Betsy's Page
HOME
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Betsy neither necessarily uses,
nor endorses,
the products advertised on this site.
The truth about Avesil
Cheap Hosting
Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney
Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney
Wikio
Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights
Online Bachelors Degree
Comments from an AP history
and government teacher in Raleigh, NC.
e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com
Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you.
Site Feed
Friday, July 25, 2008
Attempting a war speech without a war
As far as Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, I think Charles Krauthammer, as usual, summed it up the best on Brit Hume's show.I think there was a problem of scale in this speech. After all, the disparity between the grandness of the venue, the vastness of the crowd, and the smallness of this speech was quite striking.This has been a week for reviewing what made this venue so historic - the speeches by JFK in 1963 and Reagan's speech in 1987. What made those speeches so great was how they fit into the context of their times. When JFK declared that he was a Berliner, he was proclaiming American support for West Berlin which, without American support in 1948 and later, would have been swallowed into the rest of East Germany. He was responding to the Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall to keep their citizens imprisoned in Eastern Europe. When you read either JFK's famed Inaugural Address or his Berlin speech, his strength of purpose is not something you hear today from Democrats. Compare that Inaugural Address with Obama's speech. Could Obama say this?Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.Or what JFK said in 1963 in Berlin.There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.When Reagan spoke in 1987 he was defying the seeming consensus that we should simply learn to live with the Soviet Union. What we forget is that Reagan was not popular when he traveled to Europe in the 1980s. The Wall Street Journal reminds us today that Reagan faced hundreds of thousands of protesters in 1987.It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.So, despite our being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama didn't frame his speech yesterday in that context, although he did tell the Germans that we should fight together against a variety of ills in the world. His theme was not about one specific enemy as we faced in the Cold War, but how we need to unite as one against a whole host of enemies and global problems: terrorism, militants in Afghanistan, the spread of nuclear weapons, working with Russia, improving trade, tensions with Iran, problems with Iran, conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians, helping Iraq, and global warming. The very breadth of his list that it is "our moment" to confront is so broad that it loses meaning. All he has are aspirations rather than any substance behind what he is "hoping" to accomplish.
Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship.
Yes, he told the Germans that they and other NATO members that they must do their full share in Afghanistan. Yeah, like the Germans whose rules of engagement in Afghanistan prevent their forces from actually fighting, are going to be carrying their weight there. And what specifically is he going to do address Iran's nukes or interference in Lebanon? How is he going to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together? What more is he going to do to combat AIDS in Africa than Bush, who has done more than any previous president has done?
And then there is global warming. Obama brought out his alliterative guns to characterize that problem.As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.What does Obama have in mind to take care of the cars in Boston. And does he really think that any of his pleas to work together as one will convince China to slow down its development that is contributing to pollution? Good luck with that one.
When he speaks of Bangladesh or Darfur, what exactly does he have in mind?Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?This is all well and good, but what exactly does he plan to do about any of this. Remember how he's spoken about how we spending too much money in Iraq, billions that could be spent at home. Well, does he plan to spend the billions that would be necessary to do something about Darfur? Does he want to send military forces to Burma, Zimbabwe, or Darfur? Without military force, what more than has been going on for years, does he intend to do? What about Iran where the Bush administration has basically been following what Obama advocates by working with European powers to negotiate with Iran, a policy that has so far achieved nothing. Obama has talked about domestic programs that would involve billions of dollars here at home; does he think that those German throngs are going to support their country spending billions to address all these problems that he's listing?
So without a specific war to provide the context for stirring rhetoric, Obama had to turn that rhetoric to the service of his whole laundry list of world problems. It's rather ironic. Democrats seem to want the moral authority of a war without fighting an actual military war. So we have wars on poverty or global warming. Obama gave us the venue for a war speech, but rhetoric calling us to work together to face every problem facing the globe just doesn't have the same power when there is no policy behind any of it. As David Brooks writes today,Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.And then there is this final contrast that a reader at The Corner sent in.Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - Barak Obama in BerlinAh, the difference between modesty amidst a war to be won and arrogance with no call to continue the fight but just to work together to somehow end all the problems of this world.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here - Abe Lincoln in Gettysburg
One barrier to Obama giving a war speech is that he cannot identify an enemy. As David Frum points out, Obama uses passive constructions and indefinite references to avoid actually pinpointing an enemy.In all these phrases — and many more — there is always something missing: human beings. It was not a “shadow” that spread across Eastern Europe in 1945. It was an army. Nor is it “materials” and “secrets” that build bombs — it is bomb-makers. It was not “networks” that struck in Madrid and London and the rest. It was terrorists acting in the name of Islam.But if you're calling the world to act united and name your speech “A World that Stands as One,” you can't start pointing to specific enemies.
....Obama’s vague language is the product of an unrealistic mind. He denies the reality of conflict — and flinches from the obligations of self-defense. Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices.
With all Obama's soaring rhetoric telling us to act as one and that this is our moment, he comes off sounding like some pop song. So go over to Jim Geraghty's blog at NRO and take his challenge to identify which lines come from Obama's speech and which come from "We are the World." It's a much tougher challenge than you might think.Labels: Obama
0 comments
Comments:
As far as Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, I think Charles Krauthammer, as usual, summed it up the best on Brit Hume's show.
Yes, he told the Germans that they and other NATO members that they must do their full share in Afghanistan. Yeah, like the Germans whose rules of engagement in Afghanistan prevent their forces from actually fighting, are going to be carrying their weight there. And what specifically is he going to do address Iran's nukes or interference in Lebanon? How is he going to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together? What more is he going to do to combat AIDS in Africa than Bush, who has done more than any previous president has done?
And then there is global warming. Obama brought out his alliterative guns to characterize that problem.
When he speaks of Bangladesh or Darfur, what exactly does he have in mind?
So without a specific war to provide the context for stirring rhetoric, Obama had to turn that rhetoric to the service of his whole laundry list of world problems. It's rather ironic. Democrats seem to want the moral authority of a war without fighting an actual military war. So we have wars on poverty or global warming. Obama gave us the venue for a war speech, but rhetoric calling us to work together to face every problem facing the globe just doesn't have the same power when there is no policy behind any of it. As David Brooks writes today,
One barrier to Obama giving a war speech is that he cannot identify an enemy. As David Frum points out, Obama uses passive constructions and indefinite references to avoid actually pinpointing an enemy.
With all Obama's soaring rhetoric telling us to act as one and that this is our moment, he comes off sounding like some pop song. So go over to Jim Geraghty's blog at NRO and take his challenge to identify which lines come from Obama's speech and which come from "We are the World." It's a much tougher challenge than you might think.
0 comments
As far as Barack Obama's speech in Berlin, I think Charles Krauthammer, as usual, summed it up the best on Brit Hume's show.
I think there was a problem of scale in this speech. After all, the disparity between the grandness of the venue, the vastness of the crowd, and the smallness of this speech was quite striking.This has been a week for reviewing what made this venue so historic - the speeches by JFK in 1963 and Reagan's speech in 1987. What made those speeches so great was how they fit into the context of their times. When JFK declared that he was a Berliner, he was proclaiming American support for West Berlin which, without American support in 1948 and later, would have been swallowed into the rest of East Germany. He was responding to the Soviet construction of the Berlin Wall to keep their citizens imprisoned in Eastern Europe. When you read either JFK's famed Inaugural Address or his Berlin speech, his strength of purpose is not something you hear today from Democrats. Compare that Inaugural Address with Obama's speech. Could Obama say this?
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.Or what JFK said in 1963 in Berlin.
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.When Reagan spoke in 1987 he was defying the seeming consensus that we should simply learn to live with the Soviet Union. What we forget is that Reagan was not popular when he traveled to Europe in the 1980s. The Wall Street Journal reminds us today that Reagan faced hundreds of thousands of protesters in 1987.
It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.So, despite our being at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama didn't frame his speech yesterday in that context, although he did tell the Germans that we should fight together against a variety of ills in the world. His theme was not about one specific enemy as we faced in the Cold War, but how we need to unite as one against a whole host of enemies and global problems: terrorism, militants in Afghanistan, the spread of nuclear weapons, working with Russia, improving trade, tensions with Iran, problems with Iran, conflicts between the Israelis and Palestinians, helping Iraq, and global warming. The very breadth of his list that it is "our moment" to confront is so broad that it loses meaning. All he has are aspirations rather than any substance behind what he is "hoping" to accomplish.
Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship.
Yes, he told the Germans that they and other NATO members that they must do their full share in Afghanistan. Yeah, like the Germans whose rules of engagement in Afghanistan prevent their forces from actually fighting, are going to be carrying their weight there. And what specifically is he going to do address Iran's nukes or interference in Lebanon? How is he going to bring the Israelis and Palestinians together? What more is he going to do to combat AIDS in Africa than Bush, who has done more than any previous president has done?
And then there is global warming. Obama brought out his alliterative guns to characterize that problem.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.What does Obama have in mind to take care of the cars in Boston. And does he really think that any of his pleas to work together as one will convince China to slow down its development that is contributing to pollution? Good luck with that one.
When he speaks of Bangladesh or Darfur, what exactly does he have in mind?
Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?This is all well and good, but what exactly does he plan to do about any of this. Remember how he's spoken about how we spending too much money in Iraq, billions that could be spent at home. Well, does he plan to spend the billions that would be necessary to do something about Darfur? Does he want to send military forces to Burma, Zimbabwe, or Darfur? Without military force, what more than has been going on for years, does he intend to do? What about Iran where the Bush administration has basically been following what Obama advocates by working with European powers to negotiate with Iran, a policy that has so far achieved nothing. Obama has talked about domestic programs that would involve billions of dollars here at home; does he think that those German throngs are going to support their country spending billions to address all these problems that he's listing?
So without a specific war to provide the context for stirring rhetoric, Obama had to turn that rhetoric to the service of his whole laundry list of world problems. It's rather ironic. Democrats seem to want the moral authority of a war without fighting an actual military war. So we have wars on poverty or global warming. Obama gave us the venue for a war speech, but rhetoric calling us to work together to face every problem facing the globe just doesn't have the same power when there is no policy behind any of it. As David Brooks writes today,
Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.And then there is this final contrast that a reader at The Corner sent in.
Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - Barak Obama in BerlinAh, the difference between modesty amidst a war to be won and arrogance with no call to continue the fight but just to work together to somehow end all the problems of this world.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here - Abe Lincoln in Gettysburg
One barrier to Obama giving a war speech is that he cannot identify an enemy. As David Frum points out, Obama uses passive constructions and indefinite references to avoid actually pinpointing an enemy.
In all these phrases — and many more — there is always something missing: human beings. It was not a “shadow” that spread across Eastern Europe in 1945. It was an army. Nor is it “materials” and “secrets” that build bombs — it is bomb-makers. It was not “networks” that struck in Madrid and London and the rest. It was terrorists acting in the name of Islam.But if you're calling the world to act united and name your speech “A World that Stands as One,” you can't start pointing to specific enemies.
....Obama’s vague language is the product of an unrealistic mind. He denies the reality of conflict — and flinches from the obligations of self-defense. Obama has risen to power by using a soothing cloud of meaningless words to conceal displeasing truths and avoid difficult choices.
With all Obama's soaring rhetoric telling us to act as one and that this is our moment, he comes off sounding like some pop song. So go over to Jim Geraghty's blog at NRO and take his challenge to identify which lines come from Obama's speech and which come from "We are the World." It's a much tougher challenge than you might think.
Labels: Obama
Comments:
Post a Comment
