April 3, 2009
HOW'D HE DO?.... The world leaders who assembled at the G20 reached an agreement to address the global economic crisis, but whether their plan has merit depends a bit on who you ask. On the one hand, the agreement "was more than what experts expected," and was arguably "remarkable given the discord that preceded Thursday's meeting." The LA Times said the end product "surprised many observers with its unusually substantive achievements." At the same time, the WSJ and NYT were less impressed.
But how about President Obama's first turn on the global stage, just two months into his first term? He told reporters yesterday, "I think I did O.K." By some measures, Obama was selling himself short.
For example, there was a heated disagreement between France and China over tax havens and the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Obama personally intervened, took the opposing leaders aside, and brokered an agreement based on little more than a rhetorical shift. The process seemed a little silly, but it was the U.S. president's "first moment as a statesman."
TNR's John Judis said Obama's "performance at the G-20 has been flawless." TAP's Tim Fernholz added, "After the G-20, we can say that President Barack Obama had a successful entrance onto the world stage." The WaPo's Steven Pearlstein concluded, "All in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness. And by the standards of past summits, this one was full of accomplishment."
And Slate's Fred Kaplan said the president "proved his mettle" at the summit, and "lived up to high expectations," which is good news for the United States "returning to diplomatic basics."
American leaders and diplomats have long struggled with the tension between their interests and ideals. Bush finessed the issue by pretending that the tension didn't exist. In his second inaugural address, he declared that our interests and ideals coincided, invoking an appealing but empty syllogism: Tyranny sires terrorism; terrorism threatens our security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances our security; hence, our interests and our ideals are one. The problem was that terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and democracy is not necessarily a cure for it in any case. (Hamas won fair and free elections in the Palestinian territories -- elections that Bush insisted on, over the advice of many, on the premise that Hamas couldn't win the election because terrorism and democracy were incompatible.)
Obama seems to be aware of the tension between interests and ideals without letting it paralyze policymaking. In this sense, he is like most presidents in American history -- and his foreign policy, or for the moment his approach to foreign policy, signals a restoration of what was once called statecraft: literally, the art of conducting the affairs of state. The term has always implied a meshing of interests and ideals with reality while navigating the shoals of a dangerous world. Leaders can try to reshape an agenda, but they can't toss away maps or ignore laws of physics to get there. They have to deal with the world as it is, and that's what Obama seems to be doing.
The final G20 agreement is far from perfect, but the White House is probably pleased with the president's first turn as an international leader.
—Steve Benen 8:40 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (14)
Obama's reviews on the world stage are exactly the same as Bush's were at this point in his first term.
Posted by: Myke K on April 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK
You neglected to mention that Obama also did not give anyone a surprise shoulder massage nor did he shout "Yo!" at anybody. These have to be counted as improvements.
Posted by: Lee Gibson on April 3, 2009 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK
Ya done good, America.
Posted by: AnonyMs on April 3, 2009 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK
Let's see what it takes to get congress to agree to spending $100 billion for the IMF.
Posted by: Danp on April 3, 2009 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK
Moe than the substance, it's the intangibles that strike me as important: I'm awed to see Europeans again showing love to Americans (well, two of us, anyhow).
It's almost a shame the Obamas have to come home to a land of timid Democrats and GOP naysayers.
Maybe we should consider cloning Michelle, so we could send her warmth and humanity on good-will missions everywhere?
Posted by: K in VA on April 3, 2009 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK
It is refreshing to feel good after such international events. Instead of the usual hang-over feeling, I feel clear headed and sober.
Mr. Bush always seemed to bring the worst out in everyone when he attended such summits. Kinda like a drunken brawl in a saloon, and the carnage of the meet'n place remaining afterward - it's good to not be living in the Bush era! -Kevo
Posted by: kevo on April 3, 2009 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK
Obama's reviews on the world stage are exactly the same as Bush's were at this point in his first term.
Of course... everyone remembers Bush speaking to hundreds of thousands of people before his selection (spelling intentional), and also remembers how the notoriously-aggressive British press fawned over him, right?
Oh, you mean that didn't happen? Never mind.
-Z
Posted by: Zorro on April 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK
But, in Bizarro World, didn't Shrub speak before hundreds of thousands following a Dixie Chicks concert? Must have been all of that "free" concert handouts.
Posted by: berttheclock on April 3, 2009 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK
But he bowed to the Saudi king, gave the Queen an iPod that she requested, and Michelle touched Queen Elizabeth's back for a second, so really, it was a disgrace that has destroyed America's image on the world stage.
Or so far-right blogs tell me...
Posted by: IanY77 on April 3, 2009 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK
"Obama personally intervened, took the opposing leaders aside, and brokered an agreement based on little more than a rhetorical shift. "
Bring it, World!
And Carolina's in the play-offs!
(Somebody must've slipped me a bliss biscuit!)
Posted by: MissMudd on April 3, 2009 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK
Of course Obama has a natural talent for foreign affairs; he's foreign-born!!!
Posted by: Grumpy on April 3, 2009 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK
Type in "False Flag terrorism" into your search engine
Then ask yourself "Who had the motive to bring down the trade buildings?" If the Middle East had no opium or oil reserves....would corporate America (US Administration) have sent their corporate police force (troops) to overtake the area?
Remember the "Northwoods Project"...Kennedy thwarted this planned, covert, US military operation to blow up one of its own military bases (or airliners) and blame Cuba ...as a pretext to war on Cuba.
Posted by: deeperpolitics on April 3, 2009 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK
The ex-Prez:
Tyranny sires terrorism; terrorism threatens our security; therefore, promoting democracy enhances our security; hence, our interests and our ideals are one.
Tommy Franks knew George W Bush, and yet he considered Douglas Feith the "stupidest fucking guy on the planet".
It boggles the mind, doesn't it, how stupid Feith had to be.
How many diplomats heard that (and his other statements) and furrowed their brows, wondering "WTF?"
.
Posted by: SteveGinIL on April 3, 2009 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK
How embarrassing to be an American. Obama seems intent on surrendering American sovereignty to a one-world government. He will destroy this nation. Between unbelievable debt, massive wealth redistribution and throwing away money on his "stimulus" package we will be finished as a nation in a few short months. How terribly sad.
Posted by: Will in Seattle on April 3, 2009 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK