by Eric Martin
Gideon Rachman seeks to set the record straight, and provide some context, regarding the recent outrage in conservative circles about the fact that Obama actually had the temerity to acknowledge that the United States was not infallible.
Now conservatives are complaining loudly that...[President Obama] is abasing himself and the country before foreigners. President Barack Obama, they complain, has turned himself into “global apologiser-in-chief."Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of conservative talk radio, rages that “everywhere he goes, he’s just apologising for the United States.”
In the Los Angeles Times, the political commentator James Kirchik [sic] lambasted Mr Obama for his “grand, global apology tour this spring.” It all started, according to Mr Kirchik [sic], when the president gave an interview to Al Arabiya television and called for “mutual respect” between the US and the Muslim world. Mr Obama repeated the sin when, in a speech calling for nuclear disarmament, he said: “As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act.” Then in Turkey, the president “apologised some more” by talking of “strained trust” between the US and the Muslim world. And to compound his sins, at the Summit of the Americas, Mr Obama “calmly sat through a 50-minute anti-American tirade by the communist leader of Nicaragua ... and was disturbingly ebullient in glad-handing Venezuelan autocrat Hugo Chávez”.
The alert reader will have noticed that none of the examples cited by the outraged Mr Kirchik [sic] actually contains the word “sorry”. Nor is it clear what Mr Obama was expected to do with Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua – deck him? Even when Mr Obama has been unambiguously apologetic, his opponents often quote him out of context.
Indeed, it is unclear why a call for "mutual respect" with the Muslim world, or an acknowledgment of the existence of "strained trust" would be treated as tantamount to an apology, or some sort of climb-down by the President of the United States, but then, given that Kirchick tends to view the world through a prism by which even-handed treatment of Palestinian and Israeli interests is a gross injustice (to the Israelis, of course, who deserve better), Obama's allowing that respect should be a two-way street is likely viewed as obsequious and fawning.
Leaving aside Kirchick's dubious bill of particulars, and personal biases, the unwillingness to countenance any past errors by the United States is yet one more manifestation of a simplistic and solipsistic foreign policy outlook prevalent in Republican circles. From Rachman's piece
“I will never apologise for the United States, ever. I don’t care what the facts are.” President George H.W. Bush’s statement in 1988 was more than just a “Bushism”, of the sort that his son later made famous. It was also a pithy summary of a whole school of thought in the US. [...]
[M]any of Mr Obama’s critics...believe that the president is running his country down – and that such a policy is weak, unpatriotic and ultimately dangerous. Newt Gingrich, a leading Republican, worries that Mr Obama is sending the wrong signal, arguing that “the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead”.
Gingrich predicts such dire outcomes merely from Obama's brief acknowledgment that the United States has erred in the past, followed by a quick reminder that other nations, too, have flaws. A rhetorical concession is as provocative as it is determinative for Gingrich and his ilk. This interpretation is consistent with the view that tough, uncompromising talk can overcome entrenched realities and persuade other nations to bend to our will ("will" being the key determinant of the outcome in any foreign policy endeavor, naturally), and that perceptions of strength have more to do with events than the actual underlying power distribution.
In this rather personalized view of big power politics, the relative size and potency of nations' militaries, economies and other institutions, and the relative importance of particular interests to those nations, are all secondary concerns - overriden by perceptions of a given leader or regime's nerve as informed by the rhetoric employed. In this flawed view, Reagan's demand to "tear down this wall" and use of the pejorative "evil empire" label had more to do with the USSR's unraveling than the consequences that flowed from Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies (and Reagan's encouragement thereof), and the underlying weaknesses of the Soviet system.
Conservative demands for Obama's unflinching insistence on America's infallibility are also born out of a wildly inflated sense of America's position in an increasingly multi-polar and interdependent world. As I wrote in a recent post about the erstwhile (and perhaps continued) position of the US government with respect to Iran's nuclear program:
The statement "The West probably can't have it all" is one of the strongest critiques of the brash, petulant, bellicose foreign policy that has come to dominate the Republican Party in recent decades. It is a foreign policy posture that is born out of maximalist fantasy of the United States' position in the world, fed by delusions of unipolarity on steroids. In this cartoonish view, the United States is so omnipotent that it can traipse across the globe, disregarding the interests of other states (which, when counter to our own in any way, are de facto illegitimate), making demands that must be met en toto...or else! No compromise. No give and take. [...]
In shooting down proposals to attempt to reach a negotiated settlement with respect to North Korea's nuclear program, Dick Cheney famously quipped, "We don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it." But we didn't defeat it. Instead, North Korea developed nuclear weapons while we made unrealistic, maximalist demands.
The Bush administration's approach to Iran has been no different: demanding everything, offering almost nothing, while doing little to actually alter the course of events in terms of uranium enrichment. [...]
