"The silent, sullen people" are waiting for Obama
As usual, Daniel Larison beats everyone to it. I also agree with all the main points Phil Klein makes here. But let me add a little to this. Obama's remarks are downright unsettling. The estimable Matthew Yglesias touts the speech - in a post saying,
The "vision thing" is what Obama's good at, and I think it's on display here. An appealing vision of American leadership embedded in an interconnected, fundamentally cooperative world. I think he does a good job of putting the terrorism issue in the appropriate context, as a serious problem on a par with several other serious problems rather than the organizing principle of everything we do in the world. He's also very strong on nuclear non-proliferation, which happens to be the most important issue. The section on when to use force is fuzzy, and manages to not distinguish Obama's view from things Edwards or Clinton could also espouse. There are a couple of head-nods in the direction of indicating that Obama understands the central role the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays in the mess that is the broader Middle East, which is great if I'm reading the head-nods correctly. - Matthew Yglesias
Uhm. Fuzzy? After mentioning the Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, Sudan and Kenya Obama says
In today’s globalized world, the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people. When narco-trafficking and corruption threaten democracy in Latin America, it’s America’s problem too. When poor villagers in Indonesia have no choice but to send chickens to market infected with avian flu, it cannot be seen as a distant concern. When religious schools in Pakistan teach hatred to young children, our children are threatened as well. - Barack Obama
This is interventionism on steroids. Is there no matter in the world too small for American leadership? Perhaps American leadership can promote fuel standards in Tibet. What is the average glycemic index in the national diet of Lichtenstein? I want to see a state department paper on this!
The worst part is that every electable candidate in both parties basically believes that America will have to manage the world. Nearly all opinion-writers do too. They just differ in the exact ratio of how much of the world's affairs will be managed by the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. Department of State. Oh wait - they may also differ on the exact number of countries that have to be bribed into participating in the crusade of the week. For Yglesias this is an appealing vision of "American leadership embedded in an interconnected, fundamentally cooperative world." Has geopolitics ever worked like this? One might as well say America ought to be the chief angel in a world of angelic nations.
Michael Brendan Dougherty
in Politics
|
Post a Comment
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments