The Good Old Days of Bush... Hardly.

Apparently a poll actually showed that 44% of Americans would prefer to have Bush again versus Obama now, politico has mentioned.

Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited.

The article goes on to mention how this might effect the 2010 elections, but those are practically a decade away in the accelerated lifespan of current political climates.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is a bit of number skewing in the sampling pool. While I am not supportive of Obama's policies in general, I certainly don't see a return to Bush as a step forward. Many destructive government practices begun during (or before) the Bush administration have been brought to painful light in this one. Many people don't like where they see our country going in the past year, but other than a few more abrupt changes wreaked or suggested by Obama's really very strange czars, much of what people dislike are things that had simply not been surfaced during the previous administration(s). The Tea Parties could have happened during the Bush administration with nearly equal validity. The difference is the "in your face" style of liberalism that Obama and his administration have been pursuing, which shocked enough people to get them out of their daily routines and into the streets.

The long game works nearly every time against the American people, our attention spans are too short to notice what's up. But when those who wish to transform our society to a form of their choosing smell victory, sometimes they show their hand too soon. That is exactly what has happened with Obama's victory and subsequent actions, and why there has been such a strong reaction against them. Had he kept a lower profile and simply continued to ram legislation through congress without fanfare, much more damage would already have been done.

The days of Bush were not the good old days, not for liberals or conservatives. Bush felt very strongly about certain issues and ideals, and was content to use the rest for bargaining. Conservatives loved the lip service he paid to their pet issues, but it was largely lip service, and little progress was made on those fronts, certainly very little that has not been quickly erased by the advent of a liberal administration. If we do not realize that "settling" for a Republican who talks the talk but who is errant or weak on the economy, dangerously uninformed in foreign policy issues, and willing to gamble with issues he touts during stump speeches but has not shown during his career in elected office to have taken action on, we will have done ourselves and our nation a huge disservice.

We can't go back to Reagan, and we can't go back to Bush. And we should want neither of those things. We should remember the lessons of the past, but use those to move forward and encounter the future from a position of strength and reality. Otherwise, we will become part of that past so quickly that our words of protest will hardly have stopped echoing before we realize we are irrelevant.

-()4k...

US Foreign Policy - Hope but no Change

With two entries in the works, I first wanted to bring to your attention this short but interesting tidbit from Der Spiegel:

"When he entered office, US President Barack Obama promised to inject US foreign policy with a new tone of respect and diplomacy. His recent trip to Asia, however, showed that it's not working. A shift to Bush-style bluntness may be coming."

I recommend you all go read it, it's fairly thoughtful and less influenced by domestic politics than most of what we get here. It's also indicative of a gradually-clarifying world opinion on Obama. The honeymoon appears to be over, and now the soft approach and "nice" rhetoric that got him the Peace Prize is being weighed in the scales and found wanting.

The highlight of the piece, as far as I am concerned, is the following statement (emphasis mine):

"Upon taking office, Obama said that he wanted to listen to the world, promising respect instead of arrogance. But Obama's currency isn't as strong as he had believed. Everyone wants respect, but hardly anyone is willing to pay for it. Interests, not emotions, dominate the world of realpolitik."

One might say, convinced that after eight years of Bush, the world was just waiting to be charmed, President Obama and his team are finding that charm only gets you a willing audience, the "Hope" if you will. But the "Change" only occurs after strong, realistic, and well-executed foreign policies are brought into play. Bush's policies were strong, and even occasionally well-executed, but often fatally rooted in personal idealism over practical realism. Obama's policies seem, like Bush's, to consist largely of optimistic idealism, but unlike Bush, his optimism is based not on the persuasive and positive effects of freedom, but on the universal goodness and reasonableness of mankind, an even shakier and less stable foundation.

One has to wonder whether his repeated failures to charm the world into a better place will result in his adoption of a different strategy, one more resembling Bush's aggressive and often preachy stance towards the world.

The Spiegel piece suggests this may already be occurring:

While in Asia, Obama mentioned "consequences" unless it followed his advice. This puts the president, in his tenth month in office, where Bush began -- with threats. "Time is running out," Obama said in Korea. It was the same phrase Bush used against former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, shortly before he sent in the bombers.

