President Obama on the UN Stage

Victor Davis Hanson, in considering the events of last week, wrote of President Obama's visit to the UN. His impression was that President Obama was presenting himself as if he were The World's President. The lofty, idealistic, self-referential rhetoric preferred by the President for occasions like this is starting to wear on VDH.

If Obama is right, and American exceptionalism is over, and we are just one of many, why, then, does he expect to garner the world’s attention and to seek the world’s limelight? What is it about America that gives him, the two-year Senate veteran, such prominence?

In fact, it is America’s 20th-century achievements, its wealth, its singular morality, its competence — all the things that Obama either takes for granted or snarls about — that alone explains everything from his enormous Air Force One to the influence he enjoys. Put mellifluous Obama as President of Sweden or Slovakia and the world, rightly or wrongly, snores. Obama tragically does not understand that America made him — he does not make America.

VDH also presented the interesting idea that at home, President Obama is governing a lot like one might expect the president of an Ivy League University to govern. Michael Barone thinks that maybe President Obama's foreign policy is a little too influenced by his formative years in the university. This is one logical way to explain why he seems to offend our allies so often, (repeatedly and apparently deliberately insulting British dignitaries, especially) while trying to make friends with dictatorial leaders like Hugo Chavez.

Can President Obama learn to think strategically from the point of view of someone like Putin? This ability may be important to the future of the world. Right now, it seems like he thinks most of his potential enemies are domestic. Much of what is going on in the world right now reminds VDH, a war historian, of World War II. It's worthwhile thinking about what he has to say in forming your own opinions about current world events. For example, he thinks that, from a Russian point of view, trouble between the West and Iran provides a number of opportunities and advantages.

Trouble means showing the world’s onlookers that the Obama hope-and-change rhetoric is a good way to get yourself in a lot of trouble, and reminds others that Russia is a dependable if not thuggish regime to have on your side. (When the Wehrmacht approached Moscow in late 1941, “civilized” European neutrals like Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Spain and Portugal all started to horse-trade with the sure winner Hitler, angling for trade, cash, borderland, the clearing of old grudges, etc — without a whit of care that he was killing millions of Russian civilians and murdering on sight the Jews of Poland and the Ukraine.[By late 1944 these same “civilized” states were damning Hitler and now angling with the allies.]). So yes, the past is helpful.

Charles Krauthammer is not impressed by the President's involvement in a UN Security Council nuclear non-proliferation resolution. Krauthammer said on TV:

Look, my model U.N. in high school was more realistic than this Security Council. The resolution, as you pointed out, isn't even binding.

And the problem is that the assumption of Obama is that the reason that these rogue states are pursuing nukes is because we have not led by example — rather than the obvious, that they want the prestige and the power of having a nuke.

In fact, the '80's and the '90's, when we radically reduced our arsenals, is precisely when Iran and [North] Korea launched their ambitions and nuclear programs.

Claudia Rosett is not impressed, either.

The Obama administration keeps looking for ways to pretend that Iran’s nuclear bomb program is no immediate crisis.

Interesting times ahead, I'm afraid.