The incoming hope-and-change Obama administration advanced the narrative that at home and abroad it cared far more for people than profits. Its “reset” diplomacy (all in the past “bad,” all in the future “good”) was supposed to be about multilateral consensus instead of Bush-era unilateral hubris. But after almost 30 months, it is now clear that in our dealings abroad values like human rights, constitutional government, free-market liberal economics, and transparency do not matter much to the Obama administration.
In all the acrimony over the Israeli-Palestinian open sore — forget disputed lands, past history, even the matter of an ally versus an entity that is in league with our enemies — no one in the Obama administration has once reminded the American people that Israel is a liberal democracy that respects the rights of minorities, women, homosexuals, and the “other” in a manner that is still impossible on the West Bank or in Gaza. That Israel is prosperous and wealthy without natural resources in a way that most of its neighbors are not means little — and why that is so means nothing at all.
Advertisement
When President Obama voted present on the Iranian uprising and Secretary Clinton described the monstrous Assad as a “reformer,” completely absent was any awareness that both countries are repressive, cruel, and intolerant of dissent — in a fashion that even our past dictatorial and autocratic partners like the odious Mubarak or Ben Ali did not. I am not suggesting that the latter should have escaped condemnation, only that repulsion for the former two regimes should have been even more pronounced. And, again, it simply was not.
Whatever the respect that must be accorded to Putin’s Russia — given that it is vast, nuclear, rich with oil, and still a strategic player — it is hardly a society analogous to the new democracies of Eastern Europe such as Poland or the Czech Republic. But in all discussions about the thorny issues of missile defense, that fundamental fact was lost. It was almost as if Russia’s past anger at the U.S., and Eastern Europe’s support for the Bush administration, earned the one respect from the Obama administration, and the other suspicion, if not disdain. It seems too surreal to even suggest the following, but it is nevertheless likely: The degree to which a nation opposed the United States between 2001 and 2009 now wins it exemption from judgment; the degree to which it once supported us earns it present distrust.
I could go on in analyzing the administration’s outreach to Cuba and Venezuela, and its relative lack of interest in their more liberal neighbors, but the general charge that the Obama administration does not seem to give Westernized constitutional government and open societies much weight in its diplomatic calculus is true enough. Talk of promoting democracy or supporting reformers in the Middle East was belated and opportunistic. And it was so compromised by the confused, on-again/off-again nature of our advocacy as to be rendered irrelevant — who exactly are the Libyan rebels, why the confused intervention in Libya but not Syria, what exactly is happening in Egypt, is the Muslim Brotherhood really “secular,” why the suspicion of the Iraqi democratic government, and why the exemption extended to the Gulf monarchies in a way it was not to other autocracies?
What explains this paradox of self-described liberal thinkers not appreciating classical liberalism abroad? It is not old-fashioned right-wing realpolitik that calibrates Obama’s foreign policy — at least not on consistent criteria such as shared self-interests, national security, or access to resources, since the status of American alliances, our forward military profile, and a reductive commitment to help friends and punish enemies have never been more problematic.
Instead, American foreign policy is now becoming an extension not of classically liberal values, but of progressive suspicions of constitutional government, capitalism, and the historical role of the United States in particular and the West in general. The bowing to foreign potentates, the sad historical fabrications in the Cairo speech, the self-serving nonsense that arose in the first Al-Arabiya interview, and the so-called “apology tour” were simply superficial manifestations of a deeper ambiguity about America and its past and present values and world role.
Dr Hansen has almost hit the nail on the head. Missing from his and so many others' analyses of Mr Obama's policies is the simple, simply-observed fact that BHO hates America. BHO is acting to change America from a capitalist dynamo to a socialist nanny-state. Add that into VDH's trenchant analysis and everything makes sense.
At the heart of conservative political philosophy is selfishness. Honderich, Ted, Conservatism: Burke, Nozick, Bush, Blair? London: Penguin Books Ltd. (1989).
But selfishness is, we learn on Sunday, bad.
That sets up a real conundrum. Ouch.
The elevation of the principle of noncoercion above all others, especially the Golden Rule and the other teachings of Bush 43's favorite philosopher, is fundamentally unsettling to anyone who absorbs Sunday teachings week after week. It takes some real mental gymnastics, for example, to say that when someone slaps you on the cheek you should offer up the other one to be slapped too, but when someone takes a buck from your pocket you should try to grab it back.
One of the most obvious expressions of this conundrum is projection. Democrats, and especially our current administration, hate our country. Kenyan neo-colonialist nuthin' -- our president sits Lex Luthor-like in the Oval Office, wringing his hands and cackling with evil glee as he plots his next scheme to bring Amerikkka to its knees.
