Perhaps
in the breast of the most ardent supporters of President Obama there beats a
proud heart -- proud that their man has been so recognized as to receive a
Nobel Peace Prize a few months into his presidency; proud that the world (via
the Nobel Committee) has affirmed the greatness that they see in him. Still,
even there one will no doubt find whispers of doubt.
It
is hard not to think that the Nobel Committee did the president a disservice by
(prematurely) awarding him the Peace Prize. It is not his fault, and it is
largely not within his control as one can hardly expect that he could
gracefully decline such an honor. It is, however, valuable commentary on how
the world sees America and, perhaps as we will see in the next few days, how
America sees the world.
From
the actions of the Nobel Prize Committee we can surmise what angst the United
States must have caused in so many corners of the world over the past many
years. Anxious about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, anxious about unilateralism,
about a seeming lack of urgency on climate change, about the financial crisis,
Guantánamo Bay, Texas, religion and so many other things that they do not like
nor understand about us, they see Obama -- or anyone else but Bush but
especially Obama -- as truly the answer to their hopes.
From
what will undoubtedly be a divided response to this great honor among the
American public, we will see that, even under this president, America remains
fundamentally different and out of step with the aspirations represented by the
Nobel Prize Committee. Americans still -- even in the midst of two protracted
wars and an economic recession -- seem to intuitively understand that the path
we must walk as a nation is very different than that of other nations. What may
look to some allies and adversaries as a choice of how we conduct the affairs
of state is seen by many Americans as our responsibility.
It
is easy to believe that a successful Obama presidency for America will in the
end disappoint those confirmed this award. Lasting peace in the Middle East
will require far more sacrifice from the Arabs than from Israel. Ending Iran's
nuclear ambitions will get much harder before it gets easier -- and the same
with North Korea. Fixing climate change will require every nation at the table,
and more countries than the U.S. have thus far been sitting it out. Closing Guantánamo Bay
will require others to share the risks that America faces daily for her efforts
to keep other nations safe, or for seeking to bring peace and liberty to
distant lands like Afghanistan.
On
the other hand, an unsuccessful Obama presidency could meet all the aspirations
of the Nobel Committee and still leave America, and Norway, and so many other
nations in greater peril than ever before in history. That chapter is yet to be
written, and will unfold in the three or seven years that President Obama has
yet to serve. Let us all hope for the best, and hope that the president remains
unaffected by the award he received today.
It
is easy to believe that were Jimmy Carter's presidency to have followed Ronald
Reagan's, he too might have been so honored months after taking
office simply for being anybody but Reagan. One wonders how that decision
would have stood the test of time -- in America or in the many corners of the
world that owe their freedom to Reagan's leadership in the world.
It might be easy to believe that about Carter if one believed Reagan and Bush had equally disastrous tenures in the White House. A few liberals do. Even most of the people who never voted for Reagan recognized that, to paraphrase his question in the 1980 Presidential debate, they were better off in 1988 than they had been in 1980; the economy was better, and America was more respected around the world. Who believes that America is better off after eight years of George Bush in the White House?
That's as close to being a defining question for the Republican Party as it gets. Will the GOP be defined as Bush's party, the party of people who think Bush was a great President, or as something else? Does a "shadow government" -- on this site or in the Republican Party generally -- mean that group of people who think the way the Bush admininstration operated is the way the government should be run, or does it mean something else?
In case it isn't obvious, I think the implied comparison here of President Reagan with Bush is offensive on its face. It's also beyond obtuse politically. George Bush was more unpopular for longer than any President in living memory. The Obama Presidency would have to be a national catastrophe to allow the Republican Party to regain majority status or anything close to it after what Americans have experienced in the last eight years. That's something no serious American can be hoping for, though not all Americans are serious. The Bush legacy is a great dead weight around the GOP's neck, an observation plain enough to most people but begging the question: what do Republicans do about it?
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(1)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE