Fareed Zakaria says…
So I guess that—on her next test administered by the Charles Gibsons of the world—Sarah Palin would be getting a presidential “doctrine” question wrong again, because I think she’d answer that the Obama Doctrine is “coddling our enemies while alienating allies.”
Zakaria’s column is almost painful to read, so hard must he twist and turn in his attempt to justify Obama’s foreign policy and try to make it sound coherent, thoughtful, and beneficial to this country. In doing so, Zakaria leaves out any reference to Honduras, one of Obama’s earliest and most vile forays into the international arena. Nor does Zakaria explain why helping push Mubarak out in Egypt and make room for the Muslim Brotherhood was so all-fired great.
Aside from the above characterization of the Obama Doctrine by Sarah Palin (and on this blog, way back when), there’s been another unifying principle at work in Obama’s foreign policy for the last year or so, and that is to do what he thinks will help him get elected. This has caused some zigzagging between options that appeal to the left and those that appeal to the middle.
Speaking of which—in an arena that is more domestic—is Obama about to work some sort of compromise for Republican cooperation on the debt ceiling? And is this true, or just a lot of hot air?
Jim DeMint and Olympia Snow.
Translation: We promise to stop spending money and raising the debt ceiling ten years from now — we’re doing it for the children.
Critics: “If you’re the administration where is your Doctrine?”
Obama: “Doctrine? We ain’t got no Doctrine. We don’t need no Doctrine! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ Doctrine!”
I have a question. Since when did we start importing various whiffy foreign types and then listen to their views as though they were Holy Writ?
Zakaria and Andrew Sullivan had barely shaken the dirt of their native lands off their funky feet when they were suddenly – and inexplicably – accorded the status of sages on American politics. Do they know how many states there are? If so, that puts them ahead of some, I guess.
Zakaria doesn’t know the difference between a doctrine and simply knowing where a person is coming from, ie, basic principles and character. I consider ideology as sticking with one answer no matter what the question is, whereas principles are the foundation that guides how one reacts to new situations. The only thing we know about Obama is that he will vote present as often as he can and that when forced to make a decision he will try to have a fall guy lined up to catch any blame that may result. This is not pragmatism, which is based on experience, both personal and societal. Obama is lacking in the first and too disconnected from us to benefit from our shared learning.
Obama carries Zakaria’s book around and talks with him regularly. I guess that makes him an insider. Not a particularly good endorsement for Obama, who seems to be highly impressed by people with multi-culti backgrounds, even if they are incompetents (Jarret’s stellar performance in public housing comes to mind) or blowhards.
BTW, in the piece on the budget compromise, I liked McConnell’s insistence that any changes on tax exemptions should be part of a comprehensive reform. Otherwise, the tax code is just more pork.
Occam’s,
I think the answer is 57, or is it 58?
It’s time for Uncle Sam to spit on his hands, rub them together, seize the sledge hammer, and start building America again.
The long free ride is over. The elite authority is laughable. The media is discredited.
The liberals are marginalized. The lazy are hungry. And the racists are confused.
May there be good opportunity for the industrious, the competent, the humble, and the brave.
I think the shakedown which was meant for evil shall work to the good.
I think the answer is 57, or is it 58?
It was 57 until the stimulus, which raised it to 58.
Obama carries Zakaria’s book around and talks with him regularly.
Muslim chat, presumably.
“Hey, you’re an anti-American Muslim too? Small world! Let’s swap tips on how to bring low the Great Satan!”
Obama’s doesn’t have a Doctrine, but he does have a Strategy: “They win. We lose.” It’s the Reagan Strategy, inverted.
The man simply has no idea.
We’ve speculated about fool or knave. You’d think a knave–which has had a good many votes–would be more organized.
Opposite of GWB is probably as close as it gets to an Obama doctrine.
1. Back in the 1980 election it seemed to me that Jerry Brown would have had a good chance for the nomination had he not entered the primaries too late to catch Jimmy Carter.
This was in the days of the Governor Moonbeam label. Brown supporters were explaining that Brown was just too intelligent to be understood by the average voter.
The Obamatoids should search the archives. They might find material they can use.
2. Zakaria writes, In fact, the search itself is misguided. The doctrinal approach to foreign policy doesn’t make much sense anymore…In today’s multipolar, multilayered world, there is no central hinge upon which all American foreign policy rests.
No, Zakaria, you bleeeep. This means that both Bush and Obama (and Clinton before them) have failed to get doctrine for the new playing field formulated and disseminated to allies, enemies, and the American people.
Heckuva job.
I think his doctrine is:
1. Alienate allies and suck up to enemies.
2. Continue (and expand) all of Bushes policies and take credit for their success.
I meant the 1976 election, not the 1980 election. (Brown did primary Carter in 1980 to little effect.)
“And is this true, or just a lot of hot air?”
Putrid hot air.
“Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation’s population ages.”
Lets do the 3rd grade math. Under BHO we have had 3 years of annual budget deficits of approximately $1.5 trillion. Assuming this can continue for another 10 years we arrive at $15 trillion in accumulated annual deficits. Subtract $4 trillion in magical BHO savings and we rack up an additional $11 trillion in debt to add to our current debt of $14 trillion, giving us a debt (to service) of $25 trillion by 2021.
Anyone planning to buy US T-bonds in 2021?
And I must rhetorically ask what Obama doctrine??? This narcissistic fellow doesn’t do doctrine, he does dogma.
“”Lets do the 3rd grade math.””
Parker
Well there’s your problem. Math is much more sophisticated and nuanced in Washington.
Anyone planning to buy US T-bonds in 2021?
Only if the NVKD stands behind me, well armed, insisting that I purchase paper. Oh, well, at least I’ll have something with which to wipe my @$$ with…
Zarkaria showed his brilliance when he gave an analysis of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. The first words out his mouth were something along the lines of “this shows Netanyahu is unwilling to make concessions for peace.”
If that comment did not expose Zarkaria as a complete charlatan nothing can.
It is part of Obama’s matchless talent for surrounding himself with incompetent sycophants that he listens to frauds like Zarkaria and Tom Friedman while ignoring Barry Rubin and Fauod Ajami.
He had to push Mubarak out and support the freedom revolution on benefit of the doubt, zeitgeist babe zeitgeist … what else was there to do?
Have you ever seen Fareed Zakaria on television? He’s like Frankenstein Obama. Really creepy.