Back in the 2008 fall campaign, some of us liked to say, “Keep talkin’, Joe, keep talkin’.” The more the Democratic vice-presidential nominee opened his mouth, the better it seemed for Republicans. This was in stark contrast with the Democratic presidential nominee, who was silver-tongued and surefooted.
Well, I had a thought, during and after Obama’s recent press conference — a thought I never had before. I thought, “Keep talkin’, Barack, keep talkin’.” The more he talked, the more he hurt himself (and not just with “docs ’n’ cops”).
This is new.
Also, do you think the Obama balloon has been punctured? Do you think the mesmerism has been broken? Are people losing their awe of Obama, or fear of him? Are they starting to see him as a normal man, a normal president, with strengths and weaknesses? That would be something.
This is what may well happen: Obama tries to govern as left as possible, his first two years — especially this first. Try to achieve all the collectivist dreams. And then pivot to the center, or even the center-right, for the last two years, assuring reelection. And then after reelection: Let it all hang out — or a lot of it hang out — again.
This is Politics 101, but sometimes it’s nice to revisit the elementary.
Remember when people said — a lot of us said — “If we’re to have a War on Terror, if this is to be another long twilight struggle, we will need the support of both parties, not just one”? The War on Terror is too big a project — too great a national endeavor — to be a one-party project.
I thought of that when reading the following, in the news: “Senate Democrats alone cannot pass President Barack Obama’s ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care, a top lawmaker acknowledged on Sunday.” And it stands to reason: If the United States is to have an utterly new health-care system — whether that system is good or bad — it should have the imprimatur of both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Of course, if your side has the votes . . .
I should point out that the likes of us —
NR types — do not want a health-care “system.” A “system” is for — you know: Canada, Britain, Sweden, Congo . . .
Last year, everyone said this — and I mean, everyone: “George W. Bush has left our alliances in tatters. Our name is mud throughout the world. Our alliances need to be restored, and our name needs to be restored.” Obama and the Democrats said this. McCain and all his people said this.
Some of us did
not say it. Indeed, I wrote a piece at the end of the year, attacking this myth of the tattered alliances and so on. That piece was called “Diplomatic Health: On Bush, our alliances, and varied perceptions.” To read it — “re-read” it, I hope, you
NR people! — go
here.
Anyway, I thought of this piece — and this subject — when reading about the extraordinary letter that all those Central and Eastern European leaders sent to Obama. Among the signers were Walesa and Havel. The group said,
“We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as well as the future quality of relations between the United States and the countries of our region. We write in our personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies of the United States as well as committed Europeans.”
Obama has scared the bejesus out of them, with his handling of Russia, etc. So, who is “endangering” our alliances now, huh? Just sayin’ . . .
We have a sharp reader in Shanghai, an American. He sends me a note making an excellent point, and he makes it so well — I will simply run the note, with no extra commentary:
Dear Jay,
Sorry to return to an old topic, but President Obama’s verbal sloppiness continues, and continues to vex. Yesterday the president opened economic talks with China by claiming the U.S. wants a new era in Sino-American relations based upon “cooperation, not confrontation.” This is evidently founded upon the subtle (and erroneous) assumption that the previous relationship, under Bush, was based upon confrontation, not cooperation. Of course this is ridiculous, as China and the U.S. have long enjoyed an extremely cooperative relationship (perhaps even too much so).
How long can the U.S. administration milk the meme of “newness” without actually providing any? Some grownup at the White House must surely recognize this as a useful campaign tactic, but with little use in actual governance?
Turn to Cuba now for a second. Under Bush, the U.S. Interests Section was a very, very interesting operation. Bush did not forget the democrats, dissidents, and prisoners on the island. He was always mindful to encourage them. In probably his most dramatic gesture, he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Oscar Biscet, a heroic political prisoner.
Our activities in Havana? We erected a mockup of Biscet’s cell — to dramatize his plight, and that of other prisoners. We invited Lech Walesa to speak to dissidents, by video hookup. We participated in gatherings at dissidents’ homes. Etc. All of this infuriated the dictatorship. Our interests section was a haven, beacon, and friend for democrats and freedom-seekers on the island.
Let me keep going in this vein: In those years — 2001-09 — the U.S. was engaged with the Cuban population. It was clear to one and all that we are on the side of the people, not the dictatorship.
Things are a little different now. You may remember that, a few weeks back, I did some writing about the Democracy Award, given by the National Endowment for Democracy. (Go here, for example.) The NED honored several Cuban oppositionists — and President Obama treated them with a disheartening coldness. Apparently, they were an impediment to warmer relations with the regime.
And now we read this: “U.S. turns off Havana news ticker that angered Cuba.” Oh, yes, that’s another thing the interests section did, under Bush: We had a news ticker, flashing information to Cuban passersby — information that the regime was not keen for people to see. In Cuba, there is only one news source: the dictatorship.
The article whose headline I have cited is from Reuters, here. The reporters give us comments by people who support the Obama administration — and no other comments. Couldn’t the reporters have found someone to say something in favor of the news ticker, and against the new American direction?
During the Bush years, I wrote quite a bit about that interesting operation, the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. The section is now under new management. The dictatorship and its friends (and appeasers) are very pleased. Too bad.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next >