In other words, conservatives fret on some basic level that what they want is not "good" in the Sunday sense, and express this concern by painting their adversaries as comic-book evil.
Conservatives are selfish. Interesting idea, how do you square it with the fact that conservative households, at least in America, give more to charity? And not just money, they donate more time and give more blood.
Arthur C. Brooks' book, "Who Really Cares," has been widely criticized as being based on skewed data, i.e., itemized deductions reported on Schedule A. Ask yourself: "Who really itemizes"?
Having read a book belittling conservatives, however detached from reality it appears to have been, doesn't make your logic any better. Your statements are basically, "Conservatives are selfish" and you then take that as a given and go forward from that. The human condition is selfish. So now, ask yourself, is it selfish to want the same liberties, freedoms, and security before the law that we enjoy in democracies instead of the fear, repression, and oppression one gets under tyranny?
And what, exactly, is projection in this article? For every thing Hanson has laid out fits together, and is the opposite of how the conservative sees the world.
So which lesson on Sunday is it that the conservatives ignore?
Could it be "God helps those who help themselves"?
or how about:
"The poor will always be with us"?
As a devout, practicing catholic I know of nothing in my faith's basic tenants that is in opposition to my political point of view.
so instead of broad bush bigotry, which is what your comment boils down to, let's talk specifics shall we? Quote a piece of Sunday's readings that lead you to conclude that conservatives are violating their faith. That's a specific, focused and valid debate. Slinging mud in the general direction of people whose opinions differ from yours is not.
And while you are at it perhaps you could provide some references to the testaments, new or old, that support your "principle of non coercion".
When adversity can be traced back to decisions owned by a single individual or a group of like minded people it is helpful to examine the dynamics that lead to the poor choices. Typically we try to place the root cause of the bad choices on a scale that runs from Malice to ineptitude.
Given that we were told that Obama was the smartest guy to sit in the oval office, many are reluctant to assign his bad choices to ineptitude. So all that is left is malice.
THIS is the guy with the authority to determine what "conservatism" is "based on," and actual conservatives must simple accept it as a given?
Why do you bother spending all your time posting such lameness? Do you truly have nothing better to do with your day? If not, THAT'S what's actually "sad."
This may surprise you MikeB, but just because Ted Honderich says something, that does not make it so.
The heart of conservatism is not selfishness, rather it is an appreciation of the flawed nature of humanity, what is known as "the tragic vision". It is understanding that there are no wise angles to be found in humanity to govern us, and therefore we must be very careful about investing too much power in government. It is understanding that, as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Conservatives disagree with the modern welfare state and unconstrained government not because they are selfish, but because they know the inevitable consequences of unconstrained government power and the erosive effect that unlimited welfare has on the character of the recipient.
It may comfort you to believe that those you disagree with are pure evil, but that is not a substitute for an intellectual argument.
This president is certainly a product of his years spent in "blame America first" academia and stints as an Alinsky-model community organizer. This has been well documented, even as it was suppressed and under-reported during the election.
At best, President Obama doesn't understand America; at worst, he hates his own country. Watching his presidency devolve has been most instructive.
MikeB, I guess you just see the world through a differnet lense, one that doesn't reflect reality of course. W's favorite philosopher speaks to us, as individuals. Countries have slightly different agenda to deal with, though clearly we hope they act appropriately.
The fact is Obama sat in a church for 20 years in a marxist church, hearing his country repeatedly denounced. He ran with radical leftists who are on record as not particularly liking the US and much of what it stands for. A domestic terrorist freed on a technicality who should still be rotting in jail wrote his memoirs.
Obama does not believe in most of what the founders and the founding documents of this country celebrate. He thinks everything should be run by smarter people than us, and they should decide who gets what. And those who should get the most are their political cronies who make campaign donations to them so they can continue to act as the new royalty, lording over the great unwashed like you and me - well me at least.
"W's favorite philosopher speaks to us, as individuals. Countries have slightly different agenda to deal with, though clearly we hope they act appropriately."
I always get a giggle when il(liberals) conflate personal action prompted by faith with coerced government acion ...
The problem I have with all the leftists of the world is that they don't act like they preach. They say one thing and do another. Only you the great unwashed are to act in a completely unselfish manner, foregoing the benefits of your own labor and capital, so that someone who an Obama-ite feels is more deserving, can steal your fruits.
