Obama’s Berlin Speech: Arrogant or Case Making?
July 25, 2008
There is legitimate reason to criticize Senator Obama’s decision to speak in front of some 200,000 people in Berlin yesterday. After all, he carries no official authority to conduct diplomacy on behalf of the United States. He comes to Berlin as a candidate, not as a president — and yet the spectacle that he and his hosts have jointly created for the purposes of his visit has been nothing short of presidential.
Of course, there are niggling complaints. Ed Morrissey writes that Obama’s choice of the Victory Column over the Brandenburg Gate as the location for his speech was apt to make many Germans uncomfortable because of its association with the Nazi regime. But he also makes the excellent larger point that:
The more basic question is why Obama feels the need to conduct a campaign event among Germans. Meeting with foreign leaders makes sense for a man with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, but that doesn’t require massive rallies among people who aren’t voting in this election. In his rush to look impressive for no one’s purposes but his own, Obama has made himself look ignorant and arrogant all over again.
That’s one way of looking at it. And I can’t deny that Morrissey has a point: Obama has some serious cajones to walk into a foreign city during campaign season and give a speech of such sweeping scope to an audience whose support or lack thereof matters little in terms of votes or even contributions. And if we were living in ordinary times, I’d say that Obama’s behavior in Berlin today was nothing short of inappropriate in the extreme.
But these are not ordinary times.
We’ve spent the past seven and a half years with a president who has arguably squandered more international goodwill than at any other point in our nation’s history. Obama’s candidacy is a near-direct result of George W. Bush’s bungling at a time when the world demanded an adroit diplomat.
This tour abroad is meant to assuage the legitimate concerns of many Americans that a man so young, without any foreign policy experience, can lead the United States and the world through the challenges we now face. McCain argues that his wartime experience and years in the Senate trump Obama’s pretty speechmaking when it comes to our security. This speech was meant to explode that claim.
Today, Obama gave us a taste of how he’d conduct foreign policy. He’d rebuild damaged partnerships and reach out to people all over the world and wage the war of ideas as only an articulate, visionary leader can.
And don’t underestimate the importance of the war of ideas. Because while the role of Commander in Chief of our military is no laughing matter, the United States has always done best in times of peace and in times of war when we’ve lead by holding up the ideals of liberty, democracy and equality for all the world to see.
Wrong from the first sentence. There is no legitimate reason to criticize Obama for speaking in Berlin. The president of the United States is, in some ways, the president of the world. We have fallen into deep disrepute among our closest friends and allies during the Bush era. It’s important to underscore that Europe is not “anti-American,” but anti-neocon and anti-Bush. a better day’s a-comin’.
Obama’s not the president. He’s a senator running for president. Big difference.
200,000 Germans flocked to hear Obama speak because he is who the Germans want to win the Presidency.
84% of Germans, in a 2007 survey, think that American should step down from the international spotlight. Obama says that he will draw down American influence and refer to the United Nations more often.
Obama chose an area where he could draw a large crowd and we’re supposed to believe this is a sign of the huge international support he has. Look for quality not quantity: do we care if Germany supports our Presidential candidates?
Germany wants a weaker U.S. - and they want Obama as President. I’ll let the logic speak for itself.
I love how you equate us drawing down our micromanaging and policing the rest of the world and participating in the community of nations rather than dominating it as weaker. Sometimes, it’s better to lead from a position of being a member of a community, rather than throwing our weight around.
If you’re interested in the perception of Obama in Germany, the open think-tank atlantic-community.org offers an analysis as well as an interesting 15-minute video compilation of person-on-the-street impressions of his speech: http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Obama_in_Europe%3A_Continuity_We_Can_Believe_In
i hardly think deferring to the corruption-filled UN to get anything done re foreign policy is smart, practical or efficient.
as an executive arm, the same goes for NATO.
do we really want to use as a major foreign policy formation tool, the UN, whose members are corrupt (public service isn’t exactly known for making someone fabulously wealthy… mr. annan) which appoints members to the UN Commission of Human rights, nations like Libya, Syria, China, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria, and Sudan? Or a community that is hostile to the US and its interests to the point where Russia and China on the Security Council use their veto to undermine them?
the US’s powers in these forums are already limited to the status of ‘member of a community’, except we just get to foot the bill regardless of if it helps us or not. doesn’t sound like such a great community.
Teresa: please provide overriding examples of micromanaging that the US government enacts over Germany. I say overriding because it has to be worth more than the hundreds of billions of dollars Germany received from the U.S. with the Marshall plan to rebuild their nation after Hitler destroyed it, and strengthened/sustained their way of life so the Soviets wouldn’t absorb it. Germans owe their current situation in the world to the United States, they have no right to tell us what role in the world we should play. That goes for any western European nation too.
We fund the UN, why should we have them mandate our actions? I love how you decry the United States policing the world, but fail to realize why it is that way.
Do you really think “participating in the community of nations” will work? And that participating in a corrupt and useless organization is how our nation should lead? If so, I refer you to the 300,000 dead Rwandans when the UN decided to act as a community of nations, but stymied over issues like the definition of “genocide” and what color the uniforms should be of UN personnel that were sent there. I also refer you to the Korean War when China and the US (two members of the UN Security Council) killed hundreds of thousands of one another in a war just a few years after the UN was created - the UN was supposed to avoid that exact type of situation.
