Bumped for Cairo
Today, my regular Friday column in the Abu Dhabi English-language newspaper, The National, was bumped to Sunday.
Which, of course, I found irritating. Friday is the Muslim holy day -- so the Friday paper is sort of like the Sunday paper. And you always want your stuff in the Sunday paper.
Why was it bumped?
They needed the space to mark the one-year anniversary of President Obama's Cairo speech. Well, more like eulogize the speech.
You remember the Cairo speech, right? It was historic and majestic and transformed the relationship between the US and the larger Muslim world. It was breathlessly reported on, swooned over, and praised by the media in general.
This is a president who likes to talk. And worse, he likes to talk big. But he doesn't seem capable of understanding that when a president speaks, it's supposed to mean something. It's supposed to connect with some action. It puts people on notice, it announces a shift in policy, it tells the troops which direction to march in. In other words, it has a point.
For this president, though, every speech is an Oscar-acceptance speech. Every speech is about him. He's confused -- like a lot of his contemporaries in the do-nothing, no-experience world of academia -- the dog with the bark.
Which is fine, if you're a weatherman or a chat-show pundit or movie actor or an academic or something equally futile. But is disastrous if you're a president.
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
My problem isn't so much with Obama, he was a known entity back during the campaign. He was elected by a majority of voters...those are the people I hold accountable. I could have understood a vote for Hillary, but Obama?
Its still too civil, but the great betrayal is just down the road. No way the government makes good on its Social Securityand Medicare promises. The private sector has carried healthcare (read Medicare and Medicaid) the last 20 years. Its just a matter of time.
I'd like to think "My Man Mitch" could get on the GOP ticket but we are a Palin kinda culture. An "off the rack" culture as Dennis Miller puts it.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I am mystified as to why conservatives are so antagonistic to the Cairo speech, especially since it was well received in a part of the world where America would like to be better received, and consisted of President Obama saying to a largely Muslim audience certain things -- the importance of women's rights, for example -- that they should hear. It would be one thing to critique its content -- if you read the speech, it does have substantive assertions -- but Rob, you seem to denigrate the very idea of speeches that aren't tied to direct action, as if they're unique to President Obama. In fact, these kinds of speeches are given by every president.
I'd find it a very sorry spectacle indeed if it resembled an Oscar acceptance speech, as you suggest, but when I read its words, I don't see how it resembles an Oscar acceptance speech in the least. Perhaps it is futile to change public opinion in Egypt or the Middle East more generally. But I can't see how trying in that instance hurt, and I very much doubt you can make a compelling argument that the Cairo speech was "disastrous."
At worst, it will be irrelevant and forgotten.
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I like the Cairo speech, too. Terrific words.
But I've never been one to really understand the concrete value of trying to goose America's approval ratings. By now it's a tired cliche -- it's better when people like us! -- but I can't see any measurable benefit to it.
And measurable benefits are important when we're talking about people either blowing us up or not blowing us up. An (imperfect) example: we made the biggest strides against the Soviet Empire when we were the least "well regarded" internationally, under Reagan. There were protests all over Europe! Did the Soviets back down because they liked us, or because Reagan matched his words with a firehose of defense spending and a crazy scheme to build Star Wars?
I missed the part where Obama matched his words with anything. One year on, they don't like us or our moderate message so much. Not in Egypt. Not in Abu Dhabi. Not in Palestine. Not in Turkey.
So what good did it do? Other than to reinforce abroad what voters in the US have already learned: this president is all talk -- which is an indefensible, self-indulgent strategy when dealing with that part of the world.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Rob,
We can agree that President Obama's foreign policy actions are flawed. I'd argue, however, that good oratory is one of his few exceptional skills, and that it's worthwhile to marshal words that make us more esteemed, or at least less hated. This didn't matter as much during the days of the USSR, when our enemies were regime leaders (though surely Reagan's rhetoric contributed to eventual popularity among Czechs and Poles that has proved useful).
Popularity matters more now. When the enemies are terrorists, guys who burn with hatred for America can do us a lot of damage, especially as technology makes it possible for smaller groups to wield more devastating weapons. We want to minimize their numbers.
However popular America is in Egypt, there will always be a few Islamist fanatics willing to strap dynamite to their chest or weaponize anthrax. Will the Egyptian populace support or protest the efforts of domestic police to aggressively go after those people? Will Egyptian media stoke rage or mitigate it? Will his neighbor turn him in or look the other way? Those questions turn in part on how much the general populace likes or despises us.
Degree matters. Marginal differences matter.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
What good did it do? It laid the foundation for Obama's speaking engagements in the oil-rich states post-presidency. I think it also got him points with the Nobel committee. Jackpot!!
"This president is all talk" which was bulletpoint number one for his popularity. It couldn't have been because of his extensive career and as a legislator or executive. Democrats vote for celebrities.
Where is the evidence that the United States is less hated? Or instead, are the rogue actors stepping up the undesired behavior? North Korea, Turkey, Iran, etc. Does US passivity embolden them? The world doesn't seem to be a safer place a year later.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Rob and Conor: No offense or anything, but you guys are, like, nuts: The Cairo speech sucked. Don't you remember the moral equivalence? (e.g., Sure, you guys need to treat women better, but, hey, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." Sure, you guys need to be more religiously tolerant, but, hey, in America we make it hard for Muslims to give to charity.) Don't you remember the historical ignorance? (e.g., the settlements canard; the failure to acknowledge that our wars of the previous two decades were to protect and liberate Muslims) Obama tried to make Muslims like him (not America) by glossing over their pathologies, by exaggerating our flaws, and--through the very nature of the event--by granting the narrative that pre-Obama America deserved the ire of the Muslim world.
Conor's right that words and gestures are important, and the event was not feckless. But the effect was profoundly negative. Fouad Ajami said a couple weeks back that the Muslim world does not respect "those who trash their own," however subtly. That's what Obama did in Cairo.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Scott,
I am almost always suspicious when I hear the term "moral equivalence," because the accusation is almost never levied against someone who actually asserts that two incommensurate things are morally equivalent.
Consider this statement: "Look, you've wrecked the car three times in the last month with your reckless driving. Granted I sometimes break the speed limit myself, and I've even been known to roll through a stop sign, but your driving is a danger to yourself and others, and you should do better." The speaker isn't saying his imperfect driving is equivalent to the objectionable driving of his friend. He is using a rhetorical tactic, admitting his lesser imperfection in order to persuade his friend that he can admit more significant flaws sans shame. It is hard to lecture someone without being off-puttingly sanctimonious. This is a common enough tactic for trying to avoid that.
Similarly, when Obama tells a Middle Eastern audience that women's rights are important, and grants that Muslim nations have had female executives while even the US hasn't yet, everyone in the audience gets the message. He obviously isn't saying and doesn't think that sexism in the two countries is morally equivalent.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Conor,
I agree with you completely, that Obama was using a rhetorical tactic to lessen the potential harshness of his criticisms of the Arab community. The more discerning listener is aware that he is not asserting moral equivalence when he compares America’s lapses in women’s rights with those of Egypt. But to me this is merely classic obfuscation and a sublime use of his legal skills. I don’t find it inspiring, elevating, courageous, or anything beyond “very smooth” (and I'm not sure the audience did either). Obviously he wants to soften his criticism by admitting that America is not without flaws. And of course this is perfectly appropriate in this situation. You are right – he is not asserting that sexism in the two countries is equivalent. But so what? I agree with Rob – what really did Obama say in that speech which was substantive and therefore might lead to measurable benefits? He spent a lot of time stating, very eloquently, the obvious. It would have taken courage to do more than this. And this is why the speech is irrelevant. So why all the swooning from the media?
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Conor Friedersdorf: Popularity matters more now. When the enemies are terrorists, guys who burn with hatred for America can do us a lot of damage, especially as technology makes it possible for smaller groups to wield more devastating weapons. We want to minimize their numbers.
However popular America is in Egypt, there will always be a few Islamist fanatics willing to strap dynamite to their chest or weaponize anthrax. Will the Egyptian populace support or protest the efforts of domestic police to aggressively go after those people? Will Egyptian media stoke rage or mitigate it? Will his neighbor turn him in or look the other way? Those questions turn in part on how much the general populace likes or despises us.
I'm more concerned, Conor, with the old-school matter of how well foreign ruling classes like us. Every two months another anxious pundit announces that we have "inflamed the Arab street," and this time, it's serious. Then -- pfft. Infuriating strangers is a poor heuristic for doing the right thing, but flattering international public opinion, as the European case demonstrates, wins frustratingly small returns. What you say does apply exceedingly well to Iraq and Afghanistan.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
While most everyone here is referencing the Middle East, I'd argue that his audience was just as much Western Europe, and further currying its favor (Although we could certainly use his Berlin speech in place of it).
If we're talking on a general level, when most liberals bemoan the low public opinion of the US, it's their buddies in Europe that they refer to. "Post-national," left-wing Europeans love to use any opportunity to promote themselves by trashing the US and know how to effectively play into the American liberal guilt construct. This is why, I believe, so many American libs have a naive view of the European Social welfare state. Well, I'm sure all the dinner parties and soccer matches attended by your average lib while vacationing there feature less bemoaning and pathetic apologizing. Unfortunately (as James points out), is there any European-American government relationship on better standing than when Bush left office?
The other dirty little secret is the degree in which anti-Americanism is based strictly on ideology. Therefore, much of the opinion is decided well before the president has even done anything.
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Obama's failure to forge a close alliance with France is a blunder of Napoleonic proportions.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Rob, one other thing worth pointing out in relation to European opposition to Reagan's Foreign Policy is that is was not uncommon during the Reagan administration for European politicians to bemoan the direction of the Republican Party away from a Nixonian political style. Off the top of my head, I recall former Labor Foreign Minister Denis Healey making such remarks. Healey, like many others preferred Nixon's 'rational' realpolitik to what they saw as the coarse aggression of the Reagan administration, and saw the former as more 'European'.
That's quite a scary thought from an American point of view and a good lesson as to why our leaders should focus on taking the correct action, opposed to the one more popular abroad.