We are approaching a situation remarkably and dangerously similar to the one we occupied pre-WWII in the Pacific: lecturing Japan on its policies, while sending our forces to deal with conflicts elsewhere. Eventually militant forces in Japan gained the upper hand, and all the outraged blustering Washington could issue weighed little in the face of the new overwhelming Japanese naval supremacy in the region.

Fastforward to the 21st century: Lectures on human rights fall on deaf, unappreciative, and increasingly (and rightfully?) resentful ears in China when our irresponsible economic policies are agitating their own economy. Meanwhile their military is more or less openly stating that their immediate objectives are to deny us air and sea supremacy further and further out from their mainland.

One major difference between then and now: China has more than a handful of nukes. And, as the Spiegel article points out, nuclear disarmament is a non-issue there. Nukes = respect and leveraging power. Why on earth would they want to give them up?

Meanwhile, apparently Obama's playbook has only one entry for China: Demands for transparency, increasing debt, and more lectures on human rights.

The piece goes on to point out the similarities that are being drawn between Obama's foreign policy and that of Jimmy Carter. It might be worth noting that it was under Carter that we funded central asian terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, for example), and Osama Bin Laden.

From weak policy to funding our future enemies... We can hope that weak and misguided policy now does not lead to either of the two parallel situations later. A capable and realistic foreign policy might remember that history has a way of repeating itself...

-()4|<..

Bowing to No One

Obama has created a furor over his repeated bowing to foreign leaders. Arguments have tended to rage over whether or not his nearly 90-degree bend at the waist constituted a "bow" or not, which is of course silly. Yes, he was bowing.

However, I submit that this is not the point at all. The relevant question to me is brought up by a statement by former Vice President Cheney:

"There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don't expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness."

While it's certainly true that our friends don't expect it, whether our enemies see it as a sign of weakness is a more esoteric criticism, protocol notwithstanding. It gives more the impression, perhaps, of an inexperienced leader who is not sure how these matters are conducted. Yet while Cheney's comment is representative of a very common attitude in the US, I consider that attitude to be well-meaning but misguided.

It's easy to write off such a statement as more American arrogance: "We're the leader of the free world; others may bow to us, but we bow to no one." Yet the issue of paying respect to foreign leaders is a subtle one.

It's clear that part of Obama's approach to dealing with foreign leaders is wanting to be on good terms with all the other kids on the playground. Not totally a bad thing; though it shows a certain naivety on his part, as on the part of most liberals concerning foreign policy, it very rarely hurts to show respect to other people. The nonsense about "showing weakness" is probably true in dealing with a nation like Russia (and may very well stem from the Cold War mentality which most of our current government/infrastructure people seem irretrievably locked into), but does not apply in most cases.

It's 2009. The Cold War is over. Though President Obama doesn't seem to have any kind of cohesive strategy for engaging an increasingly belligerent Russia whatsoever, his interactions with China are arguably more important. And in that culture, bowing is not seen as a sign of weakness.
(Unless perhaps it be taken to the extreme of a kow-tow. And lest you think that idea laughable, go look again at how in debt we are to China. And recall that the Empire State Building was lit up yellow and red very recently in honor of the Communist revolution in China. We may yet see Obama approaching the Dragon throne, with the "three kneelings and nine head-knockings")

The problem with Obama's bowing is not so much that it projects weakness, but that it demonstrates a fantasy-approach to foreign policy. One in which by showing each other respect and being nice to everyone, "bad" leaders will suddenly see the light of freedom and reasonableness. This is similar to Bush's unswerving and irrational faith in the idea that if we can bring freedom to a people, they will choose to use this freedom in the same manner that people who earned their freedom have used it. Neither approach has demonstrated anything more than ephemeral success. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Myanmar, all greatly appreciate the attention they so desperately crave and are now under Obama's administration receiving, yet at the same time make it clear that they do not intend to change their policies just because we threw them a bone of recognition. To believe that they would do so is in itself arrogance. And while a more subtle arrogance than that of America in some periods in the past, it is as foolish and ineffective nonetheless.

In any case, bowing to the Japanese Emperor is not going to make Al Qaeda decide that this is their big chance to launch another attack, or Iran decide to build another reactor, or Russia invade another small, former-Soviet province. Those things are all happening anyway.
A lack of a prudent foreign policy or economic strength to back up the bow will indeed bring trouble, however, and that is precisely what has been occurring.

