You are here:   Features > The Post-American Presidency
 

Thomas was dramatically wrong about Reagan's speech, which included sustained praise for America's allies, and equating Obama to God was breathtaking even for the US press corps. But Thomas's central observation was unquestionably correct: Obama is above all that patriotism stuff.

Obama is not the first Democratic nominee to hold these views, but he is the first to win the presidency. The then Vice-President George H. W. Bush best described the type in 1988, contrasting himself with his opponent, Michael Dukakis: "He sees America as another pleasant country on the UN roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe. I see America as the leader — a unique nation with a special role in the world." The Dukakis/Obama approach of near-universal "moral equivalency" is widely held by European leaders, but not previously by a US President, so we will now find out just how European we have become.

Two other elements in Obama's thinking are critical. First, he is not George W. Bush. He is Barack Obama, a man who has already written two autobiographies and who has ascended continuously and effortlessly to ever-higher public office. Hence, Obama need do little except show up and "change" will occur in the global arena, without the need for "chauvinistic" exertions on behalf of "parochial" American interests, which, as embodied by President Bush, are inevitably arrogant and disrespectful of others. Second, Obama has not yet adjusted to governance rather than campaigning or to being in the Executive rather than the Legislative branch of government. Campaigning is now continuous, but not since Reagan has a President struck the right balance with governance. Moreover, failing to shift psychologically from Senator to President is a perennial US problem. Being President actually means governing, as opposed to flitting from speech to speech and vote to vote, which "showhorse" Senators (contrasted with their "workhorse" counterparts) are all too happy to do. Moreover, whether as legislator or as campaigner, Obama has concentrated on, and manifestly feels more comfortable with, domestic rather than foreign policy (with the singular exception of opposing the Iraq war in the 2008 campaign).

One response to this analysis is the number of questions where Obama has essentially ratified or continued Bush Administration policies. For example, US troop withdrawal timetables from Iraq and the overall US political and military posture there are, so far, hard to differentiate materially from Bush's. A breathtaking amount of Bush-era detention and terrorist-interrogation policies remain in place, despite the vivid propaganda successes of signing Executive Orders to close Guantánamo and preclude "enhanced interrogation techniques". In fact, Bush himself signalled a desire to close Guantánamo and had suspended the criticised interrogation methods, very infrequently used in any case, years earlier. Finally, on Afghanistan, Obama's increase in US force levels was planned during the Bush presidency (as were even higher levels), and advocated during the 2008 campaign by the Republican nominee John McCain.

Seemingly robust, but not really. Obama succeeded brilliantly in painting Iraq as Bush's (and then McCain's) war, using his opposition to capture the Democratic Party nomination from the sure winner, Hillary Clinton. Obama's course as President, anguishing to the American Left, is intended to protect himself from conservative criticism while he rearranges the American economy. The Left has nowhere else to go, as they and Obama both well know. The same logic applies to interrogation and detention, although heightened by the new Administration's uncomfortable education in reality: what to do with these captured cold-blooded terrorists and extremists is actually a most difficult question. Now that Obama cannot criticise from the campaign trail or the Senate floor, but must actually be America's "chief executive," operational reality intrudes. These were hard questions for Bush, and they will be hard questions for Obama. On Afghanistan, no one in Washington has missed the criticism from the Democratic Party's Left and their ultimatum that Obama has basically one year to solve the Afghan problem. Good luck with that! (Nor has anyone in Washington missed Europe's unwillingness to increase materially its force levels in Afghanistan, despite the expectation that Obama's Inauguration would unleash torrents of co-operation unseen during the Bush years.)

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Bob from Virginia
August 16th, 2009
4:08 PM
Soft on Iran and its nuke program, hard on Israel, dismissive of democracy in the Middle east and Honduras, giver of a Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson; Thomas Sowell was right, if Obama only wrecks the economy we can count ourselves lucky. And so many predicted this from day one of his campaign. Prime Minister Howard of Australia said in February 2007 "If I were running Al Qaeda in Iraq, I would ... be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.".

Charles Griffith
August 5th, 2009
9:08 PM
Am I correct in thinking that this "Standpoint" is a UK publication? Then, many thanks to "Standpoint" for publishing this essay. But, from what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't seem to reflect what the great majority of the pundits in the UK are saying publicly. We need much, much, more of John Bolton's forthright and blunt analyses....This American thinks that we Americans are far, far too concerned with our "popularity". Endless bales of our cash broadcast worldwide during the past one hundred years have yielded little more than scorn. The puzzle remains why we Americans can't seem to learn from this reality of our being "used". Sad to say this, but here it is.

John
July 31st, 2009
4:07 PM
Eric, the effects of Bush? Oh, perhaps you mean the effects of decades of legislating that banks and lenders should give risky (ie bad) loans to people because, afterall, EVERYONE deserves a house, regardless of how unrealistic the aim. And besides, from what I know (since there could be more), Obama has hired racists, eugenicists, radical abortionists, tax-cheats, a self-confessed communist and now a guy who thinks trees should have the right to sue. Nice change, huh?

Eric
July 14th, 2009
3:07 AM
Give Obama a couple of years - change is not going to happen in the time period of a year and it is sure as hell not going to reflect while he is still in office - we are still in the middle of the effects of Bush.

Occam's tool
July 9th, 2009
3:07 AM
Obama can be simply summed up as the following: 1) A friend of traitors, if not one himself. 2) The weakest defender of America since James Buchanan. 3) An idiot economist. 4) A compulsive liar and psychopath. The outcome of his Presidency will be an unemployment rate coming close to 20%, and a WMD attack on the US, unless Republicans take over the House or Senate in 2010 and put an end to his scummitude. Incidentally, everything he is doing was easily predictable from the race he ran, and his comments.

Airgrpcomm
July 5th, 2009
1:07 PM
It will remain to be seen what Obama will accomplish. We as Americans have had great presidents, as well as poor presidents, but as yet. We have no treasonous presidents, our country dosen't want treason in WhiteHouse hince thats why Hilary wasn't elected. We as American's may have stepped forward with Obama but he cannot afford to play as President. America needs reform ? Yes it does, it needs to go back to where Americans, had to speak English to obtain citizenship, It needs to return to the Ideals of IN GO WE TRUST, and Merry Christmas,people who wish to remove these hard won beliefs need to be removed because they are clearly not Americans and will cause our great country to fail. Pray tell me please why does a person leave another country and come to America, because of religious persecution or tyranny, then get here and try to remove the very marrow of American in effort to make our country like theirs. If a person can't believe American. Leave. If you don't believe in helping American retain her greatness.... leave. Obama will show his true colors. All men do, great men and weak men alike. In Vietnam, our men had to believe in a harder and colder mind set of enemy.Now we are at war...on two fronts..with warriors who believe it is more important to die for their cause, then live for their beliefs.

Anonymous
July 5th, 2009
4:07 AM
The young lady that was shot in Iranian by a government sniper was as much a hero fighting for freedum as any one. My hart gos out to her family, and all the fallen that fight to be free of a government that forces its will on the people it should be protecting. The Hondures Senate, Supreme Court, and Army got it right in supporting and upholding there constution. I only wish the Senate and Supreme Court in the U.S. would have the guts to do the same. Under what athority can any President fire a CEO of a privet company? Or take controle of Banks and Auto Companies? He's a President not a King.

Ragfish
July 3rd, 2009
6:07 AM
Some of us in the USA view Obama as a KGB groomed trojan horse. Revenge from Russia with love! He is designed to end American preeminence and make way for someone's vision of a One World Government, Economy (and Religion?). Psychologically, his means of adaptation center upon appeasing rather than confronting. His early abandonment by a Comunist father, Muslim stepfather and his own mother, have set the stage for a geopolitical tragedy. His historical distortions/revisions of Islam's contribution to America is evidence of his following an ideologically justified path, which fulfills his wounded psychological need to win the favor of Islam. Any one on one negotiation with an authoritarian, older male Muslim is a loaded gun pointed at America!

egil
July 1st, 2009
4:07 PM
Obama is showing clearly that he has an affinity for Left-Wing and Islamist dictators. He has been friendly and willing to "engage" with Chavez, the Castros and the Iranian mullahs, yet he denounces Honduras for ridding itself of a Chavez-like character who was acting unconstitutionally, and trying to illegally extend his rule. The pundit Charles Krauthammer also noted how Obama hasn't placed any value on freedom in his statements about Iraq. Obama certainly is a disgrace.

jemudd
June 30th, 2009
11:06 PM
Bravo! Excellent analysis. Should be read by the American press but they can only compare him to God! Sooner or later, however, he will have to change. He is not stupid and when things don't work, the will adapt. If not, God help us!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.