What Will Be The "Obama Doctrine", Exactly?
A most germaine question indeed.
From the closing of Gitmo to merely "relocating" it inside the US (or, even worse, simply "outsourcing" Gitmo prisoners to other black holes of human decency and justice), from Obama's "looking forward" to hints that there could be nonetheless prosecutions of Bush administration officials for torture, illegal domestic spying and other wrongdoings (or, apparently, that only some Bush officials may be prosecuted for only some of those wrongdoings - or not), from Obama's apparent willful dismissal of the NIE on Iran (shades or Iraq, anyone?) and his (now appointed) Secretary of State's hawkishness with regards to Iran and other similar matters (such as Afghanistan) to a professed progressive foreign policy vision - in short, there is much that remains unclear here with regards to what exactly an Obama Presidency will be.
(Addendum: as a case in point, here's a new poll about how Canadians perceive the President-to-be-inaugurated ...)
Although I remain of the attitude "we will find out soon enough", I nevertheless propose the following article for your consideration, which brings up the background as to what the Obama Doctrine may or may not turn out to be - an examination quite à propos on this eve of President Obama's inauguration:
From the closing of Gitmo to merely "relocating" it inside the US (or, even worse, simply "outsourcing" Gitmo prisoners to other black holes of human decency and justice), from Obama's "looking forward" to hints that there could be nonetheless prosecutions of Bush administration officials for torture, illegal domestic spying and other wrongdoings (or, apparently, that only some Bush officials may be prosecuted for only some of those wrongdoings - or not), from Obama's apparent willful dismissal of the NIE on Iran (shades or Iraq, anyone?) and his (now appointed) Secretary of State's hawkishness with regards to Iran and other similar matters (such as Afghanistan) to a professed progressive foreign policy vision - in short, there is much that remains unclear here with regards to what exactly an Obama Presidency will be.
(Addendum: as a case in point, here's a new poll about how Canadians perceive the President-to-be-inaugurated ...)
Although I remain of the attitude "we will find out soon enough", I nevertheless propose the following article for your consideration, which brings up the background as to what the Obama Doctrine may or may not turn out to be - an examination quite à propos on this eve of President Obama's inauguration:
Change
Obama begins to define it
Change. Barack Obama's single-word, iconic campaign slogan. Perhaps one of the reasons for its power is that you could see it, literally, in the candidate's face. A black face. Something new to the American presidency. A big change. The biggest change, in fact, since Andrew Jackson, the first man from humble beginnings to become president.
But beyond that most obvious and momentous of changes, Obama must define what his election means for the country. That job begins Tuesday, when he takes the oath of office.
Or rather, it begins officially. Because surely anyone who has been watching has noticed that this president-elect has led the most vigorous, the most public transition in living memory. That is partly due to the economic recession, which has lent urgency to Obama's preparations for office.
Since September, it's been all about the economy and a growing realization over time that the new administration could not afford to skip a beat if it hopes to revive a still-declining patient.
The empty houses, the foreclosures, the credit freeze, crumbled stock market, crumpled 401(k) accounts, cresting unemployment -- all have focused the people's attention on the crippled economy. On bailouts and stimulus. On infrastructure and tax cuts. On monetary and fiscal policy. These must top the new president's agenda, not because he chose them, but because they chose him.
This is not the change that Obama anticipated bringing to America when he launched his campaign and chose that slogan. But it is the change that he must manage now.
By comparison, war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has receded from the public view. Yet getting out of Iraq is the change that rallied most voters to Obama the candidate in those early days of his campaign. His subsequent pledge to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office has itself been overtaken somewhat by events -- the success of President Bush's surge strategy in quieting the violence and the agreement with Iraq at year's end to withdraw all American forces by the close of 2011.
But management of that war, and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, still must remain near the top of the new president's agenda. And wars, like economies, are hard to predict.
The international agenda will not be limited, of course, to Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's nuclear ambitions must be contained, and the Gaza bleeding must be stanched.
