Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Obama as stupid as Bush? | 49 comments (49 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Obama as stupid as Bush? (4.00 / 2)
Frank, I think you're off base here, even if you're right about world opinion changing regarding Obama (as is domestic opinion). Because the American president has essentially presided over much of the entire world and the various political disputes and challenges among its many allies and foreign constituencies since WWII, you could make a similar list of anyone who has occupied that office -- all of the things that they have failed to do at a certain point in time without comparing it to accomplishments.  Only 2 years at the job, I think it would be hard to find a president since FDR (inclusive) that has actually accomplished as much internationally, as well as domestically, as Obama has, faults notwithstanding.  If not Obama, then who? What past American president has actually done more in a comparable amount of time?

But furthermore, this rationale that you provide is just not supported by any honest appraisal of world affairs today:

And there is one other vital difference.  Whereas before the US was the unrivalled world military, economic and political superpower which could attempt to do more or less what it wanted, now the US is being challenged both economically and politically.  What you could get away with before is often no longer possible.

Really? What world are you talking about? In what spectrum is America less dominant today than before the fall of the Soviet Union, for example? All that seems to be the case here is that, because of Bush's mistake of invading the wrong country, social discourse is now a bit more critical of America than it was at its low-water mark at the end of the Clinton administration. But that just means that it's more like it was in the 1980's than the 1990's.  Big deal. Especially since Obama opposed the invasion and is, so far, successfully extricating American forces from that country by his own timeline.  That's real power at work, so I just don't see the the evidence to back your thesis, and the street chatter, that Obama is an ineffective leader.  So, who, if not Obama, would you have for your emperor, given that the world apparently still feels it needs emperors?

by santiago on Thu Jun 3rd, 2010 at 01:25:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Obama as stupid as Bush? (4.00 / 3)
santiago:
social discourse is now a bit more critical of America than it was at its low-water mark at the end of the Clinton administration

That was the high watermark in my opinion!  Clinton was actually quite popular world-wide, and he left the US economy in good shape.

You actually don't challenge any of the 9 points I have made except to say no other President has done more in less than 2 years.  

santiago:

Only 2 years at the job, I think it would be hard to find a president since FDR (inclusive) that has actually accomplished as much internationally

So what are his foreign policy successes?  (I gave him credit for his domestic successes at the top of the story).

  1. An as yet unratified nuclear arms reduction treaty

  2. Fine speeches in Cairo, Berlin and Oslo which raised expectations but have yet to be followed up with achievements

  3. Derailing the attempt to achieve a successor to Kyoto at Copenhagen

  4. Enraging world opinion by refusing to condemn Israel's act of war against a civilian humanitarian effort...

  5. Enraging Hispanic opinion by not addressing the immigration issue - thereby leaving the field open to Arizona to enact racist legislation

  6. Doing nothing to normalise relations with Cuba...

I can't think of any more.  Please help me out. In whose world are these "successes"?

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jun 3rd, 2010 at 01:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Obama as stupid as Bush? (4.00 / 2)
Except for a few things that I address below, there's not much to challenge about your nine points, really. I'm as disappointed as you are, and should be, about them.  Obama needs, and asks even, to be held accountable by an angry public and civil society organized actions so that he has the credibility he needs to overcome the organized interests who oppose progressive policies.  (It's part of the Chicago school/Alinsky organizing method, actually, so fomenting/allowing people to get worked up about his lack of success in specific areas is a bigger part of the Obama White House strategy than we realize.  Creating "tension" around issues is the word from Alinsky that is relevent here, though I admit that the tension seems to get a bit too out of control too often.)  

However, what he hasn't yet done doesn't really say much because he has, in fact, done a lot of other things, such as:

  1. Getting out of Iraq. Obama's acceleration of withdrawal, over the objections of the key generals in charge of the policy and fierce political opposition from the right, is proving to be an extraordinary success by almost any measure.  This was a Herculean policy shift.

  2. Changing course on Polish ABM deployment.  Key move that immediately relieved the pressure on Moscow to look for ways to confront America.  Again, huge risks and lots of domestic and military opposition to the policy had to be overcome but in the end, he got the generals to buy in, resulting in ...