Yet the GOP continues to act as if war with Iran AND North Korea are feasible policies despite the strains of two wars still left unfinished (with both heading toward conclusions that fall far short of the grandiose expectations that preceded them). Theirs is the refuge of the preener and poser that gets to talk tough, demand it all and then carp from the sidelines about all the "appeasement" and "giveaways" to groups and governments that they would have refused to offer a thing. Instead, opting to simply "defeating" them. Or not.
What America thinks about its recent history, in particular, is of more than academic interest. The US is the global superpower – and what it says about its past tells us something about what it will do in the future. So when Mr Obama suggests that the US has made mistakes in its dealings with Europe or the Muslim world, he is quite deliberately sending a signal.
To his conservative critics, the signal he is sending is one of weakness. But no fair reading of Mr Obama’s various comments suggest that he is ashamed of his country, or that he intends to sacrifice American interests. What he is doing is trying to improve some of the poisonous relationships that he inherited from President George W. Bush by acknowledging, usually in rather coded language, that the US, too, can make mistakes. In the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq and the torture scandal, this is not an unreasonable point to make. Proclaiming that the US is always right and virtuous may go down well in the American heartland, but it tends to antagonise foreigners – and that is simply counterproductive.
Obama has to make it politically feasible/attractive for leaders of foreign nations to cooperate with the United States' agenda - an agenda that many such leaders/populations find highly problematic. At the risk of stating the obvious, given this objective and the inherent difficulties, it makes more sense to approach the populations of those nations from a position of mutual respect rather than arrogance. Refusing to concede past policy errors, while the devastating after-effects of those policies are still reverberating throughout the target populations, would undermine such efforts.
Further, as Rachman argues, taking responsibility for prior wrongdoing is not a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength. On the contrary, clinging to myths and whitewashed histories is a truer sign of insecurity.
More important, a willingness to discuss your country’s history self-critically is a mark of an open society.
Vladimir Putin has had Russian history textbooks rewritten to take a more positive view of Stalinism. The Chinese ferociously repress any challenges to the official version of the history of Taiwan. Mature democracies do things differently. They are not afraid of open discussion.
Mr Obama’s willingness to acknowledge past American errors is a sign of strength, not of weakness.
Ultimately, America is not a source of admiration because it has never committed gross, unthinkable injustices, such as slavery and the wholesale purging of this land mass's original inhabitants. Rather, America is admirable because it has an open political system - and underlying principles - that allow for its people to acknowledge those past misdeeds, seek to rectify them and, in time, overcome them. As Obama is no doubt uniquely aware.
the brash, petulant, bellicose foreign policy that has come to dominate the Republican Party in recent decades.
I think I previously referred to this as the United States going around the world and showing everyone how big its dick is. They might be impressed at first, but eventually they'll be annoyed, turn away, and wonder what's wrong with you.
I love this: Newt Gingrich, a leading Republican,
Leading where, exactly?
worries that Mr Obama is sending the wrong signal, arguing that “the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators – when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead”.
Because the United States is never the predator, or aggressor, or had a President that acted in some respects as a dictator. It's all sweetness and light over here in the shining city on a hill with the Ponies of Freedom, Peace, and Liberty™ as our guide.
In shooting down proposals to attempt to reach a negotiated settlement with respect to North Korea's nuclear program, Dick Cheney famously quipped, "We don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it."
Or become it. Heckuva job Dickie.
Posted by: Ugh | May 05, 2009 at 03:16 PM
I love this: "Newt Gingrich, a leading Republican.."
It's a litle like saying 'The capybara, the world's largest rodent...' -- it's true, it's just not very... encouraging, or endearing, or something.
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | May 05, 2009 at 03:42 PM
Gingrich is leading as in leading question: he's a rhetorical tool used to catapult the propaganda.
Posted by: cleek | May 05, 2009 at 03:53 PM
I don't think it's even true, in the sense that the capybara really IS the world's largest rodent. Who's following Gingrich, for him to be a leading Republican?
Leading Republican self-promoter, maybe...
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | May 05, 2009 at 04:13 PM
"Blame america first"
just wanted to get that out there first!
Posted by: yoyo | May 05, 2009 at 04:15 PM
Another thing Gingrich and his fellow travelers don't understand is that if you're going to go around acting like a jacka$$ and a bully, people aren't going to help or cooperate with you when they don't have to. Also, they seem to think that the United States position in the world is unassailable, and thus they don't have to worry that we'll be on the receiving end of bullying and jacka$$ery from, e.g., China or India in 25 years.
It would be nice if those countries' memories of the US as sole superpower were fond ones, rather than the way the Bush Administration conducted its foreign policy.
Posted by: Ugh | May 05, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Look at it from the standpoint of a member of the R party. Acknowledging past errors, which will largely be attributed to members of their own party, and the attitudes thereof -is clearly a losing (domestic political) strategy. It's also a cultural thing. The Republicans own the "defend-your-honor at all costs, and never ever admit your mistakes" -part of the country.
