The Best Speech of Obama’s Presidency

[babylonsister]

http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/the-best-speech-obamas-presidency


The Best Speech of Obama’s Presidency
William Galston


At Oslo, in circumstances verging on a speechwriter’s nightmare, Barack Obama gave by far the best address of his presidency. A thoughtful meditation on war, peace, and human nature, the speech also represents a promising reorientation of his administration’s foreign policy. The question now is whether he will adjust his policies to match his words.

What struck me most favorably about the speech was Obama’s moral realism--about the world, and about his own role within it. Forcefully, but with dignity and restraint, he distinguished his responsibilities from those of King and Gandhi, who led nonviolently as private citizens. “Evil does exist in the world,” he declared, and as long as it does, war is a moral possibility, sometimes a moral necessity. And not only to defeat evil; “the instruments of war,” he said, “do have a role to play in preserving the peace.”

The president spoke out unapologetically in defense of America’s role as a peacemaker and peacekeeper: “The world must remember that it was not simply international institutions--not just treaties and declarations--that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

Obama directly confronted global public skepticism--about America’s role and about war itself. “I understand why war is not popular,” he said. “But I also know this: the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.”

He went on to describe the kind of peace America seeks: “Peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting. It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.”

But all too often, Obama continued, their principles are ignored. In some countries, leaders falsely suggest that human rights are merely aspects of the West, foreign to and imposed on non-Western cultures. In America, realists and idealists contend endlessly against one another.

“I reject this choice,” the president declared. “I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders, or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true: only when Europe became free did it finally find peace.” These truths have practical implications for the conduct of American foreign policy. “Even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries,” Obama promised, “America will be a voice for those aspirations that are universal.”

The question is how best to do this. The president defended his policy of engaging repressive regimes, which he characterized as painstaking diplomacy. But up to now, I believe (and I am far from alone) that his administration has been at best timid and laggard in giving voice to the aspirations of suppressed peoples struggling for the political rights he defends as fundamental. If his Oslo speech is the harbinger of a new and better balance between private engagement and public firmness, and between carrots and sticks, the future of his foreign policy looks bright.

[Ken Burch]

1. Praise from a Lieberman supporter? How inspiring.

We elected Obama to NOT be Joe Lieberman.

And NO ONE's "dignity" will be won in the unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

And, of course, as in Vietnam, it will mostly be working-class whites, African-Americans, First Nations people and Latinos dying in this.

There was never any good reason to embrace a Scoop Jackson foreign policy.

[jgraz]

10. Hey, Charles Krauthammer liked it too!

That's some encouraging endorsements, there. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Even dumbasses could have liked the speech......

since they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on
if they chose to say that they didn't. What would be their rationale?
Yep....they didn't know either.

Plus to them, the fact that Obama ain't talking exactly like Gahndi
makes it a good speech.

They are doing nothing but saving face.

But you shouldn't make up your own mind...
you should just automatically think the opposite
of what the assholes think.
Not need for you to actually listen and judge on your own, I guess.

[jgraz]

13. I listened to the speech and read the transcript. I thought it was obscene.

A lot of pretty words surrounding an implicit endorsement of the Bush Doctrine.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Not even close.

But again, it would take a mind to understand the Bush Doctrine to begin with,
to be able to tell the difference.

So I understand.

[jgraz]

24. Really, is there anything this president does that you won't defend?

Anything? :shrug:

[andym]

27. FDR, Truman and Kennedy would have really liked this speech nt.

[jgraz]

31. FDR, Truman and Kennedy would have really hated this speech nt.

[demhistorian]

42. It was a JFK speech

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

[avaistheone1]

48. No it still does not rise to the level of a JFK speech.

[chimpymustgo]

25. "Obama puts a pretty, intellectual, liberal face on some ugly and decidedly illiberal polices."

Glen Greenwald explains it to you.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/11/obama/index.html


Glenn Greenwald
Friday, Dec 11, 2009 03:12 EST
The strange consensus on Obama's Nobel address
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Reactions to Obama's Nobel speech yesterday were remarkably consistent across the political spectrum, and there were two points on which virtually everyone seemed to agree: (1) it was the most explicitly pro-war speech ever delivered by anyone while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize; and (2) it was the most comprehensive expression of Obama's foreign policy principles since he became President. I don't think he can be blamed for the first fact; when the Nobel Committee chose him despite his waging two wars and escalating one, it essentially forced on him the bizarre circumstance of using his acceptance speech to defend the wars he's fighting. What else could he do? Ignore the wars? Repent?

I'm more interested in the fact that the set of principles Obama articulated yesterday was such a clear and comprehensive expression of his foreign policy that it's now being referred to as the "Obama Doctrine." About that matter, there are two arguably confounding facts to note: (1) the vast majority of leading conservatives -- from Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich to Peggy Noonan, Sarah Palin, various Kagans and other assorted neocons -- have heaped enthusiastic praise on what Obama said yesterday, i.e., on the Obama Doctrine; and (2) numerous liberals have done exactly the same. That convergence gives rise to a couple of questions:

Why are the Bush-following conservatives who ran the country for the last eight years and whose foreign policy ideas are supposedly so discredited -- including some of the nation's hardest-core neocons -- finding so much to cheer in the so-called Obama Doctrine?

How could liberals and conservatives -- who have long claimed to possess such vehemently divergent and irreconcilable worldviews on foreign policy -- both simultaneously adore the same comprehensive expression of foreign policy?

Let's dispense first with several legitimate caveats. Like all good politicians, Obama is adept at paying homage to multiple, inconsistent views at once, enabling everyone to hear whatever they want in what he says while blissfully ignoring the rest. Additionally, conservatives have an interest in claiming that Obama has embraced Bush/Cheney policies even when he hasn't, because it allows them to claim vindication ("see, now that Obama gets secret briefings, he realizes we were right all along"). Moreover, there are foreign policies Obama has pursued that are genuinely disliked by neocons -- from negotiating with Iran to applying some mild pressure on Israel to the use of more conciliatory and humble rhetoric. And one of the most radical and controversial aspects of the Bush presidency -- the attack on Iraq -- was not defended by Obama, nor was the underlying principle that produced it ("preventive" war).

-edit-

Yesterday's speech and the odd, extremely bipartisan reaction to it underscored one of the real dangers of the Obama presidency: taking what had been ideas previously discredited as Republican or right-wing dogma and transforming them into bipartisan consensus. It's not just Republicans but Democrats that are now vested in -- and eager to justify -- the virtues of war, claims of Grave Danger posed by Islamic radicals and the need to use massive military force to combat them, indefinite detention, military commissions, extreme secrecy, full-scale immunity for government lawbreaking, and so many other doctrines once purportedly despised by Democrats but now defended by them because their leader has embraced them.

-edit-

Most of the neocons celebrating Obama's speech yesterday made exactly that point in one way or another: if even this Democratic President, beloved by liberals, announces to the world that we have the unilateral right to wage war and that doing so creates Peace and crushes Evil, and does so at a Nobel Peace Prize ceremony of all places, doesn't that end the argument for good?

Much of the liberal praise for Obama's speech yesterday focused on how eloquent, sophisticated, nuanced, complex, philosophical, contemplative and intellectual it was. And, looked at a certain way, it was all of those things -- like so many Obama speeches are. After eight years of enduring a President who spoke in simplistic Manichean imperatives and bullying decrees, many liberals are understandably joyous over having a President who uses their language and the rhetorical approach that resonates with them.

But that's the real danger. Obama puts a pretty, intellectual, liberal face on some ugly and decidedly illiberal polices. Just as George Bush's Christian-based moralizing let conservatives feel good about America regardless of what it does, Obama's complex and elegiac rhetoric lets many liberals do the same. To red state Republicans, war and its accompanying instruments (secrecy, executive power, indefinite detention) felt so good and right when justified by swaggering, unapologetic toughness and divinely-mandated purpose; to blue state Democrats, all of that feels just as good when justified by academic meditations on "just war" doctrine and when accompanied by poetic expressions of sorrow and reluctance. When you combine the two rhetorical approaches, what you get is what you saw yesterday: a bipartisan embrace of the same policies and ideologies among people with supposedly irreconcilable views of the world.



UPDATE: Obviously quite related to all of this, if I had to recommend one article for everyone to read this month, it would be Matt Taibbi's new, masterful account in Rolling Stone of how the Obama administration has aggressively ensured the ongoing domination of our government by Wall Street. I don't want to excerpt any of it because I want to encourage everyone to read it in its entirety; suffice to say, it makes many of the same arguments as those made here in the context of Obama's decisions in the financial and economic realms (though several people, such as Tim Fernholz and Salon's Andrew Leonard, have voiced what appear to be serious objections to some of Taibbi's claims; hopefully, he'll respond).

