Foreign Policy Slate, Feb 8, 2011
Obama's eloquence fails to quiet charges that he does not believe in God or America.
By John Dickerson
Posted Monday, Feb. 7, 2011, at 7:30 PM ET
President Obama does not treat all conspiracy theories alike. He dismisses those who question where he was born, but he's unsettled by those who question whether he is born again. At the National Prayer Breakfast last week, he said his Christian faith has sustained him through his presidency—"all the more so," he said, "when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned."
Americans like their presidents to share their values, and religion is often a proxy for that connection. There has been at least some confusion about what Obama believes; in a recent poll, half of Americans said Obama holds religious values different from their own. Those who see the difference tend to view him unfavorably.
Of the three prayer-breakfast speeches the president has given since coming to office, this was his most personal talk on faith. As Time's Michael Scherer pointed out, in 2009, Obama used the first-person pronoun I 15 times in his prayer-breakfast remarks. He used the first-person pronoun 10 times in 2010. Last week, he used it 44 times. It was hard not to see the political balancing act: He was trying to give the religious charge just enough credence to smash it to pieces. It is a strategy Obama will need to perfect as the 2012 election approaches as he faces a similar charge—"he just doesn't believe in it"—on such issues as "American exceptionalism" and capitalism itself.
All of these issues represent inroads to a broader toxic argument against Obama that Hillary Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, articulated in a strategy memo four years ago: "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots" by wrapping Clinton almost literally in the flag. "Let's explicitly own 'American' in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn't. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy fund" What Penn wanted to do—without ever getting caught doing so—was raise the question in voter's minds: Is he one of us?
At its most corrosive, this set of issues promotes the idea that the president isn't simply supporting the "wrong" policies but has the "wrong" beliefs. But Penn failed (spectacularly), so how potent is this mix now?
It's big enough that the president had to address the religion element in his prayer breakfast. Sen. John McCain also addressed these issues when trying to make peace with Obama by defending him against the toughest conservative charge: "He is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals."
The size of the exposure may also be determined by which GOP candidates try to feed it.
Is that what Mitt Romney was trying to do when he changed the subtitle of his book from No Apology: The Case for American Greatness to No Apology: Believe in America? It sounds right out of Penn's playbook. Romney's critique of the president is not just that Obama does not share American values but that Obama is intent on smothering them. Then again, as Romney allies say, maybe he is just trying to increase book sales.
When Newt Gingrich suggests the president "doesn't seem to have the kind of personality that allows normal Americans to get the rhythm of who he is," he is hitting on this theme. In his recent book he does it with a sledgehammer by suggesting Obama and the "secular-socialist machine" pose as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. He has since moderated that charge but not its essential thrust. Even if he's not comparing the president to those two regimes, he's saying that he is so non-American that a person must stretch to find an analogy among the people who committed the greatest acts of human depravity.
On Monday, the president addressed the Chamber of Commerce in the latest of a series of steps aimed at rebutting the idea that he does not believe in American commerce. It is the easiest of these values charges to rebut because the president has some control over policies that might help or hurt business.
Opponents are likely to see Obama's prayer-breakfast speech or the American boosterism of his State of the Union address as insincere: He's just talking about these issues now because he's got an election coming. Such charges may have some power, especially if voters don't want to investigate them. But on the two big charges—that Obama doesn't believe in God, and doesn't believe in America—it's hard to make the case that the president has just discovered his faith or his voice in praising the American spirit.
Obama is a Christian—as he likes to put it, he has "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." You don't have to hunt for proof. His embrace of Christ is a key point in his 1995 autobiography. He has spoken throughout his career about his faith. In 2004, he gave an extensive interview on the topic. In 2006, he scolded his own party for shutting out religion and scolded himself for not always boasting about the Christian roots of his values. A Politico story written in the first year of his presidency said he referred more to Jesus than George W. Bush did. (In the face of this, those who still want to judge Obama an unbeliever should go read their Matthew.)
It is also possible to find the same antecedents for the president's State of the Union address. When Obama spoke about America's history and the unique ability of Americans to shape their destiny, many saw it as an attempt to answer the charge that he did not believe in "American exceptionalism." That was certainly part of the pitch, but he didn't have to go to the library to hunt up the passages. Before Obama was facing the charge that he was not a believer in this brand of American bootstrapping, he was singing the identical song as a candidate.
To Obama's strongest critics, his view of "American exceptionalism" will not be sufficient. But they're not the audience for Obama's suasion. The voters who may need convincing are the ones in the middle of the electorate, the ones who believed he shared their values even when Sarah Palin said he was "palling around with terrorists." It's the message the president gave in his interview with Fox's Bill O'Reilly. "I'm the same guy."
http://www.slate.com/id/2283755/?from=rss
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Egypt Uprising
After a year of keeping the weblong inactive, now the Egyptian Revolution has inspired me to start writing. Today I was looking at New York Times. In the Room for Debate, I found these remarks interesting.
Egypt Is Not Iran
February 7, 2011
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Behind the Obama administration’s concern over legalism, many current and former officials worry that any withdrawal of support for Egyptian President Mubarak will reverberate through the region much as did President Carter’s abandonment of the Shah of Iran.
A legalistic U.S. approach is no way to promote democratic change.
The two situations are not analogous, however. Egypt has been an ally in name only. When Vice President Cheney called Mubarak a good friend and a U.S. ally, it is telling that his example of Mubarak’s friendship — Egyptian assistance during the liberation of Kuwait — is two decades old. He omitted that Mubarak held out for $14 billion in debt forgiveness before he chose sides.
As for the shah, Iran had been a loyal ally during the cold war when the stakes were higher. While the shah’s fall harmed American national security interests, what occurred next compounded the damage: Desperate to ingratiate himself with revolutionary students, President Carter was willing to sacrifice the shah’s life. He not only sought to force the shah to leave American soil for Panama, but he quietly encouraged Panamanian authorities to send the shah back to Iran before the deposed monarch could travel on to Egypt. Thankfully, they did not. The problem with Carter’s approach was not the shah’s fall, but White House dithering in its aftermath.
So long as Mubarak remains in power, the most radical elements will use his presence as an irritant against which to rally. If Obama and Secretary Clinton try to take a legalistic approach now, they will alienate the protesters. After all, Mubarak’s behavior was little grounded in Egyptian constitutionalism. Instead they should be proactive: They should support establishment of a technocratic transitional government, use their soapbox to help it make the necessary legal changes to ensure a smooth election according to a set time line, and then welcome Egypt’s new democratic order.
Cautionary Lessons from Iran and Lebanon
Updated February 7, 2011, 06:44 PMDavid Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy project on the Middle East Peace Process. He is the co-author with Dennis Ross of “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East” and the author of "Imagining a Border."
President Obama is walking a tightrope: On the one hand, he aims to support American democratic values in non-democratic states. On the other hand, he and his advisers must realize that democratic revolutions in the Middle East have all too often been subverted by groups that use liberal means to reach illiberal ends.
Contemporary history teaches us to be cautious when examining the intersection of Islamic parties and revolutions.
The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
In 1979, people of all political inclinations took to the streets in massive demonstrations to oust the Shah from Tehran. Liberals, trade unionists, and Communists joined hands with Islamists. Yet, it was not long before the Islamist-dominated Iranian parliament impeached the new moderate Iranian president Bani Sadr and the Revolutionary Guards seized his office. In the years that followed, Islamists proceeded to discard civil liberties, including imprisoning the masses who protested the sham elections of June 2009.
In 2005, the world celebrated the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. It is widely believed that Hezbollah was behind the political assassination of beloved former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, which triggered the uprising.
In May 2008, its militia coerced the Druze — a key pillar of the Cedar Revolution — to rescind their support for Saad Hariri. Finally, Hezbollah toppled the Lebanese government last month in opposition to the international tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination.
Likewise, when people say that the U.S. need not worry about the Egypt ‘s Muslim Brotherhood because they are supported by less than 30 percent of the public, they miss the point. The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
They do not play by democratic rules. Both in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, they created their own Iran-backed independent militias that exploit the fragility of the state. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Hamas, which was in a power sharing government with Abbas, of a coup when it expelled the authority ’s security forces from Gaza in June 2007.
We cannot be certain whether the Muslim Brotherhood will follow these models. (Saying you are against violence as the Brotherhood says when they have the Egyptian security state on top of them does not count for much.) Given the complexity of the issue, the U.S. would do well to couple its support for democratic values with quiet support for Egyptian military efforts to reach out to assorted democratic forces in the opposition. Let those Egyptian forces negotiate a plan for constitutional change that nobody can charge is “made in the U.S.A .”
Stop Fixating on Mubarak
Updated February 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Lydia Khalil is a board member of the Project on Middle East Democracy and a non-resident fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Last week, Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify what President Obama meant when he said "an orderly transition must begin now." "Now means yesterday," Gibbs replied. Fast forward a few days and the administration's special emissary to Egypt, Frank Wisner, says, "President Mubarak's role remains extremely critical in the days ahead."
The U.S. has a habit of reducing a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
The Obama administration's mixed messaging is not only reflective of the uncertainty of the situation as both Egypt and Washington grapple with what's next, but it is symptomatic of the United States' long standing foreign policy contradictions in the Middle East. It reflects the unsavory habit of the U.S. foreign policy establishment to focus on the short term rather than the long term and to reduce a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
By fixating on the terms of Mubarak's departure, the Obama administration is missing the forest for the trees. Though the U.S. has come out in support of political reform and a democratic transition, it is still framing the debate in terms of the fate of one person. Egypt's transition to democracy is about much more than whether Mubarak stays on until September or leaves right away. Regardless of whether the United States pushes for his ouster immediately or argues that a transition period is needed, it is not addressing the fundamental concerns of the Egyptian opposition and risks alienating its future partners.
The administration needs to understand what is behind the protesters call for Mubarak's ouster. The calls for Mubarak's immediate removal are fundamentally an emotive response to the suffering and stagnation that most Egyptians experienced under his regime. There is also fear that the longer Mubarak is allowed to stay, the greater the chances he will try to reverse the momentum against him.
The protesters don't want to replace Mubarak with another one of his cronies or return to military rule. At the same time, Egyptians don't want chaos and are wary of the consequences of rapid change. They want responsive governmental institutions, a decent education for their children, job opportunities, and the creation of an Egyptian society that restores dignity and allows for meaningful participation.
The Obama administration needs to concentrate on these fundamental demands, do what it can to bolster the secular opposition and assist in initiating institutional and constitutional reform. It must shift the conversation away from Mubarak's immediate future to what it plans to do to help Egypt become a stable and representative government responsive to the needs of its people.
Egypt Is Not Iran
February 7, 2011
Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Behind the Obama administration’s concern over legalism, many current and former officials worry that any withdrawal of support for Egyptian President Mubarak will reverberate through the region much as did President Carter’s abandonment of the Shah of Iran.
A legalistic U.S. approach is no way to promote democratic change.
The two situations are not analogous, however. Egypt has been an ally in name only. When Vice President Cheney called Mubarak a good friend and a U.S. ally, it is telling that his example of Mubarak’s friendship — Egyptian assistance during the liberation of Kuwait — is two decades old. He omitted that Mubarak held out for $14 billion in debt forgiveness before he chose sides.
As for the shah, Iran had been a loyal ally during the cold war when the stakes were higher. While the shah’s fall harmed American national security interests, what occurred next compounded the damage: Desperate to ingratiate himself with revolutionary students, President Carter was willing to sacrifice the shah’s life. He not only sought to force the shah to leave American soil for Panama, but he quietly encouraged Panamanian authorities to send the shah back to Iran before the deposed monarch could travel on to Egypt. Thankfully, they did not. The problem with Carter’s approach was not the shah’s fall, but White House dithering in its aftermath.
So long as Mubarak remains in power, the most radical elements will use his presence as an irritant against which to rally. If Obama and Secretary Clinton try to take a legalistic approach now, they will alienate the protesters. After all, Mubarak’s behavior was little grounded in Egyptian constitutionalism. Instead they should be proactive: They should support establishment of a technocratic transitional government, use their soapbox to help it make the necessary legal changes to ensure a smooth election according to a set time line, and then welcome Egypt’s new democratic order.
Cautionary Lessons from Iran and Lebanon
Updated February 7, 2011, 06:44 PMDavid Makovsky is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow and the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy project on the Middle East Peace Process. He is the co-author with Dennis Ross of “Myths, Illusions and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East” and the author of "Imagining a Border."