"Walk softly but carry a big stick": this is an expression I've quoted here before, one containing much insight. The strong may bow to the weak with no loss of face, because they do it out of generous respect and not out of obligated weakness. If we as a nation really feel that bowing is in and of itself a sign of weakness, perhaps it shows how unconfident we have in fact become.

-()4|<...

The Forum Troll President

I have had an interesting time picking a story to write on for the past few days. An extremely busy weekend made it easy to delay the choice altogether, but I realized that I was shying away from stories involving our president. Enough has already been said about him, certainly, and yet I find myself writing one more entry about him today.

Obama has achieved and maintained total media saturation (indeed, with the media's acknowledged support and involvement) since his nomination, with significant coverage before then. That has not diminished. With the reception of the Nobel Peace Prize, the failed bid for the Olympics in Chicago, the situation in Afghanistan; everyone is waiting to see what the president will do.

Even aside from the media, in our national discussion President Obama has been like an especially controversial troll in a forum; some take his side and defend him, others hate him with that special hatred reserved for forum trolls, but either way he has now taken whatever discussion existed prior to his involvement and focused it entirely around himself and his statements.

This is what President Obama, consciously or unconsciously (considering the skills of his media team, probably consciously), has done on the national stage. Perhaps it's also the forte of a populist president; if you wish to run as a personality and not a platform, your personality must necessarily remain in focus if your goals are to be achieved.

Obama has gambled daringly that his 'brand' is sufficient to sustain loyalty to his goals and ideals. This has largely worked. (with perhaps the notable exception of the tea-party attendee types, who have been marginalized by the White House as disagreeists. Whether they can be successfully marginalized or not is a question for another time, but while they are numerous, they are still a clear minority.) It's interesting to note that if his brand becomes unpopular, his clout vanishes. He is only left with the usual political maneuvering, in a field where he is still a newcomer.

But for now, the president has the world's attention. The peace prize was as clear a sign of this as could be given. Consider Bono's recent editorial in the NYT. It's quite glorifying of President Obama, and at the same time surprisingly pro-American. More insightful pundits than me will doubtless pull many valuable observations from his take, but let me focus on one of the most obvious: The world is calling, and Obama is America's chance to respond.

Obama is our first global president. Perhaps fitting as America's power and influence in the world peaks and enters a decline (perhaps 'the' decline, but it's too early to call), a man has risen to the top who is using that high platform to spread idealism throughout the world. Many feel, as does this writer, that some (not all) of those ideals are flawed at best. But that is irrelevant in a global sense. I submit that the world in general feels more ownership of our president than we do, and that is both based in his approach to the world, and mirrored in his response to it.

Liberally-minded (in the modern political sense) Americans feel very strongly the pressure of the rest of the world opinion weighing in, and are finally basking in the glow of a president they think they just might be proud to show the world. For example, let us consider that the left end of the political comedy spectrum (SNL and the Daily Show), previously unwilling to mock Obama even in a tangential sense, are now doing so. But unlike former president Bush, it is not his ideals that they mock, nor his actions, but his inaction. Obama is their applicant to the rest of the world, to demonstrate their solidarity, to show that the world's most touted issues (environmentalism, poverty, nuclear disarmanent, etc) are their issues as well. They see this as their shot to be at the world's table not because of American's power, (a reason they would despise, like a crass and socially awkward uncle who nevertheless is invited to every family party because he also happens to be extremely wealthy) but as sensitive, knowing, and worldly intellectuals who belong there. Obama is their personified manifesto, their best shot yet at getting in. They don't want him to mess this up.
Neither does the rest of the world, as Bono writes:

"The Nobel Peace Prize is the rest of the world saying, 'Don’t blow it.'"

Conservatives often make two mistakes in their response, either blowing off the rest of the world altogether as irrelevant (short-sighted, unwise, and furthermore uncharitable: in these times, "no man is an island" applies to nations more than ever), or else attacking those ideals of Obama which are demonstrably false, yet without supplying their own methods of dealing with the problems he purports to be solving.

Example of the latter: People do need health care. I believe that no plan currently circulating through our congress would be anything less than a disaster, but our current situation is clearly inexcusably bad as well. While I have heard many compelling reasons given in impassioned speech as to why Obama's plan should be consigned to a place where the worm does not die, nor is thirst ever quenched, I have not yet heard a single agreed-upon workable alternative solution by those opposing the Obama plan.

What does that accomplish on a national level? The president (who seeks to advance his goals by the force of his own personality, remember) could easily claim that the attacks are not really against the health plan, but against himself. In fact, he doesn't even need to say this. His backers can do that for him. And we see that this is exactly what is occurring now. To return to the analogy, the troll has struck again. The forum topic is no longer health care, but all the commenters' opinions of the troll himself, generally expressed in wholesale irrational favor or disfavor. Few bring forth a detached, logical analysis of the forum troll and his arguments. He is now setting the agenda. His provocative statements, and existing opinions about his kind, generally reduce all conversation to endorsements, rejections, or endless bickering. Eventually the topic is closed, no meaningful progress having been made on the subject.

If we seek to have a meaningful national dialogue on anything worth accomplishing, this trolling must end. The president has ushered in a new era in which every political argument defaults back to himself. He remains the center of attention, and as long as we all argue about him, he wins. For is not that the goal of the troll?

-()4|<.

The global reign of the dollar is over?

Soon the US Dollar will not be the currency used for oil transactions, The Independent (UK) reports...

"In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar."

First thought: I don't really blame them. Our leaders have been irresponsible enough in handling our economy, and our problems have spilled over and affected the entire world's economy. If the dollar is going to be unstable, swapping to a basket of currencies makes sense.

Second thought: "a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar." - A fledgling pan-Arabic Muslim currency, anyone? That sounds like a portentous global economy shift waiting to happen.

And lest you think that this is merely a hysterical prognosis of some fringe economist:

The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.

The article darkly hints at a future conflict between the US and China over Middle East oil, but we will pass over this idle speculation for the meatier material on actual Chinese involvement in the situation:

China imports 60 per cent of its oil, much of it from the Middle East and Russia. The Chinese have oil production concessions in Iraq – blocked by the US until this year – and since 2008 have held an $8bn agreement with Iran to develop refining capacity and gas resources. China has oil deals in Sudan (where it has substituted for US interests) and has been negotiating for oil concessions with Libya, where all such contracts are joint ventures.

Furthermore, Chinese exports to the region now account for no fewer than 10 per cent of the imports of every country in the Middle East, including a huge range of products from cars to weapon systems, food, clothes, even dolls.

The Chinese tend to be practical economists these days. A burgeoning economy in desperate need of resources such as oil to fuel its rise is well-served by increased economic ties to the countries with said resources. And unlike us, they are not likely to go about things in an ambivalent manner, hesitating between pragmatic manipulation of the areas with the resources we need and condemnations of our "self-serving" involvement there. The Chinese economic engine needs more oil to run on, and thus they will do what it takes to get more oil.

Meanwhile, we won't even drill for the oil we already possess domestically. Small wonder our economy is flagging while theirs is set to pass us by mid-century.

Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding. President Obama has given no sign that this would be a move that he disagreed with. In fact, such a shift seems perfectly in line with the "New world order" he likes to give speeches about. (that speech was meant to be uplifting; upon reading the transcript I was instead quite interested in determining exactly what worldview our President holds. Not one in which the British are held in high regard, that much is certain...) I would not be surprised at all if he gave a speech lauding the move away from the US dollar, as a good plan to diminish US hegemony and level the world's playing field. He is, after all, not only a US citizen, but "a fellow citizen of the world." (second paragraph of the transcript)

This means, apparently, that he would never be so jingoistic as to put the concerns of his own country above the concerns of others. Which is lovely, except that he is not the president of the world, he is the president of the United States of America. His responsibility is not to "remake the world once again

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.html

" (the last words in his speech), but to lead our nation in a responsible way.

So the dollar is on its way out as a global medium of exchange. Is anyone willing to fight for it?

Not our Elected Citizen of the World in Chief.

-()4|<.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/24/obama-in-berlin-video-of_n_114771.htm

Iran's Nuclear Plant Circus

Why so naive, world?
The Iranian government is having a field day with this.

If you read news online, you already know that Iran has a second nuclear power plant. But there is much more news here than you might think.

First, the LA Times article has this quote from President Obama.