-edit-

[jgraz]

29. Have you put this up as an OP?

If not, please do.

[chimpymustgo]

32. Just did. Unrecs within SECONDS. It's also posted in Editorials.

[IndianaGreen]

38. The unrecs are a badge of honor to progressives

We are dealing with reactionaries in here that refuse to see what is happening.

[avaistheone1]

49. I think so.

[hileeopnyn8d]

39. Do you have a

link where I can read for myself that the author is a Lieberman supporter? I can't seem to find it.

[Ken Burch]

50. Galston was a big backer of Lieberman's independent campaign against Ned Lamont

Major endorser(I'm fairly sure it was in the New York Times during that campaign).

[Clio the Leo]

2. And we're only in month 11 ....... this is going to be fun. NT

[Ken Burch]

3. You mean there will be MORE wars?

Great.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Yep a new one every week!

Boy did WE get fooled!

You wouldn't happen to have that Palin woman's phone number would ya?

[Ken Burch]

5. Self-delete

Got Clio's irony after the fact.

[Clio the Leo]

6. I'm screwin' with you Ken....

.... and kicking Babs' thread in the process.

Do you have John McCain's phone number instead?

[Ken Burch]

8. Sorry. Damn you were good.

Don't have McCain's phone number, and anyway his is still on a "party line".

[Clio the Leo]

9. lol @ "party line" ...... I bet he is. NT

[rudy23]

7. self delete

[Cha]

12. "Peace requires responsibility" and

he believes that sending 30 more Troops in Afghanistan is the responsible course of action.

[jgraz]

23. Ah, yes: Responsibility. Another solid word from the DLC Corporocrat Dictionary.

[Vidar]

15. Sarah Palin liked it. The speech was an eloquent, evil lie

[babylonsister]

16. Do you honestly care what Palin likes or dislikes? And if so, why? nt

[jonnyblitz]

18. pointing out the vile people the speech appeals to

speaks VOLUMES about the speech. it was fucking HIDEOUS speech.

War is peace. :patriot:

[jeanpalmer]

17. Obama had a chance to be a reformative president

on foreign relations and on military policy and spending. Instead, he has decided to be a caretaker for the MIC. Our country is being bankrupted by outrageous military spending and wars. It's a racket, one of the biggest scams the world has ever experienced. People enriching themselves on occupying and killing. Meanwhile, these idiots can't come up with $100 billion a year to fund reasonable healthcare, while they waste $680 billion to a $trillion a year on military spending. And Obama is right in the middle of it. He is perpetuating the system. His words are empty and cheap and don't mean shit. He thinks he can flimflam everyone. Well, he's just full of crap. All he can do is give speeches. What a waste.

[jefferson_dem]

19. You had me until the "All he can do is give speeches" line.

That smear has been parroted since January 2007.

Dismiss.

[optimator]

20. if the "give war a chance" is the best speech

we are truly fucked.

[MissDeeds]

21. +1

:grr:

[earth mom]

22. Karl Rove liked the speech! What the hell does that tell you?!

The denial around here is un fucking believable! :eyes:

[jenmito]

26. It tells you he's stupid, as is anyone who thinks this was a speech Bush would've given!

If you actually understood what he said in his speech, you'd know it was nothing like a Bush speech. You should read this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=52725&mesg_id=52725

[andym]

28. FDR would have really liked this speech

I think. In fact, I think he could have even written a similar one. Truman, and Kennedy too.

It hearkens back to the pre-Vietnam war liberal approach, before absolute pacifism became the dominant liberal approach to foreign affairs.

[jgraz]

30. Oh really? When did FDR ever speak in favor of preemptive war?

:shrug:

[andym]

33. I don't think Obama favors pre-emptive war any more than FDR (see pre-emptive attack quote below)

In fact, FDR probably favored pre-emptive attacks (although not "war") at least as much than Obama.

For example, before Pearl Harbor he ordered pre-emptively attacking Axis war ships after some American vessels had been attacked:

from: http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext04/fdrfc10.htm

September 11, 1941 (Fireside Chat) ....

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: "We will only defend
ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew
and the passengers are drowned".

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters, they can attack
equally well within sight of our own shores. Their very presence in
any waters which America deems vital to its defense constitutes an
attack.

In the waters which we deem necessary for our defense, American
naval vessels and American planes will no longer wait until Axis
submarines lurking under the water, or Axis raiders on the surface
of the sea, strike their deadly blow--first.