None of the great economic systems of the left work - none of them. Even what was thought to be the final last great bastion of progressive wonderfulness, the modern welfare state, has been demonstrated to lead to bankruptcy and ruin. I love the pontificators of the left - Friedman, Krugman, Obama, etc. Where do they live? (Where did Obama live, as he currently inhabits very exclusive public housing). Would Mr. Friedman be willing to put his wealth into the hands of an autocratic regime like China, or the US as he wishes it was, and then stand idly by as someone decides his home is too large and it will have to be taken from him? Would he like that?
I got into an argument with a friend of the leftist persuasion the other day who was complaining about capitalists and capitalism and how they exploit workers. He acknowledged the workers didn't put any capital at risk but then said why don't capitalists instead of just paying them also provide them real ownership stakes in the company. (They want a piece of a sure thing, wouldn't we all.) He is in the organic business and has a few employees, not very large. So I asked him if he was doing that with his few employees? A blank stare came back at me. He has no plan to ever let loose of his money, or give away parts of his business - it is just other's money he wants to divide. This has happened to me before. I figure they are all hypocrites, and I assume MikeB would answer the same way, although if not I would applaud him for living his convictions as opposed to just asking others to.
The leftists of the world are like a parasite living off their host, trying not to kill it off, but still bend it to their will. I am reminded of the scorpion story. He in the end still administered the sting and so ensured his death too, even though he knew when administering the sting his death would also be certain. Personally, I figure they are just really stupid if they think continuing to do the same progressive things will result in a different outcome.
@Curmudgeon: the Vatican is extremely consistent on the Culture Of Life, which would be contrary to today's conservatives. The Vatican has been openly opposed to war, particularly wars without merit (such as the War On Iraq). It also opposes the Death Penalty, another conservative favorite. So I'm not sure how your faith squares with your political views.
Leaving Obama out of this for a second, I'd like to see Hanson address why the US might be disdained and if there's any creedence to it. If not, say so and why. If yes, do we hold our hands up and say "we made mistakes, let's rectify it"?
While you're right that the Catholic Church IS consistent on life-issues, your examples are not quite complete and so not quite correct.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church actually affirms (not condemns) the right of the state to impose the death-penalty when necessary. (True, it later does state that the conditions where this might be necessary are rare).
Second, the Catechism lays out St. Augustine's classic "just war" conditions. The key point here is that it is the state - not the Church - which determines whether or not these conditions have been met. In other words, even though Pope John Paul clearly disapproved of the second Iraq war, the Church did not (could not) say whether or not that war was unjust.
and why should we leave Obama out of it? these are his choices, based on his point of view. He owns the foreign policy failures wrought by his administration. In this you are simply trying to change the subject. No thanks.
As to your first paragraph I am having a hard time discerning where conservatives are somehow philosophically opposed to a culture of life.
I do not believe that one's position on the death penalty is part of the right wing litmus test. I am a staunch conservative and I agree with my church's position on the death penalty. Does that mean I will forced to turn in my autographed copy of the selected speaches of Edmund Burke?
As for war, well to me the difference there is basically this: I have a faith and I have a religion. I don't believe that my faith prevents me from advocating a muscular self defense. If you have an alternative view, that's fine and dandy.
Isn't it amazing how the American Christian right is providing the fundaments of secular evolutionary thought (capitalism is the struggle for survival in an economic form) while the left with it's notions of redemption and a better world is essentially messianic and thus insane.
I am secular, I believe in evolution, therefore iI support conservatives.
Daniel, this idea that liberals are messianic or utopian in thought or culture is one of the Big Lies of conservative political doctrine.
I never heard any of this garbage until I started reading articles and posts on this site. I was shocked to learn that liberal political philosophy assumes that man is perfectable. Every time I repeat this to a friend or colleague, they laugh too.
Woodstock was a three-day festival, a movie, and a cultural event. Woodstock Nation will never be admitted into the UN.
JEM wants liberals to don sackcloth and build Habitat for Humanity housing.
Limousine liberals don't ask to be taxed any less than anyone else. And poor liberals - well, I have compassion for their selfish demands, because yes, they're poor and while we'll always have them, we're supposed to have compassion for them.
@M.Haitz: I can't dispute anything you're saying about Catholic teachings; I'm just going by the very public stance of the Vatican. They have been highly critical of both the 2003 War On Iraq and the US's continued use of the death penalty. US conservatives strongly support both of these causes.
Both of these issues speak to American Exceptionalism, but maybe not in a good way: the USA is the only first world country to still have the death penalty, and the only country to wage a war like the one on Iraq (several thousand miles from home, with no chance of a direct attack on you).
My question, then, is how would a Republican president in 2012 do things differently than Obama, yet try to build bridges with nations that they truly despise everything about (save Israel)?
