SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Obama Method

JULY 1, 2009

The Obama Method

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

The thing that people haven't figured out about President Obama's conduct of foreign policy is that it's the same as his conduct of domestic policy. Obama believes in the power of negotiation and public dialogue to split his adversaries--Republicans at home, Islamists abroad--and strengthen his own position. Obama's speech in Cairo to the Muslim world was simply the foreign analogue of his dealings with the GOP.

Obama's method begins with attempts to find common ground, expressions of respect for the adversary's core beliefs, and profuse hope for cooperation. In his iconic 2004 speech to the Democratic National Convention, Obama famously announced that Democrats, too, "worship an awesome God." In his Cairo speech, Obama pointed to the contributions and freedoms of American Muslims. In both speeches, Obama signaled cultural respect by adapting the other side's own rhetorical formulations--invoking "a belief in things not seen" (2004) or calling the Middle East the region where Islam "was first revealed" (Cairo).

This rhetoric removes the locus of debate from the realm of tribal conflict-- red state versus blue state, Islam versus America--and puts it onto specific questions--Is the American health care system fair? Is terrorism justified?-- where Obama believes he can win support from soft adherents of the opposing camp.

Naturally, Obama's pacific expressions tend to alarm the more hawkish elements of his own camp, who interpret his idealistic rhetoric as naivete or weakness. A few months before the 2008 presidential primary, columnist E.J. Dionne reported, "Several Democrats also said Clinton's claim that she can deal with the Republican 'attack machine' rings truer to an angry party than Obama's call for an end to partisan polarization."

Democratic partisans think the enemy is vicious and must be met with uncompromising force. That's exactly how conservative foreign policy hawks feel about the world. Unsurprisingly, the right-wing foreign policy critique of Obama today sounds eerily like the partisan Democratic critique of Obama during the primary.

Watch TNR senior editor Jonathan Chait discuss this column with editor Franklin Foer:

In January 2008, Obama told a newspaper editorial board that Ronald Reagan provided a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Paul Krugman complained, "Where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?" Likewise, in his Cairo speech, Obama touted the historic role of Muslims in the United States. Conservative pundit David Frum complained: "One of the most disturbing things about the Cairo speech is the persistent misrepresentation of history. It is really absurd to say that Islam for example has 'always been a part of America's story.'"

Obama probably realizes that Muslims have played a marginal role in American life throughout most of its history. He also probably believes that the U.S. economy in the 1970s suffered primarily from oil shocks and irresponsible monetary policy rather than from the absence of a Reaganesque cheerleader for entrepreneurship. But Obama's method entails small acts of intellectual dishonesty in the pursuit of common ground.

Critics such as Krugman and Frum are correct that surrendering intellectual ground comes at a cost. Our most successful presidents articulate clear, forceful public rationales for their beliefs --think of Roosevelt or Truman excoriating reactionary Republicans at home, or Truman, Kennedy, or Reagan standing up to the Soviets internationally. It is a mistake, however, to view Obama's strategy as an act of submission.

Consider how Obama explained his approach toward Iran during a recent interview with Newsweek:

Now, will it work? We don't know. And I assure you, I'm not naive about the difficulties of a process like this. If it doesn't work, the fact that we have tried will strengthen our position in mobilizing the international community, and Iran will have isolated itself, as opposed to a perception that it seeks to advance that somehow it's being victimized by a U.S. government that doesn't respect Iran's sovereignty.

This is a perfect summation of Obama's strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries' constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.

The results remain to be seen. But it eerily resembles the way Obama has already isolated the GOP leadership. Obama began his presidency by elaborately courting the opposition party. Republicans in Congress believed that, by flamboyantly withholding cooperation, they could deny Obama his stated goal of bipartisan harmony and thus render him a failure. Instead, they wound up handing Obama the alternative victory of appearing to be the reasonable party. Polls showed that the public, by overwhelming margins, believed that Obama was trying to work with Republicans and that Republicans were not reciprocating.

Likewise, by defusing the complaint among Islamists that the United States disrespects their religion, Obama can more easily force the Iranian leadership to negotiate on the terms of its stated goals. This is actually "a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers," as American Prospect editor Mark Schmitt wrote in 2007. "One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in," Schmitt explained, "treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem."

This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 56 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

56 comments

We in Cook County like to think what works here is universal. What we learn on tough streets will work in the tough world. Sometimes we get in over our heads though and I think the tough guys from Chicago are getting into one of those moments now. God help us.

- Bill Baar

June 23, 2009 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The media TNR included look at Iran's events as a reform revolution. Many fight to get involved in it. Obama doesn't want the US to become a "foil." No one is really listening. "The protesters" rallying cry is God is Great! They are only a slightly different brand of Islamic fanaticism. Nuclear horror, anti-US, anti-Israel are still their main aim even though they want a easier life for themselves.

- Albert Reingewirtz

June 23, 2009 at 7:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist" - yeah, right!