Upon our naval and air patrol--now operating in large number over a
vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean--falls the duty of maintaining
the American policy of freedom of the seas--now. That means, very
simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will
protect all merchant ships--not only American ships but ships of
any flag--engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will
protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface
raiders.

This situation is not new. The second President of the United
States, John Adams, ordered the United States Navy to clean out
European privateers and European ships of war which were infesting
the Caribbean and South American waters, destroying American
commerce.

The third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson, ordered
the United States Navy to end the attacks being made upon American
and other ships by the corsairs of the nations of North Africa.

My obligation as President is historic; it is clear. It is
inescapable.

It is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas
that are vital to American defense. The aggression is not ours.
Ours is solely defense.

But let this warning be clear. From now on, if German or Italian
vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is
necessary for American defense, they do so at their own peril.

The orders which I have given as Commander-in-Chief of the United
States Army and Navy are to carry out that policy--at once.

The sole responsibility rests upon Germany. There will be no
shooting unless Germany continues to seek it.

That is my obvious duty in this crisis. That is the clear right of
this sovereign nation. This is the only step possible, if we would
keep tight the wall of defense which we are pledged to maintain
around this Western Hemisphere.

I have no illusions about the gravity of this step. I have not
taken it hurriedly or lightly. It is the result of months and
months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. In the
protection of your nation and mine it cannot be avoided.

The American people have faced other grave crises in their
history--with American courage, and with American resolution. They
will do no less today.

They know the actualities of the attacks upon us. They know the
necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. They know that
the times call for clear heads and fearless hearts.

And with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious
of their duty, and conscious of the righteousness of what they do,
they will--with Divine help and guidance--stand their ground
against this latest assault upon their democracy, their
sovereignty, and their freedom.
---------------

Earlier in the speech he was even more clear:

But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait
until he has struck before you crush him.

These Nazi submarines and raiders are the rattlesnakes of the
Atlantic. They are a menace to the free pathways of the high seas.
They are a challenge to our own sovereignty. They hammer at our
most precious rights when they attack ships of the American flag--
symbols of our independence, our freedom, our very life.

[jgraz]

34. OK, we have to have some basic standards of reason and logic here.

"For example, before Pearl Harbor he ordered pre-emptively attacking Axis war ships after some American vessels had been attacked"

You can't be serious with this.

[andym]

35. Here is the logic

First, Obama has not eludicated a pre-emptive war strategy-- that's the "Bush doctrine."
However, FDR's speech about attacking Nazi war ships was an escalation based on an attack on the destroyer Greer (which was possibly attacked because the Nazis thought it was responsible for an attack on a nearby submarine (that was attacked by the British).

From Obama's speech:
"One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks."

So according to Obama the USA is in Afghanistan it defend itself from further attacks.
Just like FDR.

what's your logic?

[jgraz]

36. Time between attack on the Greer and FDR's speech: one week.

Time between attack on the US and Obama's speech: 8 years.

Just like FDR? :puke:

Tell me, how would Truman have been perceived if, in 1949, he advocated ANOTHER attack on Germany just in case they decide to threaten the US again?

[andym]

37. Your logic is faulty, time is not the issue

Absolute time is not the issue, it's the continuity of a "war"

The attacks on Nazi war ships continued until Pearl Harbor after which the USA declared war on the Axis powers (and the attacks on Nazi warships continued until the end of the war). That war (USA's participation) lasted 4 years (1941-1945).

In 1945, the USA was on the offensive-- 4 years after Pearl Harbor-- the Japanese were mostly fighting a defensive war to hold on to their territory. Do you think that that 4 years was too much after one major incident (Pearl Harbor in this case).

The point here is that the Afghan war has not yet been resolved-- it has continued since 2001.
So responding to the initial incident can be considered justification. One can argue legitimately about who the USA is fighting, and how and when to end the war, etc.

The logic here is that wars, battles or attacks usually proceed until one side "wins", declares victory, or gives up.

Asking whether Truman would have launched another war in 1949 (after already winning) is absurd, since WW2 had been concluded.

Are you seriously arguing this?

[jgraz]

40. You should ice your groin after that stretch

Tell me, when do we "win" the War on Terror? What "side" is going to surrender to us?

