Two weeks passed between major speeches by President Obama. On Wednesday, September 9, the President addressed the nation to talk about healthcare. Fourteen days later he addressed the United Nations General Assembly about his vision for the U.N. and for the relationships between nations.
In response to his healthcare speech, I wrote at length about what a disaster I thought the speech was. Of course, there were several parts of his U.N. speech that I disagree with—whether by degree or function. However, I’d like to eschew comment on those disagreeable details today, but rather I wish to show my support, rooted in America’s Core Values, for the general tenor of his U.N. speech.
The United States is, without question, the most prosperous nation on earth today. And despite the fact that we have been victorious in war after war, conflict after conflict, we have taken no land (native Americans need not comment—objection noted). Despite our often-arrogant attitude about our prosperity, no nation is more generous with its wealth than the United States. Whether typhoon or famine; despot or disease, the United States sends more people and more money to nations in need than any other.

Yet, the United States remains the scourge of global public opinion. We, much like the baseball’s Yankees and college football’s Fighting Irish, are easy to resent, to hold in contempt and to hate. What we often hear at home from the lips of leaders worldwide is that the United States is arrogant. The global perspective apparently is that we travel the world cramming our will down the throats of nations gagging on our generosity.
I firmly believe in American Exceptionalism and its first corollary–to whom much is given, much is expected. I am comfortable with our national benevolence because I fundamentally believe it is right to care for those in need. I would not want to live in a country that flaunted its prosperity and avoided its responsibilities.
If the US is guilty of anything it is that we have been TOO generous for TOO long while asking for TOO little in return. We have benefacted the global community in accordance with our founding principles: that all men are created equal and that all people have a right to self-government. We have assumed that the people world-wide share these values and we have acted thusly.
Many nations over the years have objected to US over-reaching, but I have never heard a collection of nations stand up to us. I have never heard a union of like-minded countries advocating a Plan B and insisting we stand down. I honestly believe that if other countries were to ever coalesce their opinions in support of active policy alternatives, the United States would gladly step aside, even if we disagree with those alternatives. The global community has too long taken the easy course of vocalizing their dissent for American policy while benefiting from its implementation.
Now, President Obama is saying, No More: “ Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone…. we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well.” These are sentiments I whole-heartedly share. It is time for those reaping the rewards to accept their share of the responsibility in pursuing peace in the 21st Century. (We should note the odd but, in this case, agreeable dichotomy at work in the President’s global policies. At the same time that he tells the American people that only Washington, D.C., can solve their healthcare problems, he is telling the rest of the world that they must now participate in solving global problems. If only he had as much trust in Americans as in the rest of the world, we might have ourselves a mighty fine president.)
Accountability and responsibility: major tenets of America’s Core Values. “Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences….they must be held accountable”, the President told the General Assembly. It is time for a new model of American engagement, dealing more with leadership than proxy. America will remain the world’s leader: we couldn’t shed this responsibility if we tried. Despite global perceptions, we are the most credible and respected global actor, but our leadership must now recognize the necessity of delegation. Delegation is to OUR benefit (as others share the burden of arms in global hotspots) and the benefit of the world, as they become more invested stakeholders in global outcomes.
President Obama noted that other nations should be allowed to pursue economic growth the same way the US has over the years. It is, likewise, proper that they share the same burdens we bore during our growth.
America is an exceptional place. Exercising humility in entertaining the opinions and efforts of other countries is not a sign of weakness, but is witness to our moral strength which compliments our military strength. I dare say this policy will cause more problems than it will solve, but they’ll be different problems, and better problems. New opportunities will arise out of collaboration. The US cedes nothing in this ambition, but rather gains legitimacy.
President Obama informed the General Assembly, “We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals.” Normally I might object to these actions, but if they are intended to demonstrate our willingness to take the first steps in cooperative compromise, then I welcome them. Now Obama must continue to demand the rest of the world steps up (and having someone else—not Israel—carry out the forthcoming bombing of Iran would be a good place to start).
Leadership entails creating opportunities for The Led to grow through experience. The greatest leaders are not those who acted for their charges, but rather those who taught and enabled their charges to do for themselves. Good parenting involves training our children in the way they should go and then releasing them to apply what they’ve learned.
Obama’s speech, perfect by no measure, represents an appropriate, legitimate and strong advance of foreign policy—not just for America but also for the world at large. Conservatives should rejoice that the foreign policy talked about in New York dealt with insisting on individual responsibility and accountability and not with Washington handouts.








But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium.
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
No Comments Yet