  3. The first major strategic arms reduction treaty in years. The ink is even dry yet, so claims that it hasn't been ratified are off base. The Senate has not rejected it, which means it is already US policy and represents a major shift in the way the US does business with Russia, repairing 8 years of Bush's damage to the relationship. Since conflict between the US and Russia still is the only one that is potentially world-ending, this is huge.  (In the US, arms control treaties can be policy without senate ratification because the policy is almost entirely dependent on the president for implementation, unlike trade and environmental treaties.  Only if the senate actually votes to reject ratification is the US commitment to the treaty really threatened, and senate ratification often takes years, so lack of ratification is not a big deal on this issue.  The key thing is that the whole military and foreign policy establishment already embraces it, due to Obama's actions.)

  4. Saved the world from ruin in the financial crisis/great recession.  As controversial as it was, here like everywhere else, TARP proved to be an unmitigated success, and Obama's commitment to the policy that was actually started by Bush saved the financial industry and prevented the developed world from falling into the episodes of deprivation and political violence that prevailed in and followed the Great Depression. While it's too early to say we're out of harm's way yet, it's clear that the vast majority of banks were able to provide loans and save deposits for people, and thus avoiding the human calamity that was the Great Depression the last time this stuff happened when the opinions of people who think like Angela Merkel carried the day and failed to deliver on fiscal stimulus and monetary expansion when the world most needed it.  This success for American leadership at a critical time to quickly extinguish the fire that was threatening to overwhelm an international economic system that is largely of America's own creation ranks Obama as a superhero in international policy accomplishments alone, if we are going to make honest comparisons of his work with other world leaders past and present.
by santiago on Thu Jun 3rd, 2010 at 05:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Obama as stupid as Bush? (4.00 / 3)
Your points:

  1. Bush also had a timetable for withdrawal.  If Obama does succeed in implementing his, it will be a major success, but at present the Jury is still out.

  2. Reversing the most idiotic of Bush's ideas was a success, I grant you - although how anyone was to believe the shield was directed at Iran is beyond me.  Obama would have run into serious problems with his NATO allies if he had tried to implement the policy in any case.  Don't forget Bush got nowhere near actually doing anything on this, and perhaps (if we are to attribute a glimmer of intelligence) it was all intended as a means to force Russia into a more accommodating stance on other issues.  I.e. it was negotiating foreplay and never intended to be implemented anyway.

  3. I also mentioned above.  However if it is rejected by the Senate it may count for nothing if Russia withdraws in response.  Obama's credibility, stature, and ability to negotiate will be undermined if he is shown to be someone who can't deliver on deals reached.  With the Dems likely to lose 4/5 senate seats this fall, he doesn't have much time left to get it ratified.

  4. I gave Obama credit for under his domestic achievements in my opening paragraph although obviously it had an impact on the world economy as well.  Don't underestimate the impact of the BRIC countries on world recovery. Also Don't forget that my basic thesis was that Obama hadn't changed foreign policy all that much from the Bush regime.  TARP, as you point out, was also a continuation of Bush policy... albeit a more positive one.

Overall I don't deny Obama makes better speeches and has better intentions - a more multi-lateral and less bellicose approach - although it can be argued he had no choice but to change due to the spectacular failure of the neo-cons/Bush regime.

His record of actual achievement is very thin to date however, and it's much to early to say whether he will achieve much in the rest of his term.  His habit of not really leading from the front - until he absolutely has to - means that the speed of progress will be determined by a few centrist dems/republicans and the MIC and much of his early momentum/capital has been squandered at this stage.  

His impact has been much less than hoped for by the rest of the world, and his effective endorsement of Israel's act of war against humanitarian civilians was the last straw for me.  Don't forget that this will have profound implications for how others will deal with America. Effectively the US has now lost the boost to its prestige it received with his election.  In terms of international influence the USA is back to a Bush level of influence.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Jun 3rd, 2010 at 06:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama as stupid as Bush? | 49 comments (49 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: