Our Pushover President
"This state visit is . . . a terrible mistake," said Rep. Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
"He is illegitimate with his own people, and Brazil is now going to give him the air of legitimacy at a time when the world is trying to figure out how to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons."
Engel was speaking of the state visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that began Monday, at the invitation of President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of Brazil.
Extending such an honor to the leader who hosted a conference of Holocaust skeptics and deniers, often predicts Israel will disappear from the map, stole his last election and is stiffing the West on Iran's nuclear program is clearly a poke in the eye of Barack Obama.
Nor is this the only dissing of Obama and America by Lula.
The Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa has, for two months, been host to Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, a Chavista, who was ousted by his own Supreme Court and booted out of the country by the army.
America will survive such irritants. But they are symptomatic of something larger: the mounting disrespect Obama and America are receiving from friend and adversary alike.
Under the new center-left government that broke a 50-year hold on power by the LDP, Japan will cease refueling U.S. warships off Afghanistan, is demanding renegotiation of a U.S. troop deployment deal already agreed to and is moving out of Washington's orbit—and closer to Beijing. Pyongyang, having tested a second nuclear device, continues to dismiss all U.S. demands.
China just backhanded Obama's request to revalue its currency to stanch the steady hemorrhaging of U.S. jobs, technology and factories to the mainland, and treated Obama's call for openness and better treatment for dissidents and minorities with dismissive contempt.
Yet, had it not been for U.S. magnanimity in throwing open its market to Chinese goods, Beijing would never have registered the double-digit growth rates it has seen for the past two decades.
Some gratitude China is showing.
Despite U.S. warnings, President Hamid Karzai has stolen the Afghan election in a fashion so brazen as to make a mockery of U.S. claims of his legitimacy. Corruption remains pandemic, and ignored, including in Karzai's own family. He knows we have no other option.
Iran continues to slap away Obama's open hand, secure in the knowledge that China or Russia will veto any serious U.N. sanctions.
Israel, too, has taken the measure of Obama.
"Bibi" Netanyahu, elected on a platform of no negotiation with Hamas, no Palestinian enclave in Jerusalem and no withdrawal from the West Bank, a la Gaza, has defied Obama's demand for an immediate halt to any and all expansion of settlements. Not only has Bibi gone unpunished, his poll ratings have soared in Israel, and Obama has capitulated completely, leaving Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas so disillusioned and demoralized he is considering not running again.
The hopes raised by Obama's Cairo speech have disappeared, as our traditional Arab friends like the Egyptians and Saudis have been hung out to dry.
Hillary Clinton may have pressed the reset button on relations with Russia -- but there has been precious little reciprocity for the U.S. decision to scrap the ballistic missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Moscow has recognized Georgia's breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent republics and is now busy meddling in Ukraine to inflict a humiliating defeat on our man in Kiev, President Viktor Yushchenko, in January's election.
Again, none of the above represents a grave threat to any vital U.S. interest. Nevertheless, this lack of reciprocity, this lack of respect, this indifference to what the president is demanding or even asking is revealing about the era we have now entered—and about Barack Obama.
All that bloviation we heard for two decades—about the "Second American Century," the "End of History," the "New World Order," America as "omnipower" and "indispensable nation," the "New Rome" seizing its "unipolar moment" to impose "benevolent global hegemony" on mankind and "ending tyranny in our world"—it was, all of it, bullhockey.
Second, though Obama may be liked and admired by people all over the world, this counts for next to nothing in global power politics.
Brazil, Japan, China, Russia and Israel are all countries with their own national interests that do not necessarily comport with those of the United States. All have come to see Obama as a diffident, dithering, doubting dilettante who can be dissed with impunity. And none of these nations is going to sacrifice what it considers critical to win a smile from Barack Obama.
Multilateralism and globalism are on the way out. Unilateralism and nationalism are on the way in.
As other countries look out for their national interests first, why do we not do the same?
If we Americans will not put America first, who will?
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
PJB concedes that none of the things he mentions represent a grave threat to vital US interests. So what’s the problem? That the US will no longer be #1, the supreme global bully? That the US will become once again just an ordinary nation? That we will have to mind our own business because we just will not be able to be constantly interferring in the business of others? Sounds to me like all these are good things. Putting US national interest first would mean acknowledging that virtually all of these matters mentioned are no concern of ours. Is it really of even passing interest let alone concern to Americans whom Lula invites to Brazil? And shouldn’t we get rid of such absurd illusions as thinking that Americans buy Chinese goods out of magnanimity?
I agree with Mr. Higdon. What should it matter to America whether the world's pygmies kowtow to our President? Perhaps Pat has forgotten that we are a Republic, Not An Empire.
May I respectfully suggest that not Obama is to blame for dwindled U.S. prestige but rather George Bush, his neocon handlers, and his ignorant lackeys.
"All that bloviation we heard for two decades—about the “Second American Century,” the “End of History,” the “New World Order,” America as “omnipower” and “indispensable nation,” the “New Rome” seizing its “unipolar moment” to impose “benevolent global hegemony” on mankind and “ending tyranny in our world”—it was, all of it, bullhockey."
When one measures the last two decades of bloviation and who is responsible for initiating and sustaining it there is only one conclusion that can be drawn:(Which Clyde Wilson has also suggested on occasssion)
"The REPUBLICAN PARTY" must be dest... !!!
It may be the case that any man who succedded Bush was going to face this situation, no matter how able he might be in foreign affairs. The leaders of these countries all know that America is weak, stupid, and engaged in deceiving itself into believing that it's still the power it was fifty years ago. They know better, and all Americans will know better soon enough.
America's fever of political millenialism has run it's course to the inevitable end.
There is a solution for those of you who habitually dislike Pat Buchanan's columns: don't read them. You will be happier, and the rest of us will be happier. A win-win situation, as they say in the business world.
I did not read this article the same way apparently some of the initial commenters did. I did not think PJB was blaming Obama for causing the mess we're in. Nor was he saying the new, mounting disrespect was an importantly bad thing, just a changing thing, an increasingly obvious reality.
I have many friends who have told me that they support Obama because he is so aware of foreign cultures, foreign religious thoughts, foreign customs, etc, that he will be able to accomplish great things. They like his speeches in foreign lands. I think PJB is making the point that in spite of that knowledge and those speeches, BHO is failing at foreign domination and influence and that seeming global popularity or awareness might be a bad reason to elect a president anyway. I think those points are highly agreeable.
"There is a solution for those of you who habitually dislike Pat Buchanan’s columns: don’t read them"
I'm not sure how many people here this describes. I, for one, agree with Pat a great deal of the time. I would wager it's the same with most here who condemn Pat's sporadic backsliding into establishment GOP-speak. And I would guess it's precisely because of how often we agree with Pat - how often and strongly we believe him to be in the right - that our criticisms of him when we *do* disagree seem sometimes to be overly harsh.
We expect better of him.
I like PJB and I'll like him even more if he ever gets over his crush on the Republican Party.
As others have noted, America may be on the decline, but she can't begin to recover her health so long as the electorate continues to sell out by electing Republicans.
The democrat party may be a problem, but the republican party is most definitely NOT the solution.
Also, the title "Our Pushover President" implies that this allegedly new disrespect has its roots in the (presumably quiche-eating) wimpiness of Barack Obama, which is a tired Fox News Right accusation that's usually part and parcel to attacks on Obama for being insufficiently blustery, obnoxious and belligerent. Pat's concluding question ("If we Americans will not put America first, who will?") is important, but there's no need to co-opt tired GOP talking points to ask it.
I agree with the last three paragraphs entirely, but all that comes before argues against the logic at the end. The hyper-interventionists are always blabbering about how Obama is "weak," "kowtows" to dictators, blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc. Why give them fodder? Toddard and I spend a great deal of time arguing with this mindset at another site. A new President should announce that he doesn't give a rat's a** if Brazil invites MA or anyone else, and get on with the business of restoring our Republic. These things can only seem a slight to us because we have so heavily invested ourselves in running the world and obviously consider it our business.
It may well be true that Obama can be had, but would throwing our weigh around to prevent a MA invite be preferable?
I agree with Toddard @11. The title "Our Pushover President" plays into the hands of the belligerent interventionists.
