I know that NPR is generally considered a dirty word but they have a series entitled Intelligence Squared where issues are debated in the classical Oxford style. The audience votes on the proposal before the debate and again after and the side which changes the most minds is declared the winner. Sometimes the results surprise me. The last debate was on the proposal "DON’T BLAME TEACHERS UNIONS FOR OUR FAILING SCHOOL"

I was surprised at how unpopular the teachers unions were; this filled me with hope for the future. Unfortunately I immediately started to listen to the preceding debate (iTunes loads them in reverse order for some reason) on whether America should sever it's special relationship with Israel and my hope turned to dismay when the side advocating abandoning Israel managed to convince 16% of the audience that they were right.

The next in the series on May 11th is whether Obama's foreign policy is screwing America.

What might Machiavelli have made of the 44th President of the United States? Barack Obama set out to change the tone of US foreign policy. And he did. By virtue of his personal story, by dint of his not being George W. Bush, he arrived in the White House as both object of fascination and source of relief to a world grown accustomed to resenting the US itself. Here is a president who acknowledges that we hold no monopoly on the legitimacy of our interests, who aspires to finding the common ground in resolving disagreements with friend and foe. His caution, his deliberativeness, his stated willingness to at least try to negotiate even with our bitterest enemies and to cool down the rhetoric – played so well out of the gate, that they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize – after just 262 days in office.

But is love enough to lead? Or might the president need some wins along the way? For the most part, they’ve been hard to come by. None yet in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Iran’s mullah’s don’t seem to feel an urgent need to end the nuclear standoff. Seeking a new balance in America’s dealings in the Middle East, Obama asked Israel to stop building settlements, but the building goes on. And the Chinese seem to understand his less than aggressive stance in pressing for human rights as a green light to change nothing. Even when the stakes were less than life and death – his bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago – he was denied.

Not that any of this is easy. And it may be that some of these more serious challenges would by now be more difficult still if Obama had not set a new tone.

But might the opposite be true? Might our adversaries see the president’s coolness as uncertainty and his deliberativeness as weakness? Can they exploit his affinity for common ground, by pushing to gain more ground for themselves? By acknowledging that all sides can have legitimate interests, as well as legitimate grievances, is the president yielding the high ground? Most importantly, are we safer now that we are living in the era of president number 44?

It comes down to being respected, which is not the same as being liked. Americans have always aspired to have it both ways. Machiavelli would have us choose.

Posted by: chad98036 at 05:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.