Strangely familiar
I just got done reading the transcript of Obama’s acceptance speech of the Nobel Peace Prize. It was eloquent as always, but it gave me pause. All throughout the campaign, Obama maintained a consistently militaristic line when it came to Afghanistan. The Right refused to accept the authenticity of this aggressiveness, and dismissed it as posturing–going so far as to suggest it was a rouse, a distraction from his true Islamo-Socialist designs. Although not buying the more fanciful elements of these conspiracy theories, I think the Left secretly wanted to believe that it was all rhetoric aimed at winning over Middle America. They wanted to believe that, deep down, he was a dove who, once in office, would reverse course. He is now eleven months in, and is preparing to escalate our involvement in Afghanistan. At what point do both sides of the spectrum accept that this might actually be what Obama believes–that the cause of liberal democracy is worth the cost of military, perhaps even aggressive military, action?
Once you reach that point, something occurs to you: the rhetoric sounds rather familiar. Swift and forceful military intervention is justified if it is used to advance the struggle for freedom in all corners of the globe? Wasn’t that the last guy’s argument, too? I think the only substantial difference is that his gestures towards pluralism seem more authentic and his moral absolutism seem less believable. It is certainly clear that the language of tolerance seems a lot more natural rolling of his slow but deliberate tongue than it ever did when delivered in a Texas-by-way-of-Connecticut drawl. Calling Islam a noble faith no longer sounds hollow, when coming from this President’s mouth, and his use of the word “evil” is less threatening to the liberal base, because they know he is not on his way to a fundraiser being thrown by the 700 Club. The call to bring democracy to the Muslim world seems less maniacal coming from the man whose admittedly absent father was in fact raised as a Muslim. It’s almost as if the Bush years were just a set up and now we finally have the right guy to play the part of the compassionate neo-liberal.
Let me stop here and make two qualifications. I would first like to acknowledge the fact that there are members of the liberal base who are furious with Obama for further entangling us in the Afghan conflict. Second, I am not trying to make light of or question the authenticity of Obama’s commitment to pluralism–I think it is not simply the cause, but also the story, of his life.
All I mean to say is that after hearing the same words come out of two different sets of lips, you have to wonder. The damnedest thing is that I am actually finding myself buying into his line of reasoning. I would not blame conservative detractors (ah yes, my many detractors) for rolling their eyes and throwing up their hands, as left-of-centers like myself starting coming round to these ideas. I am not about to embrace the title “neo-liberal,” but a little dose of realism never hurts. War is hell and the cyclical nature of violence is undeniable, but what were we supposed to do after 9-11? Do nothing?
I guess this is one of those posts I struggle to find a way to conclude. At the very least, I want to argue that when it comes to Obama and foreign policy, we should…uh, well, I was about to say “call a spade a spade,” but perhaps the less unwittingly racist way of putting it would be “call it like it is.” For the time being, I am willing to hear him out on Afghanistan. Karzai saying he expects to rely on American support for the next 15-20 years gives me the heeby jeebies, but it just feels wrong to walk away. Hmmm.