President Obama is walking a tightrope: On the one hand, he aims to support American democratic values in non-democratic states. On the other hand, he and his advisers must realize that democratic revolutions in the Middle East have all too often been subverted by groups that use liberal means to reach illiberal ends.
Contemporary history teaches us to be cautious when examining the intersection of Islamic parties and revolutions.
The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
In 1979, people of all political inclinations took to the streets in massive demonstrations to oust the Shah from Tehran. Liberals, trade unionists, and Communists joined hands with Islamists. Yet, it was not long before the Islamist-dominated Iranian parliament impeached the new moderate Iranian president Bani Sadr and the Revolutionary Guards seized his office. In the years that followed, Islamists proceeded to discard civil liberties, including imprisoning the masses who protested the sham elections of June 2009.
In 2005, the world celebrated the “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon. It is widely believed that Hezbollah was behind the political assassination of beloved former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005, which triggered the uprising.
In May 2008, its militia coerced the Druze — a key pillar of the Cedar Revolution — to rescind their support for Saad Hariri. Finally, Hezbollah toppled the Lebanese government last month in opposition to the international tribunal investigating Rafik Hariri’s assassination.
Likewise, when people say that the U.S. need not worry about the Egypt ‘s Muslim Brotherhood because they are supported by less than 30 percent of the public, they miss the point. The Islamists have demonstrated that they are potent not because they are a majority, but because they are a determined and disciplined minority.
They do not play by democratic rules. Both in the case of Hezbollah and Hamas, they created their own Iran-backed independent militias that exploit the fragility of the state. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas accused Hamas, which was in a power sharing government with Abbas, of a coup when it expelled the authority ’s security forces from Gaza in June 2007.
We cannot be certain whether the Muslim Brotherhood will follow these models. (Saying you are against violence as the Brotherhood says when they have the Egyptian security state on top of them does not count for much.) Given the complexity of the issue, the U.S. would do well to couple its support for democratic values with quiet support for Egyptian military efforts to reach out to assorted democratic forces in the opposition. Let those Egyptian forces negotiate a plan for constitutional change that nobody can charge is “made in the U.S.A .”
Stop Fixating on Mubarak
Updated February 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Lydia Khalil is a board member of the Project on Middle East Democracy and a non-resident fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Last week, Robert Gibbs was asked to clarify what President Obama meant when he said "an orderly transition must begin now." "Now means yesterday," Gibbs replied. Fast forward a few days and the administration's special emissary to Egypt, Frank Wisner, says, "President Mubarak's role remains extremely critical in the days ahead."
The U.S. has a habit of reducing a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
The Obama administration's mixed messaging is not only reflective of the uncertainty of the situation as both Egypt and Washington grapple with what's next, but it is symptomatic of the United States' long standing foreign policy contradictions in the Middle East. It reflects the unsavory habit of the U.S. foreign policy establishment to focus on the short term rather than the long term and to reduce a complicated, dynamic situation to the actions and fate of one strongman.
By fixating on the terms of Mubarak's departure, the Obama administration is missing the forest for the trees. Though the U.S. has come out in support of political reform and a democratic transition, it is still framing the debate in terms of the fate of one person. Egypt's transition to democracy is about much more than whether Mubarak stays on until September or leaves right away. Regardless of whether the United States pushes for his ouster immediately or argues that a transition period is needed, it is not addressing the fundamental concerns of the Egyptian opposition and risks alienating its future partners.
The administration needs to understand what is behind the protesters call for Mubarak's ouster. The calls for Mubarak's immediate removal are fundamentally an emotive response to the suffering and stagnation that most Egyptians experienced under his regime. There is also fear that the longer Mubarak is allowed to stay, the greater the chances he will try to reverse the momentum against him.
The protesters don't want to replace Mubarak with another one of his cronies or return to military rule. At the same time, Egyptians don't want chaos and are wary of the consequences of rapid change. They want responsive governmental institutions, a decent education for their children, job opportunities, and the creation of an Egyptian society that restores dignity and allows for meaningful participation.
The Obama administration needs to concentrate on these fundamental demands, do what it can to bolster the secular opposition and assist in initiating institutional and constitutional reform. It must shift the conversation away from Mubarak's immediate future to what it plans to do to help Egypt become a stable and representative government responsive to the needs of its people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
