The President’s Words Cost Him Nothing – But the Price for the Nation May Be Dear Indeed

“Reset”, “Unacceptable”, “Red line”, “Grave Concern”, are all words bandied about by President Obama.  Judging by the lack of consequence, one might conclude that he must think that words alone are enough. 

Is it simple arrogance?  Is it an expectation that stating his desire about what should be – as it has so often been in his star-struck career – is enough to bring it about?

Probably that was at least part of the answer during the early stages of his presidency.  But can it still be after so many failures to achieve stated objectives?  He would be a fool indeed if that were the case. 

The President is deserving of many pejoratives; fool is not one of them.

Obama has never concealed his lack of interest in foreign affairs.  His focus has been on directing America sharply to the left, whether in “health reform” or in income redistribution.

But he can hardly escape his Constitutional duty to serve as Commander–in-Chief.  So the President says what he does not in any expectation that foreigners will follow his directives but, rather, because he thinks it is his obligation to voice them. 

He doesn’t really believe in his words and certainly has no intention of following through.  The President is mainly – if not entirely – playing to his domestic audience. 

Unfortunately, there are serious consequences for America stemming from Barack Obama’s insincerity.

The outside world has no use for the President’s domestic policy concerns.  But calculations on what the U.S. will do on the world’s stage are critical indeed.  Words from the leader of the earth’s most powerful nation cannot be ignored unless experience proves they are empty.  In fact, this Commander-in-Chief has provided ample proof that such is exactly the case.

The consequences of this conclusion can be disastrous indeed for America’s national interest and safety.

Bin Laden was reportedly much encouraged by Clinton’s largely symbolic response to his attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen.  (A few cruise missiles were fired into his Afghan training base.) 

Al Qaeda was persuaded that the 9/11 attacks would trigger a similarly timid reaction.

  

[To note that George Bush was not Bill Clinton misses the point.  For most foreigners the President is America in the sense that he speaks for all of us and represents our attitudes.  Of course, that’s naïve.  But the perception is the reality that affects behavior.]

Failures to fulfill promises – or back up threats – have the potential for tragic consequences.

 

It would be better by far if Barack Obama would simply keep his mouth shut.  His personal desire to do nothing wouldn’t have to change – he’d merely need to stop posturing.  At least that would leave the outside world to wonder about what the U.S. would do in confronting a particular threat.  Alas, the vain, self-righteous occupant of the White House appears incapable of doing so.

Last week’s commentary focused on America’s popularity in the world.  Such matters little if divorced from respect.  Is there a more obvious historical fact than that nations base their actions on self-interest, not on affection?

It is appalling – nay, alarming – that members of the President’s own party have not lambasted his irresponsible disregard of our national self-interest.  They are Americans, too.  Is party loyalty so demanding that no prominent Democrats (forget about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) feel obligated to publicly state the obvious?

And what about the media?  How can it be that, with the usual conservative exceptions, there has been no general condemnation of the President’s vapid rhetoric?  Will nothing shake their allegiance to Barack Obama – not even the dangers his conduct invites?

Obama’s Foreign Policy – Successful?

Do you remember one of the President’s favorite – and oft repeated - mantra’s during last year’s campaign?

 

“Al Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead,” as if all was going well during Obama’s watch on the world stage.

When the September killing of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya threatened the narrative, the Administration blamed an inflammatory internet video instead of active terrorists.  Not surprisingly, the media, with the exception of Fox news and a few others, did not challenge the suspect account.

 

We were all reminded a few weeks ago by the global terrorism alert that things aren’t exactly working out as Barack Obama promised.

 

The new Administration took office in January ’09, pledging a “new and improved” foreign policy which would correct the errors of his unpopular predecessor.

 

* Guantanamo Bay detention center was to be closed

* A tour of Middle Eastern countries was conducted during which the president offered a more understanding U.S. attitude (termed by some as an “apology tour”)

* Russian relations were to be reset

The paramount purpose of these efforts, the Administration proclaimed, was to improve America’s standing in the world.

 

We know now, of course, that the items noted above were not exactly successful or achieved.  But how about the broader objective?

 

The Pew Research Center has been surveying global attitudes towards America since 2002.  The question asked is “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of the U.S.?”

Interestingly, Middle East opinion on American is now more negative than it was in 2008, during the last year of George Bush’s Administration.

 

Here are some examples.  (percentages are favorable ratings)

          * Egypt 22% in ’08 – 16% in 2013

          * Jordan 19% vs. 14%

          * Pakistan 19% vs. 11%

So much for long term positive results from the apology tour.

 

European views today, however, are decidedly more positive than they were when President Bush was in the White House. 

Another sampling:

* France 42% in ’08 – 64% in 2013

* Britain 53% vs. 58%

* Germany 31% vs. 53%

Even Russians are more favorable 46% vs. 51%.

Without question Europe prefers Obama to Bush, but even there disillusionment has set in.

