[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

This isn't a contradiction, but rather a pragmatic observation. The UN certainly has dysfunctions, but at the present it's the only global organization with legal legitimacy. While I'd agree this shouldn't be seen as a crippling constraint, when used properly it could dramatically diminish the options of our opponents.

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

A very interesting book (I loaned to my father and haven't seen since) is the "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" by Andrew Bacevich.

"Bacevich is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--Tony Judt, The New York Review of Books

Basically he argues that as a nation we've come to rely on cruise missiles rather than thinking to solve our big problems.

Good book...

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-M...4251588&sr=8-1

-spence