I just finished reading the text of Obama's speech - I tried to get up at 5:45 but that didn't happen since I was up late battle-tweeting with prulonmiller on Twitter. Before I launch into a mild critique let me just say this: I thought this was a strong speech. More importantly, I think we are beginning to see an effort on the part of Obama to use his Muslim connections as a strategic tool in his efforts to achieve foreign policy objectives. I think this is smart. Remember back in the campaign when it was taboo to say his middle name, Hussein? It's slightly ironic that this name, and the heritage that it represents, is now being viewed by many (myself included) as an incredible opportunity to reach out in new ways to populations around the world in hopes of sparking a dialogue that might bring about some serious reform. And it might serve to discredit and isolate the radical extremists who populate the fringes of what is otherwise a reasonable religion with a beautiful culture and history.
Obama's loose connections to the Muslim world as a basis for that world accepting America as not imperialist, or not at war with Islam (as were the popular feelings during the Bush years) is incredibly superficial. Nonetheless, these connections might mean something, and it is essential that we use what we have at our disposal in order to work at making progress in these regions. As someone who looks fondly upon the underlying principles of Bush's foreign policy-an unswerving promotion of democracy and human rights, and a belief in the utility of American power to achieve these ends-I admit that I am disappointed by the fact that many of these principles are not being continued (I can't say that I am surprised). I don't believe that an eloquent speech is going to make a serious impact when it comes time for, say, Hamas to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. It is going to have to be combined with actions of some sort - and I'm not sure I like what has been proposed thus far by Obama and his team (complete halt to Israeli settlement building, giving Iran more time to prove peaceful purposes for its nuclear program etc.)
But I am also not one to rule out a technique until it has been attempted and failed, and the verdict remains out on this strategy. Obama's unending rhetorical eloquence (that seems, when its at its best, to strike a wonderfully optimistic tone rife with feel-good compromises) coupled with the facts that Obama inherently has more credibility with these populations and his enormous global popularity, may yield some different and more positive results. And believe me, I am all for positive reform in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. I don't care how it gets done, so long as we retain our dignity as the United States of America, and we extinguish dangerous ideologies that threaten the stability of our country and our world.
All in all a good speech and a good strategy. I was pleasantly surprised at its balanced tone, and really hope, for the sake of our world, that good will come of these very serious efforts and overtures being made by our President. I can't stress that enough. These issues transcend the petty agendas of our politics, they are far bigger than that. Let us collectively hope that we can snuff out the self-perpetuating hatred and extremism that yield only death and destruction.
More thoughts to come. Feel free to chime in using the comments section.
Posts
Adjust contrast of a pdf free
8 years ago
I'm confused by this comment: "the underlying principles of Bush's foreign policy-an unswerving promotion of democracy and human rights" Was this sarcasm?
ReplyDeletenice entry from you. and, great balance between strong, serious demands and "eloquent," fresh respect from #44. i do think it was honest, which others have declared as well, and an appropriately framed speech for the time and place, if you will. i think the term eloquent is overused in reference to obama and it peeves me a bit that it should even be highlighted. why is that so worth mentioning constantly? why does it seem like it is often in a somewhat negative way? i think that he backs up his skill with words and oration with more substantial ideas not just friendly sounding emptiness. whether one agrees or disagrees with the ideas is a different issue entirely. i, for one, think eloquence is a fantastic characteristic for a president with so much power to have-it's perhaps a different way of showing that we mean business, that we are serious, and that we don't mess around with crazy extremists. rather than just prancing around like we are a relentless imperial force, trying to invoke fear into everyone else. one definition of eloquence is "persuasive communication," so we can hope, as you say time and time again, that he is in some way persuasive. in any case i wouldn't necessarily label his rhetoric eloquence as superficial, although it most certainly is at times. all in all, it's something new. and, i welcome it. the speech has been described as, "sweeping and forceful." i agree with that and i agree with you wholeheartedly that he is perhaps trying out a new strategic tool. but, if i may, i suggest that it isn't only to benefit foreign policy, but perhaps also to alleviate some americans' stereotypes of muslims, which he touched on briefly. since i'm typing this at work, i know there are gaps, flaws and unfinished thoughts, but must stop here. we will obviously be discussing this later anyways.
ReplyDeleteDavid: no sarcasm. bush spoke of democracy as a key to a more peaceful world all the time. one of the biggest goals of the iraq invasion was setting up a sustainable democracy. weve been largely successful in our pursuit of that goal.
ReplyDeleteTina: i definitely think his eloquence is a plus, though sometimes our admiration of it clouds our ability to actively listen, and critique if necessary. and i wasnt saying the eloquence or even his message was superficial. merely that, on the part of the Muslim world, their acceptance of BHO because of his Muslim roots (and their subsequent willingness to accept America) is superficial, and their discounting of Bush as a Muslim-hatin' cowboy was unfair.
apropos "superficial," i wasn't directing referencing your post (i accidentally used the same word, even though you used it in regard to his loose connection to the muslim world). i was speaking generally about people who love to equate his "eloquence" with lack of substance or ability to be successful in regard to foreign policy. but, absolutely, i'll be the first to say that admiration can color how we view someone and their policies (we're on the same page). critique is an essential ingredient, and right, in a democracy. (i don't want to get into this here and now, but i think "they" "discounted" bush for more reasons than him being a muslim-hatin' cowboy!) <3
ReplyDelete