The Interview
Having heard the Al-Arabiya interview, I will say that there is not much there to scandalize anyone. He committed himself to nothing specific, and he made standard remarks urging respect and understanding. One of the advantages that Obama has in speaking to an Arabic-language network so early in his term is that the novelty of doing it and the priority he gave it are just remarkable enough that he need not say anything significant. He didn’t need to say anything significant, and so he didn’t. Nonetheless, it is no wonder that this American woman’s Muslim in-laws were impressed by the interview. When people have become accustomed to hearing nothing or at least nothing favorable, the slightest acknowledgement of their concerns seems very significant, even though it may be nothing more than sugar coating for yet another bitter pill. The starving man will rejoice over crumbs, which is all Obama is likely to offer the Al-Arabiya audience and Americans interested in significant policy changes. Of course, this Lebanese family may be aware that Obama unequivocally backed Israel’s bombardment and invasion of Lebanon when he was in the Senate, which tends to put his “empathy for Muslim children and their lives” in a rather harsh perspective.
I respect your opinions on many issues, and I learn a lot from this blog.
I’d like to hear in more detail what you think Obama should be doing, if anything — when he talks to the Arab world, proposes a stimulus package, works with Republicans, etc.
I’m very skeptical of the new president, occasionally cautiously optimistic. I’d like to hear your views in more detail about what he can do, if anything, to do a good job.
I have to say that you seem to be grudging at best, contemptuous always, when discussing this president. He doesn’t seem to get the benefit of the doubt….
Thanks for the comment and the kind words. The short version of what I think he should do is this. He should follow through on his pledge to withdraw forces from Iraq, and I would like to see him aim at an even lower figure for “residual forces.” He should live up to his pledge to review the use of warrantless wiretapping, and ideally he should revisit the legislation that he supported last year, and he should try to strengthen judicial oversight significantly over this intelligence gathering. He should not continue the policy of launching strikes into Pakistan, and should not go along with Gates’ idea of using NATO forces for drug eradication efforts in Afghanistan. He should avoid meddling in Kashmir, but he should take a much more direct interest in internal Pakistani instability and attempt to assist Islamabad in securing their arsenal, easing as much as possible their financial problems and halt any support, tacit or otherwise, for Baluchi movements such as Jundullah. If we must have a stimulus, it should be very different from the grab-bag of pork projects that it seems to be turning into, and Obama should resist calls to use the next tranche of the TARP, rethink the entire bailout approach to the financial crisis and definitely should not nationalize institutions more than has already been done. He should not proceed with the missile defense plan in eastern Europe, and he should halt NATO expansion while rebuilding bilateral relations with Moscow over proliferation and other security issues. He should not sign FOCA in the event that it passes and should make it clear to Congressional Democrats that he will not support it. I would say that he should aggressively pressure Israel to halt settlements and withdraw settlers from the West Bank, but it is not fair to him to demand that he do something that is utterly impossible. There are plenty of other issues to cover, but if he did all or most of these things I would have to admit that he had done a reasonably good job or had at least made a serious attempt to pursue the right policies.
If I seem to be contemptuous of Obama, it is the result of my general dissatisfaction with government in Washington and Obama’s apparent unwillingness to attempt to do very much to change how government functions and what it does. I give very few politicians the benefit of the doubt. I have seen few reasons to do this in Obama’s case. That being said, I think I have been as fair to him as anyone could reasonably expect a right-winger to be and I have tried to judge him based on what he has said and done. When I have laid into him with criticism, it is usually because I think he has either failed to live up to promises he made, or because I think his proposed policies are terrible.
Speaking as a liberal, I was and still remain extremely skeptical of Obama but he is pleasing me beyond my wildest dreams. I never expected him to be anything but an interventionist and follower of the status quo so these gestures (executive order to close Gitmo, talking to Arab network for first interview) are pleasantly taking me by surprise. I know these are but crumbs but this is vastly better than anything I have every heard from any other president. I really want him now to do something less “hopey changey” or he will kill me with happiness.
As an aside, Daniel, you are one of the most original and thoughtful bloggers I have read. Thanks for the excellent work and keep up the blogging.
I can recall when it started… Pat Buchanan and George McGovern were on TV and they agreed that Nixon would be better at foreign policy today than Bush, and I agreed with them. Brave new world. So yes, I concur with others that the best strategy and insight on foreign policy is to be found here and among the ‘paleocons’ who advocate a defensive, insightful, America-first foreign policy. I do think though that a measure of tolerance has to be offered to Obama, considering what he is up against in the Democratic party, and in key states like Florida… he simply has to mouth the appropriate platitudes, the alternative would be to be a profile in courage and still a Senator. Of the available choices he was and remains the best bet for any new thinking on the Middle East, and that is that. There was no superior electable alternative. What is key at this point is that Americans of Jewish persuasion who do not support the imperialist Likudnik line speak out and give him cover to dodge the other N-word when it comes to crafting a solution. This magazine is playing an important role in that direction, and deserves support for that.
On domestic matters, what seems missing to me is the notion of scale in discussions about the economy. Simply put, when corporations have no size or domain limits and can cross international boundaries, a small government and limited regulation are ineffective. It would only be possible for small government and limited regulation to succeed if there were hard limits and other restrictions placed on corporations… and certainly the absurd notion that money is speech should be utterly discredited. Last I checked, homeless people were babbling in public at no financial cost to themselves and the rich are silent in their penthouses! The point being that there has to be a balance of power for smaller government and less regulation to work. That should be a clear lesson of the past eight years or more. Indeed, if size leads to calcification and immobility in government, it will do so in the private sector as well; and having people’s livelihoods and housing and health care in the hands of overgrown, immobile entities is at least as bad as doing so in the case of government. This is an area where pragmatism has to trump ideology. In matters of faith and morals, by all means, people have to follow their conscience and what they believe is the proper example… but let us recall that Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple and did so violently. If our constitutional process is at all sacred, the conclusion should be obvious.