"all that comes before argues against the logic at the end"
Precisely!
"The hyper-interventionists are always blabbering about how Obama is “weak,” “kowtows” to dictators"
Right - Obama is supposedly projecting weakness, and the assertion always presupposes this to be a bad thing. If that much is taken as a given, the antidote is to project strength (i.e. rattle sabers, provoke nations from whom we need cooperation, blow apart some huts or a city). Pat comes to a conclusion that is so unexpected (at least in the article) as to be a non sequitur.
Brazil has every right to flex its muscles as a power. They are after all the largest in land area, and population. They are also business friendly when it comes to building cars. Furthermore they recently discovered a large offshore gas field which will reduce their energy dependence.
Iran learned to diss Jimmy Carter over 30 years ago.
We learned nothing under Clinton on the North Korea problem, since we knuckled under at every step in negotiations.
We should have pulled out of Japan 40 years ago -- and Germany, and Korea.
That leaves the Israel problem. Hit them where it hurts, cut off their endless supply of taxpayer dollars which frees up more of their money to build illegally on the West Bank.
I forgot to add "in South America" when mentioning Brazil.
In population they are fifth largest in the World. Brazil is affiliated with India, China and Russia in the BRIC alliance. Something they have every right to do.
I don't know. I think some of you guys are taking this too far. It's not a profound article, but the title is more cute than descriptive. Is it really so sinister that it "plays into the hands of the belligerent interventionists", or is that relationship being over-thought like "i know that you know that i know that you know..."
"It may well be true that Obama can be had, but would throwing our weigh around to prevent a MA invite be preferable?"
Is that the only other option and is that what is being written above?
If one notices their functioning clock agrees with the broken one at the moment, don't throw it out.
"America will survive such irritants. But they are symptomatic of something larger: the mounting disrespect Obama and America are receiving from friend and adversary alike."
It is refreshing to read a piece criticizing the globalist posturing favored by many in both parties and represented now by Obama. I do not see the deceit. I hope many Obama supporters become more focused on the values, traditions and needs of the U.S. now that they see that not even the charming, worldly and intelligent Obama can woo them.
In case anyone got the wrong idea, I fundamentally agree with Pat on this one, as well as with most of the posts above. If not for other geopolitical issues which did not have to happen but for stupid American economic and foreign policies (such as NAFTA, U.S.-China trade relations, and unnecessary agitation of Russia), the U.S. might be better off if it were part of BRIC instead of still attempting to be the world's 'sole superpower'.
Why not a BRICA alliance? Such a thing, if it could hold together, might even accomplish some kind of multilateral 'Pax BRICA' where attempts at 'Pax Americana' have failed. This is not a design for world domination, merely for a multilateral arrangement for a hopefully peaceful world.
If Uncle Buttinski would start following the Founding Fathers and stop bankrupting us with "entangling alliances" and their ensuing wars, we wouldn't have any of these problems.
Come home, America.
Republicus coitio delenda est!
I also enjoy reading Pat. I think he makes a lot of good points, particularly for the historically absent-minded or illiterate. But he seems frequently to fail to get to the most logical conclusions that his data suggest.
Maybe it's time to follow our founding father's advise and get the heck out of the business of trying to be a superpower with dentures instead of real teeth. Bring the troops home, close our borders to illegal aliens, reduce business taxes to lure back our overseas corprate factories, produce something for a change instead of just "services." We need to get back to our roots, but without some sort of seachange in DC we'll continue down this destructive path. The key to our survival as a first world nation depends on putting American interests first, but as a peaceful nation who minds its own business and doesn't meddle in others affairs.
Mr. Piatak@ #6 states: "There is a solution for those of you who habitually dislike Pat Buchanan’s columns: don’t read them. You will be happier, and the rest of us will be happier."
I would be included in this group, no doubt, by Mr. Piatak, as I have been rebuked by him in the past. And it epitomizes why "conservatism," both paleo and neo, is dead as a political movement, and should be. Why do "conservatives' insist upon a personality cult (I'm now talking the conservative variety, not the liberal variety, a different subject), whether of the Dubya variety, or in Mr. Piatak's eyes; one with Mr. Buchanan as the object of adulation. Reading these posts, it is absolutely clear that people have been steady readers of PJB and have internalized what he has written against imperialism and the neoconservatives.