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I agree with Conor to this degree: I didn't find Obama's "we're not perfect, either" remarks in Cairo to be anything other than a rhetorical device designed to ingratiate. Diplomacy is about 80% weasel-wording anyway, so as far at that goes, no biggie.
Where I disagree, though, is about the notion that there's somehow this balanced division between words and action when it comes to foreign policy, and that both are equally important. I know that's the view of diplomats and journalists, for whom words are all they've got, but presidents are supposed to operate on a higher strategic level. That's why we give them so many tools: armies, aid budgets, departments of state and treasury. Obama, in a lot of ways, has the same puffed-up pomposity of a lot of journalists: he really thinks his words have power, that they cast a spell, that they're as good as actually doing something. (Maybe that's why he gets such great press: journalists recognize a fellow-member of the Strutting Gasbag Society.)
One year later, though, the results are in: they don't like us any more over there than they did before. Power of Words: 0. Power of Actions: (unclear. He hasn't taken any.)
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Correction, Healey was only ever Shadow Foreign Minister (as he was in the 1980s). He had previously been Defense Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer in earlier Labor governments.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I agree with Rob that the President's Cairo speech sounded much more like an Oscar acceptance speech than something more substantive or policy defining, particularly a year later when the actions to back up the speech... well... never made it to the big screen much less to video.
However, I'm not sold on the idea that we had to get people to like our country to avoid further defections to the "dark side," particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Iraq, our side had to do much more cracking down (meanie U.S. actions) in the form of the Surge before stability happened. After the stability, then the populace started rejecting the "dark side." I think the fond affections of the Iraqi people for the U.S. was stirred after some major drubbing. In that case, it was the display of might and perseverance that wooed the populace not glad handing and free candy bars. The glad handing, free candy and good will actions simply confirmed the intentions.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I agree with Conor that the rhetorical flourish of admitting to some venial sin prior to leveling the charge of a near-capital crime can be useful in a PR sense. However, you can do that in a reasonably effective way that does not conflate situations that are not even remotely comparable.
I am sorry, guys, but the pompous satisfaction with which Mr. Obama says that America needs to fix our treatment of women tells me that he and Jon Favreau really believe that there is a (pardon me, Conor) "moral equivalence" between not having enough female CEOs running Fortune 500 companies, or not allowing a long enough time for maternity leave, versus burkhas, honor killings, surgical mutilation, eviction from classrooms and sequestering behind the back curtains in the mosques.
And that is why, in the end, I tend to agree with Scott about the specific reference to women in America- not because of the appropriate speechifying technique, but because of its execution. If words do indeed matter, dam**t, select words that are accurate- Obama did not.
Use more generic words: "all societies, including my own country, have issues we struggle with to offer as much opportunity as possible for all citizens."
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
James,
What do you think about a case like Saudi Arabia, where the ruling class is ostensibly allied with us, but where a combination of public opinion and antagonism of other rich elites spawns terrorists and terrorist sympathizers? I grant that ruling classes remain very important, but aren't foreign populations increasingly important? Consider how important American public opinion is in constraining President Obama's options w/r/t Israel. That our people sympathize with Israel impacts the policy of our ruling elites.
Rob,
Agreed that actions matter more -- far more, I think -- than words. And you're right to fault President Obama for failing to impress on the higher strategic level where he should be operating.
So where do we disagree?
1) I don't think there is sufficient evidence to value the long term impact of Obama's words one way or another, and while diplomatic weasel words don't a good foreign policy make, there's no harm in trying.
2) You write that Obama "hasn't taken any" actions. How so? A significant troop increase in Afghanistan and implementing an aggressive strategy of drone attacks inside Pakistan seem like major actions to me (and incidentally, they're utterly incommensurate with the "respect for sovereignty" niceties in his Cairo speech.)
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I'm just really surprised that I'm alone on this. Was it OK to bring up the Arizona law in discussions with China? Was the recent Powerline tirade on that matter unjustified? Regarding Obama's statement in Cairo about Muslim charities in the U.S., was it OK to "disgracefully give the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active descrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror?" (Krauthammer) When the New York Symphony performed in North Korea at the end of the Bush era and the conductor said (I'm paraphrasing), "Well, recently, we haven't been so good at respecting the rights of our citizens, either," was that OK?
Love you guys, but you are so wrong on this one. Diplomacy that is 80% weasel-words makes you look like a weasel. And is the bowing harmless, too?
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
I very much disagree -- and so does architect of the surge David Petraeus. "Hearts and minds" are integral to his approach.
Scott, I won't defend every instance of Obama acknowledging America's alleged faults. Sometimes he is wrong on the merits, and he should be criticized for it. But there isn't anything inherently wrong about the practice if it's true -- and even a diplomatic fib is sometimes wise.
I dissent from the notion that proclaiming American superiority is strategically advantageous.
May '10
Re: Bumped for Cairo
Where has one person here suggested that "proclaiming American superiority is strategically advantageous?"
Bunk. There, however, are a few who have, not unreasonably, asked why proclaiming American shortcomings- over and over, incessantly, in every situation, whether or not as part of rhetorical parallelism- is in any way at all advantageous.