The Politico's Josh Gerstein wants readers not to have a problem with President Barack Obama singing the praises of American exceptionalism when in front of U.S. audiences but deep-sixing it when speaking at the United Nations. Though Obama has almost always avoided actually using the E-word, he has recently taken to speaking of this nation's "unique" abilities and capabilities, and for some time has described the U.S. as "the one indispensable nation."
But Gerstein, in his column today, indicated that it's okay that "Obama watered down his noble-America rhetoric" at the U.N. today. Oh, and in the Politico reporter's fantasy world, Obama's back-and-forth foreign policy postures — it's hardly accurate to call them genuine "positions" — are really no different than what we saw under George W. Bush. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
Obama's exceptional U.N. address
Call it the American exceptionalism exception.
If there’s one place on President Barack Obama’s annual speaking calendar where rhetoric about the U.S. being the world’s greatest power doesn’t sell, it’s at the United Nations. [1]
... For many in the international audience, that kind of language conjures up notions of American imperialism, military adventurism and a foolhardy quest to remake the world in America’s image. [2]
Even as the U.S. expanded its most significant military operation since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq a decade ago, Obama watered down his noble-America rhetoric. [3] Instead, he promoted a more benign kind of American optimism likelier to be soothing to the ears of those on the world stage.
... It was a far cry from his speech to the American people just two weeks earlier, [4] where he suggested that despite his best efforts to have powers around the globe resolve crises in their neighborhoods, U.S. military forces would again be called on to lead the fight against a terrorist group nearly half a world away.
... Of course, Obama’s own sincerity in making the case for American exceptionalism is open to doubt. It’s not material he appears to be particularly comfortable with. It seems to make its way into his public remarks in advance of elections [4] or when he’s trying to persuade Americans that the U.S. government needs to take on responsibilities abroad that some may be reluctant to shoulder.
In his 2012 State of the Union address, with the White House going into reelection mode, Obama called the U.S “the one indispensable nation in world affairs.” He used a similar turn of phrase in the final presidential debate that year, just weeks before Americans went to the polls.
... Obama isn’t the first U.S. president to zigzag a bit when it comes to the question of national hubris versus national humility. Obama’s predecessor, President George W. Bush, came into office promising a “humble” foreign policy that would avoid nation-building. He wound up overseeing the prolonged and bloody American occupation of two countries, [5] as well as flawed efforts to create democratic institutions where none had existed.
Notes:
[1] — So of course, rather than confront his audience with the truth, which is what we're supposed to believe he's telling U.S. audiences, he lets it slide. I think this is part of "leading from behind," which is better known as "not leading."
[2] — Nobody wants to remake the world in America's image, Josh. Everybody should want the rest of the world's citizens to live in countries with governments which represent and carry out the will of their people as expressed in free and fair elections. Do you have a problem with that, Josh?
[3] — If he really believed that America is noble, Obama wouldn't be watering down his rhetoric for anyone.
[4] (tagged twice) — Now you're on to something, Josh. The exceptional America rhetoric comes out for elections and occasions where Obama needs poll-reflected support for military operations but wishes to avoid doing the dirty work of informing Congress and getting its support.
[5] — The fact is that Bush 43 zigged once — after September 11, 2001. After that, his foreign-policy positions were clear and did not waver. This was particularly evident when he went against what the intellectual elites in Washington and elsewhere wanted and orchestrated the surge which won the Iraq War in 2007 and 2008. Gerstein himself has effectively admitted that Obama zigs and zags more than a young child trying to ride a bike without training wheels for the first time. The President goes back and forth and back and forth to the point where no one can really claim to be absolutely sure what he really believes, and no one can really rely with certainty on America coming through when necessary.
If a Republican or conservative were going back and forth on American exceptionalism depending on the audience, the press would be roasting him or her constantly. But to Politico's Gerstein, in a situation which "just so happens" to involve a Democratic far left-leaning president, it's just a necessary part of political life.
The double standard could hardly be more obvious.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
