The famous handshake.

The "famous" handshake.

The Obama-Chavez handshake got a lot of press.  The Left seemed pleased, the Right enraged.  Conservatives probably saw all of the “hard work” former President George W. Bush did taking a tough stand against dictators as having been given away so early into a new administration.  If you believe that Bush’s position was a wise one, it is easy to see why Conservatives would feel this way.  After all, people like Chavez are repugnant and, like the leaders of Iran and North Korea, they are not too friendly towards the freedoms that Americans hold dear.  Chavez did, after all, shut down a television station because they didn’t support his policies as well as many other things.

But is Obama’s embracing of these people really so terrible?  The short answer is: we won’t know for many years.

Barack Obama campaigned on bringing a change to American foreign policy and, indeed, he has done so.  George W. Bush’s policy of not talking to people like the Iranian president may have been morally justified but was it wise?  In shutting out people like Iran’s president Bush prevented any sort of progress from happening unless it started on their end first.  These leaders have staked their reputation on opposing America at every turn.  Indeed, it has become the red meat that they base their support on even as their economies crumble, all the while blaming America so as to deflect blame from their own shortcomings.  In embracing these leaders and showing that the United States does not necessarily view them as being evil President Obama does remove some of this power.  This is the good part.  The bad part is that we will not know for several years whether this policy of openness will result in our “enemies” taking advantage of us because they view communication as a sign of weakness.

It seems that critics like to point to President Jimmy Carter’s naive view of engagement as the “Obama model” while holding up President Ronald Reagan’s hardline stance as being the gold standard.  After all, Jimmy Carter didn’t do too well with foreign leaders while he was in office.  The Shah of Iran was deposed and a more brutal regime replaced him and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan which led to the Taliban and, not long after, al Qaeda while Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” stance led to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union in 1989.  But times have changed somewhat.

New best friends?

New best friends?

The Soviet Union was, like the United States, a superpower with many of the same abilities and goals as the United States in terms of needing to project power whereas countries such as North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela do not have the size nor the projection of power that the Soviet Union had.  So the comparisons are not “apples to apples” although certainly all four countries did not have leadership which was inclined towards friendly relations with the United States. 

One thing we have seen under the “Bush Doctrine” of shunning unpleasant regimes is that these leaders have struck up alliances with one another so as to attempt to either counter-balance or make the U.S. believe there is a counter-balance to our friendly relationships.   Bush called this the “Axis of Evil” and, while I believe he was correct, his strategy did not produce any regime change in those countries.  If anything, he allowed those leaders to show that their hardened views of the United States were justified.

Right now President Obama is still in his honeymoon stage with American voters and world leaders.  This period cannot last once he begins to make defining decisions regarding Pakistan, Israel, Iran, and Russia.  President Obama was not, despite his vast amounts of charm, able to secure any real concessions from European leaders during the recent G20 summit which was a telling example of how, even with our “friends” it is not really about “cowboy” diplomacy under Bush versus Obama’s “Apology Tour” as, if it were, then countries like Germany and France would have agreed to put their troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan or accept Gitmo detainees.

So if our “friends” didn’t feel like helping President Obama out how will our “enemies” do better?  This is the central issue in Obama’s approach towards foreign policy.  Relationships take time to blosom and so do results but leaders such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad rule with a different set of responsibilities towards their “voters” than to leaders such as Sarkozy and Merkel.  Indeed, Chavez and Ahmadinejad have less responsibility towards following the wills of their people so it appears unlikely that they will change their behavior.

While it is too early to tell what the results will be of President Obama’s efforts the evidence suggests that not much will really change even if the volume of hate may decrease.

President Obama is rolling the dice on not being seen as a weakling when it comes towards standing up for the interests of the United States but, then again, much could be said of George W. Bush when he cut off many countries from his speed dial.

– Harrison @ Just Politics..?

Add This! Blogmarks BlogLines Digg Facebook Google Google Reader MyShare Netscape reddit Sphere StumbleUpon Technorati Plugin by

Comments (6)

Presidents from Monroe to Obama have used Signing Statements.

Presidents from Monroe to Obama have used Signing Statements.

For my last article I explored the issue of Executive Orders and the Executive Branch.  The bookend to this subject is something a bit more controversial: Signing Statements.  According to The American Presidency Project, Signing Statements are:

“Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs.  The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional.”

Just as Executive Orders have not always been known as such, the same is true with Signing Statements.  In 1822 President James Monroe issued what we today call a Signing Statement saying that “he had resolved what he saw as a confusion in the law in a way that the thought was consistent with his constitutional authority.”

Click to continue reading “Signing Statements and the Presidency”

Add This! Blogmarks BlogLines Digg Facebook Google Google Reader MyShare Netscape reddit Sphere StumbleUpon Technorati Plugin by

Leave your Comment

In 2000, then Vice-President Gore defeated then Texas Governor and Republican Presidential nominee George Bush in Maine, 49% to 44%.  But unlike in Iowa and Minnesota where Mr. Gore won by slimmer margins and still captured each of the states’ electoral votes, in Maine he was awarded the support of only six of ten electors.

Having electoral votes awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote and individually by district—as they are in Maine and Nebraska—started in Maine in 1972 after reformers argued that the winner-take-all system did not accurately represent the choices of voters.  In 1992, Nebraska passed its own amendment to the state constitution and followed suit, though Nebraska’s five electoral votes would never be split until President-elect Obama captured one in 2008.

Click to continue reading “Is the Electoral College Obsolete?”

Add This! Blogmarks BlogLines Digg Facebook Google Google Reader MyShare Netscape reddit Sphere StumbleUpon Technorati Plugin by

Comments (9)

On November 7, 2000, American’s waited through the night for their new President-elect to take the podium and his opponent to concede.  As major networks sporadically called the presidential race—first projecting victory for then Vice-President Al Gore, afterward for incumbent Texas Governor George W. Bush, and finally deciding the election too close to call—many of those who resisted weighty eyelids, attempting to witness the future of their country, were confused; after all, Mr. Gore, having tallied nearly 51 million votes, won the popular vote by more than 500,000: why was he not the President-elect?

Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, the United States relies on an electoral college to decide the president, which means finding the winner is not as simple as counting up the total votes for each candidate.  The U.S. Electoral College works like this: when people go to the polls and vote for their favorite candidate, they are voting for their candidate to win the backing of their state.  Whoever garners the most votes in the state—no matter if they get a plurality, a small majority, or every single vote—wins all of the state’s electoral votes.

Click to continue reading “The Electoral College Explained”

Add This! Blogmarks BlogLines Digg Facebook Google Google Reader MyShare Netscape reddit Sphere StumbleUpon Technorati Plugin by

Comments (8)