international relations here is at the grade school level.
America, as the most powerful nation in the world, loses no sovereignty when it signs a treaty. In fact, by engaging with other nations, by working to make sure the rules of the treaty coincide as much as possible with the national interest (something America can easily do and does all the time) then its sovereignty is actually enhanced. If we remember that America has the clout to ignore treaties when it suits its convenience, we can realize that all these concerns amount to just another expression of the macho worry of "strength" and "weakness". Ironically, what these people think increases "weakness" can actually increase "strength".
Maybe I should leave this one to parky?
The myopia on this one is just incredible. If we're going to talk about who's the better diplomat, who has strengthened alliances and who has sown rifts among previously stable and productive relationships, is it any contest?
Taking any time to refute this would be a waste, its obvious on its face that the premise of this point is ridiculous. Trying to convince someone who believes this that it isn't true would be as futile as convincing Avery that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.
Obama understands the politics of missile defence and the way that plays out with important nations like Russia and also understands that defence dollars are best spent elsewhere.
Ok, Im beginning to not take this seriously anymore. You know who else believed in fighting a global war? Hitler.
False. By entangling America in two messy wars Bush sowed the seeds of resentment that will bear bitter fruit for decades (according to the Pentagon), he enacted a policy of torture that jeopardizes the security of American troops caught by antagonists and enflamed the muslim street (causing instability in key states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt), he alienated key allies and antagonised states like Russia (whose co-operation is required in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the balkans and elsewhere). America's forces are now tied down, drained of resources and perhaps unable to successfully confront a third (or 4th!) threat.
This is to say nothing of the way his economic policies, a key facet of security, brought the country to the brink of ruin.
Ah yes, another WWII reference from the nostalgic Gardiner, who can't seem to get past the shoe-horning of modern politics into the template of the Good War. He was hoping for "Churchilian grit" in his President, and Obama is coming up short, in his view. Obama saying that "America could not wage war against the Taliban indefinitely" is a strike against him (ignoring that this is a simple statement of fact, and well, true).
What we have here really is a clash of philosophy: Gardiner has a distaste for classical realism, and would rather see international relations in his juvenile macho way - he wants a Churchill, not a Chamberlain! He wants "grit" - not lily-livered "diplomacy".
Another question: is Gardiner, a scion of Thatcher and a member of the Heritage Foundation, the best source from which to get an objective assessment of Obama's foreign policy? He's displayed here a rather thin grasp of how international relations truly operate in addition to a partisanship that has him completely ignoring the actual words of Obama when they conflict with the template he's shoehorned him into.
I'd rather take a look at more serious, academic and objective sources for these kinds of evaluations - tempered with views from around the world.
I'd rather not waste my time with a chest-beating, history-distorting, partisan flake like Gardiner if I truly wanted to get to the bottom of this question.
This stuff plays well to a right-wing American base, but not so much elsewhere. There's too many assumptions one has to believe in to accept Gardiner's argument that exist only in the minds of the lower echelons of conservative thought.