Deb & Jeff: First of all, I never said that I supported the United Nations as the equivalent of the community of nations. The UN is a wonderful idea with a lot of trouble in the implementation, but the idea has a lot of merit. The general philosophy that we should try to build consensus and coalitions, rather than acting unilaterally or as if our interests are the only ones that matter, is a sound one.
As for the Germans and Western Europe, I couldn’t agree more. They do owe their current strength to the United States, but that doesn’t mean that they have to agree with everything we do. You owe your current situation in life in large part to your parents, but that doesn’t mean that you have to agree with their every stance and decision.
I don’t think you’d see Obama weakening the United States by having us kowtow to the UN when it’s not in our best interests to do so. But I do think you’d see him using our soft power to convince and persuade other nations to work with us, rather than throwing our military might and waning economic dominance around.
point taken.
however:
“The general philosophy that we should try to build consensus and coalitions, rather than acting unilaterally or as if our interests are the only ones that matter, is a sound one.” << isn’t that what we were trying to do with the coalition of the willing (since the almighty UN disagreed with us), and still we got slammed by it from the international community (and at home) as unilateralists? where do we draw the line between a “valid” coalition and one that isn’t multi-lateral enough? should we care? even if they shared our interests, other nations would rather defer expenses to the US rather than help foot the bill (so are financial/military contributions really a dependable metric?) oh, kissinger, where art thou?
This is a question that will be front and center of either an Obama or a McCain administration. What’s clear is that the way President Bush has handled our dealing with foreign nations hasn’t worked. An approach that more adroitly integrates nuance would be helpful, methinks.
Obama does say all the right things that most of us want to hear. After almost 8 years of George Bush the country and the media is relieved by his ability to articulate ideas clearly. So in a year were the Democratic Party should be able to knock this election out of the ballpark - we have chosen a completely inexperienced candidate with no foriegn policy, administrative, or leadership credentials whatsoever.
He has not held even one meeting of the commitee regarding Afghanistan that he chairs the entire time he has been a Senator, which is only a few years. He has been running for President the entire time. TALK ABOUT TRYING TO TAKE A SHORTCUT TO THE PRESIDENCY!
Obama is the flip side of George Bush. A candidate can say anything and they do. Obama has gone back on his original poistion and promise on almost every policy decision so far. FISA, public financing, IRAQ, oil drilling, etc. During the Primary debates, when pressed, he always just agreed with Senator Clinton on complicate policy issues. George W Bush was so sure of himself and his opinions and judgement, he never worried about them. So is Obama. This is not a good character trait for a President.
The President should always be collecting information from all the smartest people in the country and around the world. And then making a decision only after he has the most up to date information. He should not trust himself so much that every from the hip idea is the one the country has to suffer through. This is the disaster that is the George W Bush Presidency. I fear Obama does not understand that his pretty words may be misconstrued around the world. What does “tear down the walls between countries” mean anyway?
The Sovereignty of the United States of America is one the primary responsibilities of the President. It is really strange and quite inappropriate for a presidential candidate to go to foriegn countries and make such statements. American Voters should not vote for someone new just because he is of the opposing party to that of George Bush. Obama has no track record by which a voter can have real confidence in his decision making ability.
I am a very concered and disappointed Democrat. Oprah and the media decided that Obama was the candidate and they wanted the Primary to be over. “Let him win” was the overriding message. Don’t criticize hiim, don’t say his middle name, etc. This is not a coronation, this is the election for President of the United States of America. It will determine our future. Does this guy have the experience and character to lead us. I really resent the Media and Oprah telling me who to vote for. On that basis alone, voters should thiink twice about Obama. Voters can think for themselves. Being self confident does not mean you will do a good job. Track record is the most important measure of a candidate and Obama does not have one.
Diane:
Obama’s been in public service for much of his adult life and has taken many important stands including sponsorship or co-sponsorship of 131 bills since his arrival in the U.S. Senate.
Also, look to Obama’s stand against the Iraq war even at a time when popular opinion was in favor of the invasion. That’s a track record I’m willing to align myself with.
Diane -
One might marvel at the fact that wow, maybe this year a candidate gets it and might actually represent the desires of most of America…?
I’m not sure how this is a problem. I realize it’s great fun to continually lambaste our politicians for “only saying what we want to hear” but what happens when what we actually want, what we actually need, what we want to hear, and what a politician is saying are all the same thing?
Actually he did hold one a few weeks back. Possibly in response to this charge, but he did hold one, and keep in mind these committees only meet monthly or quarterly anyway.
John McCain, however, has actually attended none, either.
This never bothered me. They’re in the same party and have always espoused pretty much the same ideas. One would expect them to agree more often than not.
There’s a difference between believing you’re always right, and believing you have the ability to gain enough information to make an informed, wise judgement. Bush was the former, and I agree that’s a disastrous character trait for a president. Obama is the latter, and I’d challenge anyone’s problem with that by asking do you really want a President who isn’t confident in their character and their abilities? If they weren’t, they’d be extremely easy to push around.
You might do some reading about how Obama makes difficult decisions. On the illegal wiretap issue, for example, he DID spend time contacting legal experts and talking with them and eventually concluded he thought the program was illegal.
Obama’s foreign policy team tops 300 people. Bush’s was one: Cheney.
Would you mind expanding on that idea a bit? I’m curious, because the Constitution spends 5 paragraphs describing the responsibilities of the President, and only once mentions the phrase “Commander in Chief of the armed forces.” I’m not sure where sovereignty comes from out of that idea, or how it becomes a primary responsibility.