Smart Power
President Obama and his supporters sometimes refer to their theory or practice of diplomacy as “smart power.” Presumably it is meant to convey a willingness to advance America’s interests using America’s economic, political, and military power, in a smart way. It is also an indirect but clear slap at their predecessors, who presumably — we are meant to understand — relied on dumb power.
This idea has taken a hit already, however, due to some serious foreign policy and diplomatic missteps in the administration’s brief tenure, including the Russian “reset’ button mixup, which was never a good idea to start with, even without the mistranslation. Presenting a country with a big red button after decades of nuclear-weapons tension shows a lack of sense.
More substantively with Russia, there was the failed attempt to make a deal by giving up Eastern European missile defense — something the Russians knew Obama doesn’t want anyway (even though dropping it would be bad for America and her allies) — in return for Russian “help” with Iran. Charles Krauthammer described this fiasco as follows:
This is smart diplomacy? This is a debacle. The Russians dismissed it contemptuously.
Look, if we could get the Iranian nuclear program stopped with Russian’s helping us in return for selling out the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense, I’m enough of a cynic and a realist to say we would do it the same way that Kissinger agreed to delegitimize and de-recognize Taiwan in return for a large strategic opening with China.
But Kissinger had it done. He had it wired. What happened here is it was leaked. The Russians have dismissed it. We end up being humiliated. We look weak in front of the Iranians, and we have left the Poles and Czechs out to dry in return for nothing.
Third, there was the totally botched visit from Great Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, where the Obamas gave crappy, cheap gifts (gift shop helicopters for the kids, and a DVD set for the adults), and treated the Brown’s as second-rate guests overall, “breaking with precedent, wouldn’t grant the prime minister the customary honor of standing beside him in front of the two nations’ flags for the TV cameras,” among other slights.
Then his staff, whether approved or not we don’t know, gives an off the record explanation that Obama is too distracted and tired — after just a few weeks on the job — to give Brown the attention he deserved.
Intelligence has nothing to do with judgment.
Both Christopher Buckley and David Brooks published articles in the middle of last week that clearly indicated that they realized they were wrong to imagine Obama was anything but a hard-left radical. Both later recanted later in the week when everyone pointed out that it was pretty ironic that the self-appointed elites got this wrong, and the no-nothings they deride, such as, say, Sarah Palin, understood better. Buckley explains himself, asserting he would vote for Obama again.
Our choice, last fall, was between an angry 73 year old with a legislative record far from consistently conservative, who nominated as his running mate a know-nothing religious extremist; on the other side was an appealing, thoughtful man who–for a brief shining moment–seemed to be more than the sum of his ideological parts.
via I Would Still Vote Obama – Forbes.com.
Regarding Buckley, as Drew M at Ace put it:
3 days after reaching the concussion that Obama might actually be a big spending liberal our man Davey has backtracked and decided that Obama is in fact, still pretty damn dreamy. All it took was a series of calls from “four senior members of the administration” (no mere junior aides for our man Brooksy!) and Hope and Change is restored to it’s rightful place in the firmament.
These retractions give the sense that Buckley and Brooks feared that they made themselves look not-so-smart. They judged it better to stick to their original call, rather than admit to an error of judgment.
As an aside, Stuart Taylor, whose judgment I actually respect quite a bit, is also taken aback by Obama’s hard turn to the left, which I note here just for my own future reference.
Intelligence has nothing to do with judgment.
Obama’s policy preferences and tendencies, plus his lack ofexecutive experience, were obvious to anyone paying attention during the campaign. yet many highly intelligent people convinced themselves otherwise.
Intelligence has nothing to do with judgment.
Which is not to say that judgment is inverse to intelligence. When possible, and it is possible, both together are preferred. It is also the case that many self-styled proponents of “street smarts” also lack judgment. To measure someone’s judgment, you do not measure his or her education, or facility with words. You look at they choices they have made. Look at where they chose to live, to work, who their friends and associates are. Everything in Obama’s past — his friends, mentors, and religious leaders, indicated he was a hard left figure, radical by American standards. Nobody should be surprised.
Other posts on some of these same topics:
The Cranky Conservative: Epic Fail
McQ at QandO:
And here we were led to believe Mr. Obama was this cool, multitasker under full control and able to handle everything the job entailed.
That’s what we were led to believe.
Some of us, however, said that of all the jobs on the planet this wasn’t the one for OJT. This isn’t a job where one aspect of the duties can be ignored to concentrate on others.
Guess which group looks more prescient at the moment?
Too Tired For Diplomacy or Foreign Affairs? Not Interested? Or Overwhelmed By The Job?
JustOneMinute: It’s Been A Long Six Weeks For All Of Us.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Great news: Obama fumbled Brown visit because he’s in over his head.
Power Line – Don’t Blame Us, We’re Incompetent!.
