Obama gave another one of his historic speeches last week in Cairo to tens of thousands of Muslims. Conservatives largely blasted the speech, some even questioning if Obama was really on America’s side since some of the speech more or less admitted America’s previous foreign policy errors in the region.
Shoot, Obama even hinted at the possibility that the U.S. could work with Hezbollah and other radical groups if they eschewed violence. Funny that a few days after Obama’s speech Hezbollah lost an election in Lebanon they were supposed to win.
But most dramatic of all was what he omitted – any reference to ‘terrorism’ or ‘terrorists’.
Wow, who would have thought that word would not come out of an American President’s mouth in a foreign policy speech until 2030? Obama certainly has dramatically shifted the foreign policy tone of the Bush Administration.
This shift in tone is highly welcome. Obama once again showed he has a grasp of using narratives and frames that his audience will accept. If you are speaking to an Arab group and state that Israel must dismantle its settlements, you immediately open them up to your message. That is one example of how Obama, by taking a more moderate and understanding tone, created the conditions necessary for his Arab listeners to even consider other messages, such as women’s rights. Not using the word ‘terrorism’ also facilitated this openness in his Arab audience.
It has effect here too, changing how we think about our role in the world and the threats we face. Rather than scare everyone with the fear inducing word ‘terrorism’, Obama used language that made the problem of violence by extremists seem like something we can deal with rationally. It also takes us out ot the ‘war’ mentality, again creating the emotional space necessary for people to think about the issue of violent extremists rationally.
Over time, if Obama continues to avoid the word ‘terrorists’, our fear will decline and the public will begin to embrace more fully the idea that we can deal with political and religious violence by cooperation, understanding, education, and economic opportunity. That would be quite welcome.
I only wished his actions backed up his language. From doubling down in Afghanistan, reinstating military tribunals, increasing defense spending, building a massive, quasi-permanent military base in Pakistan, to deciding not to release torture photos, Obama has shown he is only Bush light in foreign policy and openness. Certainly not the change we were seeking.
I am not really sure what he is afraid of, since he can control the narrative of an issue better than anyone. Not only because he has the bully pulpit of the Presidency, but because he understands messaging so well. I think he knows he can win a head-to-head propaganda battle with the Republicans.
So if not fear, then either he really is a centrist (quite possible), or he is trying to box in the Republicans by making them look like the extremists they are. If the later, and he is successful, then Democrats will win more seats in 2010 and he will set himself up nicely for a 2012 re-election. I understand that. But what I fear is in calculating too much. Obama misses the opportunity to make real change.
Does he gain anything by appeasing conservatives? Is that appeasement making Obama look reasonable while the Republicans look nuts? Will the American public pick up that nuance? Or will they buy the Republican rhetoric that Obama is a socialist dictator running our economy into the ground?
Even more so, will packaging progressive ideas in moderate language make more Americans open to progressive policies, the way his Cairo speech seemed to open many Arabs up to the concept that America actually wants to help them and they should eschew violence? I certainly hope so.
Obama still perplexes me. I hear his great messaging and feel hope, but then he turns around and sells out the left for washed up militant foreign policies and pro-Wall Street economic policies. Reagan, whom Obama admires, made conservatism seem mainstream but then enacted as many conservative policies as possible. Obama? So far he just makes progressivism seem mainstream (which it is), but has done little to advance truly progressive policy.
But good messaging is at least a step up from what we had before. I just hope Obama cashes in his political capital and brilliant messaging for something meaningful before it disappears.
“Over time, if Obama continues to avoid the word ‘terrorists’, our fear will decline and the public will begin to embrace more fully the idea that we can deal with political and religious violence by cooperation, understanding, education, and economic opportunity. That would be quite welcome.”
That is probably the most naive thing I have ever read on the interwebs.
Left by ad on June 13th, 2009