Posted by: Omega Centauri | May 05, 2009 at 05:05 PM
I'm glad that Ugh pointed out the similarity between this sort of rhetoric and the ads clogging my spam filter (the ones promising to increase the size and/or functionality of organs I do not actually possess). Geez guys, anxious masculinity should *not* be a foreign policy.
Posted by: Doctor Science | May 05, 2009 at 05:35 PM
Newt should learn that a guy or country who is strong enough to admit fallibility is probably strong enough to kick the crap out of you, too.
Obama should deck Gingrich at their next personal meeting and then help him up, dust him off, and say, "I was wrong to do that. Excuse me."
Posted by: John Thullen | May 05, 2009 at 06:10 PM
Obama should deck Gingrich at their next personal meeting and then help him up, dust him off, and say, "I was wrong to do that. Excuse me."
You know, every ten years or so, we need to pick up some crappy little warmonger and throw him against the wall, just to show them we mean business.
Posted by: russell | May 05, 2009 at 06:25 PM
Didn't Kruschev think Kennedy was weak and would be easy to plow over? How'd that work out for him?
Posted by: JR | May 05, 2009 at 07:43 PM
Didn't Kruschev think Kennedy was weak and would be easy to plow over? How'd that work out for him?
Er, he brought the world to the brink of nuclear war? If that is something you believe we should emulate now, you may get a shot in Pakistan real soon…
Posted by: OCSteve | May 05, 2009 at 08:05 PM
In this flawed view, Reagan's demand to "tear down this wall" and use of the pejorative "evil empire" label had more to do with the USSR's unraveling than the consequences that flowed from Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies (and Reagan's encouragement thereof), and the underlying weaknesses of the Soviet system.
Which leads to an interesting question. If tough talk alone is enough to bring down the Soviet Union, why didn't it work when John Foster Dulles tried it?
Posted by: Enlightened Layperson | May 05, 2009 at 08:51 PM
"I think I previously referred to this as the United States going around the world and showing everyone how big its dick is. They might be impressed at first, but eventually they'll be annoyed, turn away, and wonder what's wrong with you."
And they might notice the trick mirror you're using to make it look bigger than it really is.
Posted by: Jon H | May 05, 2009 at 09:27 PM
I'm to the right of most commentators here and I'm pretty darned pleased with BHO's rhetoric. I'm especially pleased because he's speaking language of accommodation, mutual understanding and the like, but still dropping missiles into the bad guys' living rooms in Waziristan.
In fact, I seem to remember that some Republican president made some remark about speaking softly...
Posted by: Andrew R. | May 05, 2009 at 10:29 PM
OCSteve:
no, I was sarcasticly noting it didn't work out well for Kruschev...
Posted by: JR | May 05, 2009 at 11:55 PM
If tough talk alone is enough to bring down the Soviet Union, why didn't it work when John Foster Dulles tried it?
Because it takes a real man to do it. Y'know, like Adlai Stevenson.
Posted by: Elemenope | May 06, 2009 at 04:15 AM
I seem to remember that some Republican president made some remark about speaking softly
nitpik: TR was VP at the time.
Posted by: cleek | May 06, 2009 at 08:42 AM
But don't forget Yosemite Sam's answer: "But I speak loud and carry a bigger stick and I am not afraid to use it!" ;-)
Posted by: Hartmut | May 06, 2009 at 09:09 AM
Sorry, here's the http://www.nonstick.com/sounds/Yosemite_Sam/ltys_076.mp3>link
Posted by: Hartmut | May 06, 2009 at 09:13 AM
Indeed. As Tocqueville wrote, "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."
Posted by: Nitish | May 06, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Don't the Republicans like Teddy R anymore? "Speak softly and carry a big stick." not "Rant, carry on, and then break your stick over their heads."
One quibble, Eric:
given that Kirchick tends to view the world through a prism by which even-handed treatment of Palestinian and Israeli interests is a gross injustice (to the Israelis, of course, who deserve better)
I don't know Kirchick's work, but Israel does deserve better from the U.S. than the Palestinians do, because we have a long-standing "special relationship" with Israel that includes strong cooperation in espionage and military matters. I think that kind of relationship at least implies a commitment not to issue official statements (which include anything said by the President in his official role) bad-mouthing its conduct of military affairs.
Posted by: The Crafty Trilobite | May 06, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Crafty, I was referencing the excoration Dean received when he suggested that we needed to be more even handed in trying to implement peace. Special relationship aside, that shouldn't be an objectionable position IMHO.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 07, 2009 at 10:07 AM
"I don't know Kirchick's work"
He spent many years as Marty Peretz's toady, and has made a career of attacking any Jew to the left of Netanyahu as a self-hating antisemite who seeks to destroy Israel. He's attacked kids like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein innumerable times, as well as plenty of other Jewish liberals (Eric Alterman, etc., etc., etc.).
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 07, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Actually, just googling Jamie Kirchick gives a representative sample of opinions of his work:
Etc.Posted by: Gary Farber | May 07, 2009 at 01:33 PM
It's "Khrushchev," btw.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 07, 2009 at 01:34 PM