Speaking before the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh, President Obama said the plant is a "direct challenge" to global nonproliferation. He added, "Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is prepared to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations."

Oh, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown chimed in, doubtless trying desperately to tie himself to President Obama in any sense, having already been snubbed repeatedly at the G20 and having chased Obama through breakfast just to get a chance to speak with him. But that's another story.

Added Brown: "The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community. The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand."

Oh dear. How many times has Iran heard that line? Something tells me they aren't impressed.

But there is more heavy-handed political-speak to come. This from the Washington Post article. Be afraid Iran:

"Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said, detailing how the facility near Qom had been under construction for years without being disclosed, as required, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. "International law is not an empty promise."

"Ah, now I see", President Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying. "The first 14 times you said that and did nothing I did not believe you, but now on this 15th time I see that you are serious."

Ok no, I made that quote up. What he actually said was this:

"If I were [President] Obama's adviser, I would definitely advise him to refrain making this statement because it is definitely a mistake," Ahmedinejad told Time magazine Friday in an interview in New York that took place even as Obama was publicly revealing the plant's existence. "It would definitively be a mistake."

Now the plot gets thicker.

But White House officials said Western intelligence agencies have known about the facility for several years and believe that Iran acknowledged its existence Monday in an attempt to head off intense criticism that they knew was coming.

"We believe that the Iranians learned that the secrecy of the facility had been compromised," a senior White House official said Friday morning. "We've been aware of this facility for several years, building up a case so that we had very strong evidence."

I'm willing to hazard a guess that in this case "Western intelligence agencies" means MOSSAD, aka Israel. Unless Iran was too obvious, and some kid found it on google earth...

The basic alleged situation is that everyone knew Iran had the extra power plant, they just rushed to condemn it once Iran realized that they knew, or something.

What it boils down to is that there has been no strong, unified international effort to force Iran to stop, even though (remarkably) nearly all nations agree that Iran with military nukes would be a terrible idea. Ahmedinejad is somewhat insane, but definitely not an idiot. He knows what he can get away with, and he's been doing splendidly so far.

Sooner or later this is all going to come to a head when the Israelis decide it has to end, and send an air strike. That may not succeed as well as the Osirak operation in Iraq did; Russia is supplying Iran with advanced air defense weaponry at the same time as it suggests it might be open to the idea of sanctions. (Putin likes to have his cake and eat it too, it would seem.)

Now the real question in all of this to me is not necessarily what happens to Iran, but to what extent their national sovereignty matters these days. That is to say, we are all pointing fingers at international bodies and saying "Why aren't you doing anything?". Do we really want the UN to be able to do something? Do we want them in the position to be able to go into a sovereign nation and by force, violate their sovereignty and impose international will on them?

Sure, this time, it's Iran. What if international consensus decides that America should give half of Texas back to Mexico?

The argument still smolders in this country over state's rights and how the Federal government is encroaching on their last remainders. Perhaps the real movers of the times are ignoring the tea parties and such things because they know that protests against national government excesses are irrelevant in the face of coming international law with teeth. It would matter little how many Americans or American congressmen agree or disagree with environmental issues if the UN could simply declare it to be international law and demand all nations conform to it. (and be able to enforce that demand)

So in all of the controversy over Iran and their nuclear program, before you think "they should do something about that", stop and ask yourself. Who are "they", and how much do we really want them to be able to do? And if we don't like what they can do, is there anything we can do about it? Not really. We live in different times now.

America's say in world affairs is only determined firstly by her economic might, and secondarily by her military supremacy. The economic might is vanishing before our eyes, and a good portion of America's clout with it. Watching the irresponsible way our government is handling the crisis doesn't help the world view us in a more favorable light, either.
The traditional American response has been "Well, the world can take a hike."
But that statement has only been possible because we had the power to back it up.

Losing that power, we will merely have the attitude of a superpower without the force to sustain it. Don't think some nations will lose any time putting us in our place.

Wake up America. As goes our economy, goes our standing in the world. As goes our standing in the world, goes our national sovereignty. If those in Washington want to chip away at the strengths in our economy according to their ideologies, rather than solve the problems there according to practical reality, they are betraying our nation in a more fundamental sense than any Revolutionary War Benedict Arnold or Cold War Rosenbergs possibly could have.

-()4|<.