So why is there
such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently
professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:
A. Candidate Obama
had no experience in foreign policy and has always winged it, now and then
recklessly sounding off when he thought he could score cheap points against
George Bush. As president, he still has no idea of how foreign policy is
conducted, and thus continues to make things up as he goes along, often boxing
himself into a corner with serial contradictions. Trying to discern any
consistency or pattern in such an undisciplined mind is a futile exercise: what
Obama says or does at any given moment usually is antithetical to what he said
or did on a prior occasion. He is simply lost and out of his league.
B. Candidate Obama
has always been an adroit demagogue. He knew how to score political points
against George Bush, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, without any intention of
abiding by his own sweeping declarations. The consistency in Obama’s foreign
policy is his own carefully calibrated self-interest. Bombing or not bombing,
shutting down or keeping open Guantanamo Bay, going or not going to the UN or
the U.S. Congress — these choices are all predicated not on principle, but only
on what a canny and unprincipled Obama feels best suits his own political
interests and self-image at any given moment. In a self-created jam, he flipped
and now goes to Congress in
hopes of pinning responsibility on them, whether we go or not, whether
successful or unsuccessful if we do. He is
a quite clever demagogue.
C. Obama is a
well-meaning and sincere naïf, but a naïf nonetheless. He really believed the
world prior to 2009 worked on the premises of the Harvard Law School lounge,
Chicago organizing, and Rev. Wright’s Church — or least should have worked on
such assumptions. Then when Obama took office, saw intelligence reports, and
assumed the responsibilities of our highest office, he was shocked at the
dangerous nature of the world! There was no more opportunity for demagoguery or
buck-passing, and he had to become serious. In short, it is easy to criticize
without power, hard with it to make tough decisions and bad/worse choices.
He is slowly learning.
D. Obama is the
first president who genuinely feels U.S. exceptionalism and power were not
ethically earned and should be in an ethical sense ended. As a candidate, he
consistently undermined current U.S. foreign policy at a time of two critical
wars; as president, he has systematically forfeited U.S. authority and
prestige. There is no inconsistency: whatever makes the traditional idea of the
U.S as a superpower weaker, Obama promotes; whatever enhances our profile, he
opposes. He is often quite angry at what could be
called traditional America — seen often as a
downright mean country here and abroad.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.