Even if you aren't liberal, and you don't entirely agree with Obama's policy platform, there must be some part of you that is excited...what the world might look like if we truly make a change for the better. To feel credible in the world again as an American. Maybe you don't approve...but it's just the feeling that things might actually change. (Hm. maybe this is what he means by the word "hope" all the time.)
And if not, then you should sit there and ponder how you're probably liking the same candidate as this woman at the Republican caucus in Iowa yesterday.
Yes. American Flag Contacts. The real purpose of this post.
4 comments:
I must fall in the later category, as one of those who like the same candidate as the contact lens lady (although you don’t say which candidate you believe the lady supports).
In no way am I excited about an Obama presidency. You make two assertions; 1.) That Obama is a change for the better, 2.) That with Obama we would feel credible in the world again as an American. Both of these assertions are errant to say the least. Although we could focus on a number of different Obama platforms for analysis, for the sake of simplicity I’ll stick to Foreign Policy. (Although I look forward to a future debate on Health Care).
First, in no way would Obama be a change for the better in either of these areas. Let’s look at a few examples of Obama’s foreign policy statements. "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won…getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." And “I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”
This seems to indicate that we can win the war on terror by pulling out of Iraq while attacking terrorists holed up in the mountains of northern Pakistan. Bin Laden’s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has called Iraq “the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.” Iraq is the battleground, and substituting lobbing a few cruise missiles into terrorist havens for a victory there is not going to work. We saw how well cruise missile diplomacy worked during the Clinton presidency. Further, we are now making progress in the war in Iraq. The surge is working! Gen. David Petraeus is akin to this war’s Ulysses S. Grant. Iraq may not be the “right battlefield” but the battle has already been joined. There can be no substitute but victory. We now have the blueprint for it.
Obama also wants to engage in political discussions with countries such as North Korea, Syria, Venezuela. Obama recently stated “I think it’s a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.” First, we do speak with these countries, just not on a presidential level. Further, what better way to legitimize the regimes than by meeting with them. North Korea provides a perfect example. Simply put, every time we negotiate with North Korea, they prove to go back on their word. Same with Syria. It is naïve to believe that opening diplomatic negotiations on a presidential level will do anything but weaken our position in the world. By doing so, we reward countries and legitimize regimes who only wish our own destruction. With the liberals so concerned about human rights abuses, why aren’t we conditioning entering negotiations on an agreement and acts that indicate a respect for basic human rights.
I am guessing that you believe that the credibility you mention comes from an increased use of international institutions such as the United Nations, rather than a unilateral foreign policy. The United Nations is a disaster. Has it done anything credible in Darfur? What about the Oil for Food program? Rwanda? Bosnia in 1992? Point me to one foreign policy success of the United Nations since the Korean War (when the Soviet Union wasn’t even there to vote on it). The United Nations serves some purposes well (such as UNESCO), but the credibility that you seek comes from our lowering ourselves to the level of other nations, subsuming our national interests to the interests of the collective. Early on, our leaders distanced themselves from just such a strategy (e.g. the Monroe Doctrine). America is to be the “shining city on the hill.” America is the greatest success story since the Treaty of Westphalia gave birth to the modern nation state. Simply put, shouldn’t we be encouraging the rest of the world to emulate us, rather than lowering ourselves to their level? More talk, and more buracracy simply is not the answer.
How can you say that we will now be “credible” in the world as Americans? Because with Obama we have a president who will abandon international commitment short of victory? How does credibility come from abandoning a task we have undertaken? If someone enters into a marriage that turns out to be a difficult one, is there credibility stronger if they stick with it and work it out, or if they get a divorce?
RS
and yes, I used the wrong there/their
Am I truly expected to actually respond to that post? It's pretty long, and it's wild card saturday, and I just woke up and I'm eating a corn dog.
I'll say at the outset that the institutional design of the United States government and the inertia that exists in the system prevents any revolutionary change in policy that will allow some of your assertions to come to bear. I think part of the genius and failure of our system is that the election of a single President, outside of extreme circumstances (like a 9/11 followed swiftly by single party rule across all branches) policy simply cannot change all that much. That means that much of the battle in the transition of power is of another nature.
So, I think that our greatest foreign policy failure besides a disastrously mismanaged war effort is the battle for ideals, and the battle for symbols. Symbols matter. It is precisely this "shining city on a hill" ideal that we have destroyed throughout the world. This is precisely what we are fighting for. Even if popular support for virulent anti-Americanism has not entirely become mainstream (though I believe it has in many places), it has certainly become increasingly tolerated. As a result, the passive consent to violence against Americans, disaster for Americans, and the destruction and dismantling of American power is at an all-time high. I would contend that the struggle against radical Islam is as much, actually even moreso, a battle for hearts and minds and not a battle of bombs and bullets. As long as hatred, discontent, and Anti-Americanism continue to dominate discourse around the world, and as long as every action and every gesture from our own nation signal that they are right in their beliefs, there can be no end.
This is not the Soviet Union. This is not a struggle that properly exists within the Westphalian framework. This is entirely new: An era of the super-empowered individual. And if we do not stem the continued production of these individuals then none of this will ever subside.
This UN stuff is besides the point. The UN is not important for what it actually accomplishes in international politics. The UN's crucial function is symbolic. A UN sanctioned invasion would not have been a better war, but it would have produced a very different dialogue about the war. Maybe that's where we disagree...I think the changed dialogue ultimately matters.
Dammit. My corn dogs are cold. I don't even know what I just wrote. I just want corn dogs.
G-ddmnt, now I really want I corn dog. I'm intoxicated (just saw a great band in concert - GONN). How is it that the most intelligent behave if the basest of activities. More importantly, why do I check your blog before I go to bed.
RS
Post a Comment