Beyond these immediate domestic and foreign crises, the new president has a bit more latitude to choose his vehicles for change. Without thinking very hard, we can name three prime candidates for reform: energy and climate change, health care and immigration.
Of these, energy and climate change should be the top priority, with the twin goals of reducing both the nation's carbon footprint and its dependence on foreign fossil fuels. A carbon tax seems the likely best approach.
For two reasons, he should next focus the nation's attention on health-care reform. First, the crisis is timely. It has reached critical mass in its debilitating effects on both workers and businesses. Second, comprehensive reform could actually save money, though we realize this is the Gordian knot of public policy issues.
Immigration should be assigned third place in line because it will be easier to deal with in an economic rebound than in a recession, when unemployment is spiking. President Bush was on the right side of this issue -- a humane guest worker program and a path to citizenship for undocumented people -- but xenophobes in his own party undercut him.
To some extent, every president spends time cleaning up the messes left behind by his predecessor, but even by that standard, Bush has left Obama an Augean stable built by incompetence, rigid ideology, deceit and willful ignorance.
(Keep reading ...)
Obama begins to define it
Change. Barack Obama's single-word, iconic campaign slogan. Perhaps one of the reasons for its power is that you could see it, literally, in the candidate's face. A black face. Something new to the American presidency. A big change. The biggest change, in fact, since Andrew Jackson, the first man from humble beginnings to become president.
But beyond that most obvious and momentous of changes, Obama must define what his election means for the country. That job begins Tuesday, when he takes the oath of office.
Or rather, it begins officially. Because surely anyone who has been watching has noticed that this president-elect has led the most vigorous, the most public transition in living memory. That is partly due to the economic recession, which has lent urgency to Obama's preparations for office.
Since September, it's been all about the economy and a growing realization over time that the new administration could not afford to skip a beat if it hopes to revive a still-declining patient.
The empty houses, the foreclosures, the credit freeze, crumbled stock market, crumpled 401(k) accounts, cresting unemployment -- all have focused the people's attention on the crippled economy. On bailouts and stimulus. On infrastructure and tax cuts. On monetary and fiscal policy. These must top the new president's agenda, not because he chose them, but because they chose him.
This is not the change that Obama anticipated bringing to America when he launched his campaign and chose that slogan. But it is the change that he must manage now.
By comparison, war -- in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has receded from the public view. Yet getting out of Iraq is the change that rallied most voters to Obama the candidate in those early days of his campaign. His subsequent pledge to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office has itself been overtaken somewhat by events -- the success of President Bush's surge strategy in quieting the violence and the agreement with Iraq at year's end to withdraw all American forces by the close of 2011.
But management of that war, and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, still must remain near the top of the new president's agenda. And wars, like economies, are hard to predict.
The international agenda will not be limited, of course, to Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran's nuclear ambitions must be contained, and the Gaza bleeding must be stanched.
Beyond these immediate domestic and foreign crises, the new president has a bit more latitude to choose his vehicles for change. Without thinking very hard, we can name three prime candidates for reform: energy and climate change, health care and immigration.
Of these, energy and climate change should be the top priority, with the twin goals of reducing both the nation's carbon footprint and its dependence on foreign fossil fuels. A carbon tax seems the likely best approach.
For two reasons, he should next focus the nation's attention on health-care reform. First, the crisis is timely. It has reached critical mass in its debilitating effects on both workers and businesses. Second, comprehensive reform could actually save money, though we realize this is the Gordian knot of public policy issues.
Immigration should be assigned third place in line because it will be easier to deal with in an economic rebound than in a recession, when unemployment is spiking. President Bush was on the right side of this issue -- a humane guest worker program and a path to citizenship for undocumented people -- but xenophobes in his own party undercut him.
To some extent, every president spends time cleaning up the messes left behind by his predecessor, but even by that standard, Bush has left Obama an Augean stable built by incompetence, rigid ideology, deceit and willful ignorance.
(Keep reading ...)
The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.
ReplyDeleteJust what are you talking about here, Ted?
ReplyDeleteCare to illuminate us in which "reality" you are living?
(wow)