Unfortunately, however, it is plain to anyone with eyes and ears, that PJB has frequently come out against Buchananism by his blind support of certain Republicans, not withstanding their opposition to "Buchananism." As it became apparent what complete frauds the Republicans are, and how virulent they are against the principles that Buchanan articulated (and believed in by most people posting here), it is perfectly reasonable that individuals would still agree with much of what Buchanan articulates while being critical of support he provides to his intellectual enemies in the Republican party.
This website, providing the opportunity for an exchange of ideas on so-called paleo-conservatism, is the perfect opportunity to share qualms about positions being taken by PJB. (It's too bad that PJB doesn't read these comments.) Without that, or even with that, neoconservatives and their ideas, whom he is too often supporting now, expecially since he became infatuated with that vixen from Alaska, will further corrupt the ideas of conservatism through their infiltration and infection of these very ideas.
Now Mr. Piatak seems to believe that resisting the infiltration of these ideas is disloyal, when they are disseminated by PJB, and that critics should just stay quiet, just like Dubya believed. This is the same type of intellectual obedience that was demanded by the Republican party these last nine years, that did so much to advance an American decline, as well as relegating conservatism to a fringe movement under the leadership of the most zealous of Dubya's imperialist groupies, Michelle Bachman and Palin. I won't speculate what connects these people, conservative imperialists and conservative anti-imperialists, but it leads to the further co-optation of conservatism by neoconservatism.
Mr. Piatak's demand for unqualified obsequiousness on this website to a leader rather than principles, leads to the same intellectual bankruptcy that Dubya, and his cronies, led 99% of conservatises into. I believe there are many astute obeservations posted here. This is the last outpost where genuine Buchananite ideas are expressed; although not always by Buchanan. Republican leaders obviously don't want their "conservative" orthodoxies to be quetioned. It will be ironic if these expressions of thought are successfully suppressed here by so-called paleoconservatives themselves, to the benfit of the neoconservatives. When they are, we will know that the neoconservative victory is complete.
@23 Edmond
I'm not under the impression that Dr Piatak wants this weblog's readers to blindly accept Pat Buchanan's (or San Francis or Russell Kirk') teachings. While you are correct about conservatism being a dead movement, are you truly ready for the direct action described in The Turner Diaries?
@24
I'm for the deliberative process with intellectual debate. Something that the Republicans and neoconservatives hold in disdain. Why would you bring up direct action in regard to my post?
#3. Yes, you are rigt. But the issue is that with the Big O all that is being magnified a thousand times. So why don't we forget about W and start dealing with the Big O already! You are not suggesting that everything is getting better with the Big O, I hope.
It ought to be a basic premise of all our discussions that the Republican Party is (and always has been) the problem and not the solution.
Dr. Wilson I think you can go further and say political parties are the problem. Whether it's the clans of ancient Athens or the duopoly of contemporary America, their drive to gain and maintain power always leads to the same destructive and oppressive behavior.
Mr. Stanton, I agree. Our Constitution, of course, was designed to minimise political parties, but greed and power-lust got around that pretty early on. My main concern here is with a short-sighted concern with the evils of Obama. We had eight years of hoopla about the evils of President Clinton---and ended with George W. Bush! Unless the Republican party is replaced by a true opposition party, the anti-Obama hoopla will end the same way.
Too many of our friends here don't seem to be able to think past the next (meaningless) election.
As the real cure (which Dr. Fleming noted in the fantastic History & Literature of the Ancient World course), replacing elections with a lottery is beyond any hope of implementation, we are sadly stuck with parties, career politicians, and their evil works. I see only two rational responses: boycott elections or only vote third party; a vote for Democrats OR Republicans truly is a waste.
Dr. Wilson, "Our Constitution ... was designed to minimise political parties." Well then it must have worked because we have two. That is the minimum possible if considering a multi-party system. Maybe you meant to say "minimise the influence of political parties."
I think the dominance of the two parties is due more to the self-created rules they enforce than to anything in the Constitution itself.