While nearly 2/3 of the French view the U.S. favorably now, in 2009 the positive rating was over 75% and the plus rating has dropped 11% for both the British and the Germans in the same time period.

In fairness, one must say that based upon public opinion, President Obama has improved relations with our European allies – the love affair with our first black leader largely continues.  Middle East relations under his watch have, however, worsened significantly.

 

A verdict on the Obama foreign policy perceived by the outside world is one of mixed success.

But as one looks today at conditions in Russia, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Egypt, it’s vital to note that the proper question is whether America’s foreign policy is serving our national interest – not whether it’s making us more popular in the world.  Judge success by the former.  The latter is a fickle concern.

  

Are Conservatives and Libertarians Opposed to Each Other?

Conservatives, to simplify the label, are primarily concerned with sustaining values such as family, belief in God and respect for authority which are believed to underpin a healthy society. 

Libertarians, on the other hand, focus on the primacy of the individual:   protect his right to be free of governmental restraint. 

In popular terminology, proponents of both political philosophies are on the Right.  And, in reality, proponents rarely hold exclusively one perspective but, rather, believe in a combination of the two.  (Rand Paul, for one, is a likely exception.)

Take me, for example.  While in college, I was a fervent libertarian.  My right to do what I wanted (but not harming anyone by so doing) was my guiding principle.  I was an individualist.

But, with age and maturity, I came to appreciate that man is very much a social animal.  Without society and its wise traditions and sanctioned virtues, he will not long survive.  This was hardly a unique realization on my part.  It was put more poetically by John Donne in the 17^th century who noted “that no man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main… Any man’s death diminishes me for I am involved with mankind”.

And so I came to recognize that preserving -- in modern day America, restoring -- a healthy society and culture is also a political objective.  We have responsibilities, too.

After all, what rights will survive if our free society collapses? 

Does “Profiling” Make Common Sense?

What is termed profiling is actually a prejudgment – an assumption that people or individuals falling into certain descriptive categories are more likely than others to engage in certain behavior than those who do not fit within such categories.  Prejudgment may or may not be accurate.

We all profile in a certain sense.  Here’s an example:  if we are among strangers and need help, those who smile are deemed to be more friendly than those who don’t and hence more likely to help.  That is a prejudgment against those who do not smile, is it not?

In fact, we go through – and navigate -- life by drawing upon our experiences and the judgments and lessons of others to form beliefs about all sorts of things.  People we can trust (for example, medical doctors); those we can’t (used car salesmen and politicians).  The prejudgment may be well founded or it might not be.  If it is, to term the practice “profiling” does not make it illegitimate; it is merely common sense.

Shortly after 9/11, police were called aboard a commercial airliner sitting on the runway of a major American airport because a group of dark-skinned men in Arab-style dress were chanting something in a foreign tongue.

The alarm was false.  The men were Muslim clergy reciting ritual prayers as prescribed by their religion.

The episode was condemned by many Americans as blatant bias.  But was it? 

It was only common sense for fellow passengers to be suspicious.  After all, hadn’t the highjackers been male Arabs reciting Allahu Akbar?  Of course, the reaction would not have been the same if those praying in the aisle had been Catholic nuns wearing habits.  But isn’t that the point?   They wouldn’t have fit the profile of those who might pose danger as perceived by the passengers.

But what about prejudgments that are a part of public policy?

 

Some years ago, New Jersey State Police were being criticized by the media, and liberal policymakers in particular, for targeting luxury cars for traffic stops if they were on I-95, bearing Florida tags and being driven by young black men.

The basis of the profile was that vehicles fitting it were more likely to be transporting drugs.

The assumption was probably correct, but the consequence was that many black drivers were stopped who were doing absolutely nothing wrong.  They felt singled out and, indeed, they had been.  Their displeasure with that policy (sarcastically termed the offense of DWB – driving while black) was understandable.

Yet the policy was not malicious in intent.  The purpose was to increase the prospects of catching drug-runners.  But considering the imposition the New Jersey program imposed on the many to catch (without dispute) the few, it arguably was an inadvisable use of profiling.  The gain didn’t match the cost.

 

But what should the police do when a group of young black males are seen loitering outside a luxury jewelry store at 3 a.m.?  Statistics make clear that they are more likely to be “up to no good” than, say, a similar number of black females or older Middle Eastern men.  Should profiling – common sense – heighten police suspicion of their intentions?  Again, let’s assume that the young black males pose a higher risk, but it was one of possibility, not probability.  Certainly for the police to confront them is an imposition on them.  Does that concern counterbalance the police desire to reduce the possibility of a crime occurring?  I would suggest that the profiling is quite appropriate as would be consequent police action.

    

Return to our discussion on the post 9/11 period.  Shouldn’t the Transportation Security Administration profile passengers?  The TSA denies that it does so.  So, in theory, the young mother pushing a baby in a stroller receives the same security scrutiny as the young Saudi Arabian male.  Until a mother and baby are involved in a terrorist plot, the equal treatment respects political correctness, not common sense.