You analogy is absurd. Calling a response to an attack "preemptive" is absurd. Obama was pushing the Bush doctrine -- the idea that we have a right to attack anyone we perceive as a threat. FDR *never* advocated that. No president before Bush advocated that.

So... we have never officially ended the Korean War. Does your "continuity of war" theory mean that the US has the right to bomb Pyongyang at will?

[andym]

43. Your logic continues to be faulty-- let me make it simple so

that you can understand clearly:

First, you actually support my argument here:
You wrote "Calling a response to an attack "preemptive" is absurd." Correct, and therefore the Afghan war is NOT pre-emptive (since there was an attack that led to an ongoing war). Therefore, Obama is not continuing the Bush Doctrine on the basis of the war in Afghanistan.

So your first premise is unproven: Obama is not continuing the Bush doctrine (and not engaging in preemptive war)-- note that he did not use pre-emptive war in his speech as his justification for Afghanistan, he used the argument that he was continuing a response to an attack.

As to FDR, I am not claiming he advocated, quoting you, "a right to attack anyone we perceive as a threat." (you are using the "argument by generalization" fallacy) However, in the FDR quote that I provided you he advocated a right to preemptively attack a specific enemy's (Nazi's) warships as a threat. So, he actually went further than Obama has so far.

As for Korea, the UN including the USA signed an armistice (cessation of hostilities) in 1953. An armistice would be considered by most reasonable people to end any "continuity of war". Therfore, the US would be in violation of the armistice to attack North Korea. So, your example does not mitigate the absurdity of your original argument about Truman striking 4 years after the war ended).

Finally, your first point. "when do we "win" the War on Terror?"
According to Obama the USA is not fighting a "War on Terror." As for what constitutes winning the Afghan war, or if the goal is actually to win, I would like to know the answers to those questions myself. I would like to see an early end to this war. Earlier than President Obama.

The point of my post was to justify that argument that FDR, Truman or Kennedy would have likely approved of Obama's speech. You attacked this by falsely claiming that Obama is continuing the Bush doctrine of preemptive attacks (you provided no evidence). I pointed out that Obama is not claiming this (with an example from his Nobel speech). You stated that FDR never argued for any kind of preemptive attack (which isn't really relevant, because Obama is not pursuing a preemptive war anyway), I provided you with counter evidence from FDR's 9/11/41 Fireside chat. You tried to make an argument that only counterattacks a short time after an incident are justifiable. I stated that continuity is important. You tried to show that my reasoning meant attacks some time after a war ended would be justified (by what I thought was an absurd argument about Truman in 1949 attacking Germany). I explained that it is fairly conventional to take into account the continuity of a war as ending justification for attacks. You then tried to use the Korean war as an example of an ongoing war that would be consistent with continuity. I make the very obvious point here that the Korean War would not be considered a continuous war by convention as hostilities were ended with an armistice 56 years ago.

[jgraz]

44. "I reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation."

(Y'know, if you're going to break out the condescension, you should probably have a few facts on your side first.)

Like most of his speeches, Obama continues to be all things to all people. The statement in the subject line has been taken as a continuation of the Bush Doctrine by many observers. Apologists like yourself will certainly disagree while at the same time you shamelessly re-parse Obama's prior statements to make them jibe with current actions. I'm sure that, should Obama ever decide to preemptively attack a country, you'll happily pull out the above quote as an example of how he's just doing what he said he'd do.

Since you seem to be pedantically enamored with whatever logical fallacy page you found via Google, let me direct your attention to one particular line item: Appeal to Authority. Your initial claim about past dead presidents approving of the speech falls roughly into that category. Your argument is actually weaker than that since, instead of appealing to Obama's authority, you draw an erroneous connection to past authorities. You have no factual basis for your claims that FDR, Truman, JFK, would actually approve of the speech (and there are valid reasons why they may not), but that's not really the point. The real problem for your claim is that even if you could show some support for this fictional approval, it actually has no bearing on the substance of Obama's speech.

Here's an idea: why don't you go read a transcript of Obama's speech and explain why it makes sense *today* -- not why some previous Democratic icon may or may not give Dear Leader his stamp of approval. Or would that be too difficult?

[andym]

45. My point had only to do with FDR, Kennedy and Truman and historical context

My interest in tying his speech to FDR, Truman and Kennedy was not to justify it, but to put it in historical context. SO it's not an appeal to authority, because I am not trying to convince anyone that just because FDR, Truman or Kennedy would have liked the speech, they should like it too (at least I don't see where I said that). As Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But I do think it is important that his speech be placed in the context of the older liberal internationalism (from the 40s and 50s) that was superseded in the 1960s by a more pacifist approach.

I was going to make a thread of my own, but it appears that another poster did a great job in discussing the speech as an example of Niebuhrian liberal internationalism.
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=52725&mesg_id=52725 which discusses this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/dec/11/conservatives-obama-nobel-speech and
http://www.slate.com/id/2238081/

However, liberal internationalism goes beyond Niebuhr's particular interpretation. It is notable that FDR, Truman and Kennedy could all be considered examples of presidents that embraced traditional liberal internationalism. The creation of the UN under FDR is exemplary. My reading of his speech strongly suggests that he buys into this political philosophy (it's notable that Niebuhr is one of Obama's favorite philosophers-- see the Slate article.) This apparent shared political philosophy is my basis for stating that these three men would have liked Obama's speech.

As for "I reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation." I take the statement literally, but "unilateral" does not normally mean "preemptive," at least in any dictionary that I have seen. So, I think it is you who sees what they want to see (or not see). But to be fair to you, it is a rather vague statement.

As for the implications of his speech for today, his philosophy promises a serious engagement with the world that could lead to new wars (or less likely to extended peace should various potential conflicts be quashed) -- it's not completely accidental that FDR, Truman and Kennedy were war presidents, although WWII at least was unavoidable. That's why historical context can be so important.

[jgraz]

47. historical context, appeal to authority. Potato, potahto.

I find it interesting that your first attempt to "put things in a historical context" was a single subject line proclaiming which Democratic icons would approve of Obama.

However, tying Obama's speech to Neibuhr is interesting, as it helps crystalize exactly what I disliked about it. No one invites an "all things to all people" interpretation more than Neibuhr. Was he a radical socialist or an anti-communist? Was he pro-war or anti-war? Christian ethicist or Machiavellian?

The one thread that continues through all of Neibuhr's intellectual earthquakes is the conviction that America cannot force its beliefs on other nations, even if those beliefs have been shown to be The Right Thing™. I heard none of that from Obama. In fact, one could argue that our continued engagement in Afghanistan is about as anti-Neiburian as it gets.

Are we really there to defend ourselves against the handful of Al Qaeda left in that country? Or is it some more nebulous goal of instilling American democracy or preventing future threats? Can you honestly say that Neibuhr (especially the late, anti-Vietnam-War Niebuhr) would approve?

The more I think about Obama's speech, the more I find myself in agreement with Glen Greenwald. Bush was effective at getting conservatives to support war because he used their chest-thumping, reptile-brained, "with us or agin us" language. Obama is as effective at getting liberals to support war because he employs our quasi-intellectual, multi-layered, "put it in historical context" language. Either way, the result is the same: you have a rich, powerful nation continuing a pointless war against people who are too poor and too weak to stop it.

[andym]

51. Of course that is why his speech bothered you

And it probably just wasn't his Niebuhrian ambiguity, although to the extent he was Niebuhrian, it was clearly the late 40s-early 50s Niebuhr. It was Obama's embrace of liberal internationalism (which is not the sole province of Niebuhr). Many modern progessives just do not accept an activist role for the USA in foreign affairs with an open military option. What it means is that Obama will likely exercise US military might should diplomacy fail in various trouble spots. People who voted for Obama because they assumed he held modern liberal pacifist views after he opposed the Iraq war are in for a big surprise. (My vote for Obama was based on what I hoped he and a Democratic Congress might accomplish domestically.)

As for my original post, it was the first thought that came to mind (mental shorthand for liberal internationalism), and it was not necessarily to praise nor denigrate Obama. I did not expect such a strong response to what I thought seemed obvious. Perhaps I should have included Eisenhower and LBJ along with FDR, Truman and Kennedy to make that clearer (although as president Eisenhower was not faced with a major war, unlike the 3 I originally mentioned). It's not the "iconic" (your word) nature of the three presidents that came to my mind, but their willingness to aggressively pursue war (FDR=WWII, Truman=Nuclear attack on Japan, Korean War, Kennedy=Bay of Pigs, Vietnam) when they felt it was justified. Obama's speech convinced me that he shares much with his predecessors.

[bigwillq]

41. 2004 Democratic National Convention

Was still his best. My opinion, of course!

[WT Fuheck]

46. well, duh.

We know the right wingers liked it.

If you believe your subject line, I want some of what you're smoking.