- catofan

June 23, 2009 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The idea behind your well-presented article about Obama's method is most apt. The idea and the method have also been widely written about in psychotherapeutic settings for a long time. Essentially Obama's method boils down to a calculated and vicious use of what is known as a double-bind. The victim of a double-bind is given a choice between two unpalatable paradoxical alternatives, with no way out of making a logical choice between the two. There are various definitions of a double-bind and various examples. Double-binds always have annihilating effects on their victims. Obama presents his opponents with a paradox (a) he tells his opponents that he accepts and understands their opposing views, (b) that his opponents and he should gather around and now focus on solving details, and (c) that his approach is really what the country and his opponents need for their collective good. Alternatives (c) and (a) are contradictory and at different logical levels. An opponent who then accepts (b) is put in the position of both agreeing that Obama understands and accepts their views and agreeing that Obama's own views are the best for the country. The result is devastation for his opponents while they accept the structure Obama carefully presents. (Note how everything Obama says is carefully scripted and read, nothing "off message" and nothing "ad lib".) Of course the way out for his opponents is to ignore his alternatives, as well as to continually educate the public about his use of these kinds of psychological warfare techniques. The vicious controlling mother provides good examples. His use of hypnotherapeutic techniques and sign language (eg hand signs, or the movement of his head coodinated with his recitation of the alternatives, etc etc) needs to be highlighted also. You are right, Obama is a ruthless politcal operator with a "calming bedside manner". The new "oh so caring" face of socialism.

- Fred B

June 23, 2009 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The aggressor, in any conflict, sets the rules; Obama hasn't figured that out yet. As such there are two choices: 1) "Can't we all get along" and pander to the aggressor 2) Carry a big stick and use it Obama is a law professor, no doubt he will be on the Supreme Court after his stint as President, and law professors just don't use sticks and stones - they use words.

- perrym

June 23, 2009 at 8:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It true that Obama is not a naive idealist. The problem is that he doesn't seem to really have committed himself to anything but the increase in his own power. We are all supposed to just hope that he uses the power in ways that are generally useful. Maybe it will work out that way.

- Craig

June 23, 2009 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The "islamic world" is not the the Republican party. Foreign cultures cannot be dealt with with domestic adversaries which share the same language, culture, and history. This is a very uninformed, shallow article.

- Lily

June 23, 2009 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really good. True, yet.

- Nick

June 23, 2009 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh...so the author believes that for Obama, "conciliatory talk IS a ruthless tactic". Nice slogan, but it really doesn't ring true. All of Obama's soft talk and attempts to negotiate are fine; the question is when/where does he actually get tough. Until Obama takes some tough action...somewhere...I'm not convinced he's really got a backbone. I saw a pundit on TV last night recommending that Obama take tough action re North Korea. He believed NK will eventually have to be slapped down and that now is the time. We'll see.

- JohnR

June 23, 2009 at 8:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The author concludes: "This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy." The radical leftist disciple of Saul Alinsky is the reality. That "post-partisan idealist" identity is just clever packaging. And indeed Obama is pursuing a "ruthless strategy" much as does the wolf who puts on sheeps clothing in order to devour the unsuspecting flock.

- Capertree

June 23, 2009 at 8:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The thing that people haven't figured out about President Obama's conduct of foreign policy is that it's the same as his conduct of domestic policy" The thing that liberals havent figured out is that mullahs in Iran see Obama as weak and will exploit that to their advantage. The best way to get a bully to leave you alone is smack them dead in the mouth. Obama will continue his talk and apologize for America tours while Americans die.

- retired military

June 23, 2009 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait's quaint notion that Obama can use the same tactics to marginalize Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad that he his using to undermine his domestic political opposition is laughably naive. But then, hopeless naivete is a defining characteristic of President Obama, and his supporters. The President's dogged insistence on direct negotiations without preconditions with the Ahmadinejad regime in Teheran presupposes that the outcome of such talks will be positive in nature. This is a juvenile delusion unsupported by any empirical evidence. President Obama will be forced to finally acknowledge this when face-to-face with the bullying intransigence of Ahmadinejad. It should be a real eye-opener for the President...a moment of absolute clarity when all his preconceived notions about how best to deal with the brutal Iranian mullocracy finally crash to earth in a sobering encounter with reality. I wonder what Chait will say then.

- Raconteur

June 23, 2009 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait's ananlysis is deeply flawed for the following reasons: 1) The GOP was deeply fractured before Obama hit the scene. It's easy to push Republicans around. Chait mentions the time they held together to oppose Obama's insane & unnecessary $787 billion "stimulus" bill, but at what other time in recent memory have they been united? 2) Thug dictators will not be pushed around, except by force. Nuts like Kim Jong Il & the mullahs aren't bothered by bad reviews from the NYT editorial page & won't fold as easily as Republicans do. 3) Obama pretends to try to work with Republicans, but what of substance has he ever offered them? He's much more willing to work with the dictators, but if he thinks they'll reciprocate, he's in for a rude awakening.

- Floyd Jones

June 23, 2009 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope you're right, but I am almost certain you, and he, are not. Like so much of what Obama believes, this makes sense only on paper. The despots who we most need to fear (yes, fear, because that is their language) the US will see this approach, unequivocally, as weakness They have been and will continue to be emboldened by it. I can see your point (an Obama's), but it's a fools errand to think that such nuance will work. Nations don't have friends, they have interests. Nations will act in their best interest when push comes to shove -- with complete, total, and utter disregard for any "goodwill" previously engendered. This trap was laid by the naive notion that Bush's cowboy diplomacy caused the interests of other nations to change (a silly notion), and Obama has stepped right into it.

- Bob

June 23, 2009 at 10:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The obverse of your depiction of Obama's Muslim strategy is equally plausible. His obsequious Cairo address and entreaties for negotiation could be the worst approach to a world that knows humiliation oh so well. It is axiomatic in natural history that the predator goes first after the weak or the wounded. By exhibiting one's "soft" side through word or deed, the predator only becomes emboldened.

- mark greenberg

June 23, 2009 at 10:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr.Chait's analysis is spot-on. The only surprising thing is that it took him six months to make it. Of course Obama's method consist of "only words" - - word cut deeper than knives, heal quicker than salves.

- Steve Stone

June 23, 2009 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama the wuss is an embarrassment to the United States.

- Jack Davis

June 23, 2009 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Floyd Jones (comment #12) seems not to have read the article carefully. Since Chait is arguing that Obama's strategy is intended to isolate hardliners, it's not clear how (1) a divided opposition, (2) intractable dictators, or (3) not ceding anything of value can be taken as evidence that Chait is wrong -- rather, (1) and (2) seem to be precisely the situations that might call for such a strategy, and (3) is arguably evidence that it IS strategic, rather than naive.

- frippo

June 23, 2009 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is an insightful piece. And, given that world cooperation is probably the single most important global issue (since most other major issues, such as the environment, require it, I'm really happy that Obama's method is so much more cooperative than the Machiavellian-Bush approach.

- Steve Bie

June 23, 2009 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One problem with the analysis is that there is no evidence that Obama's methods have ever worked to accomplish anything other than Obama's personal advancement. There has been a lot written and said about his activities as a community organizer in Chicago. What thing of substance did he ever accomplish for the community while he was busy organizing? I know of none. And if he couldn't accomplish a great deal in his own community and city with different but negotiable interests but essentially shared assumptions, what evidence is there that his tactics will work with fanatical people with entirely different assumptions who -- whether or not it is in their interests -- would like to see us destroyed?

- pete beck

June 23, 2009 at 11:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Try going back into ancient history to understand Obama's method. Sun Tzu in "Art of War"for nuances instructions of how to get your enemy right where you want him. Or the brilliant, audience-tailored speeches by the ambassadors of Athens and Sparta to other city-states - and the latter's often nuances responses! - as they tried to line up allies for their all-Greek war. You will see persuasive rhetoric, appeals to the hearts and minds of 'foreign' citizens, attempts to win over enough support from natural allies and mercenary allies to isolate and crush the enemy. Or ponder the expression: "Give them enough rope to hang themselves." Hillary hung herself when she tried to sell herself as better able to fight back against Republicans. 1) all people could see was 4 more years rabid culture wars; 2) she never really won against them.

- CAMtwo

June 23, 2009 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fred, Your analysis is fascinating. Please can you give references for further reading on this? Thanks!

- Cyril D

June 23, 2009 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait finds common elements in Obama's speeches and assumes they are a "method" Obama uses to manipulate others. He apparently cannot believe that Obama is for real, i.e. that Obama honestly respects others and "acts out his hope" for a loving, peaceful world.

- Bob Goode

June 23, 2009 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A number of commentators above seem to focus on the idea of the naivety of Obama's policy and that it will soon come into conflict with the "reality" of oppressive regimes and come crashing down to earth. This rhetoric is tired and tedious and was tried for much of the last eight years of the Bush administration without success. Part of the reason the Iranian protests have been as heated and sustained as they are is that Obama's approach to the regime has removed America as a convenient object of blame for the hardliners in the regime, much to the short sighted and self righteous frustration of neo-conservatives like John McCain and the posters above. Giving into the provocations of tin pot regimes like N. Korea and Iran and acting from a position of fear and angry panic may not give the appearance of self-diagnosed "weakness" that the commentators above fear so much, but it will certainly lead us to act from a position of weakness that will be readily apparent and off putting to the other rational nations whose support we desperately need to deal effectively with the paper tyrants that threaten world peace today.

- Pnaut

June 23, 2009 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh Jonathan, It seems you are premature in your deification of this President. Obama is an eloquent spokesperson for the "do-nothing-and-we-will-touchy-feely-muddle-our-way-through" crowd. But why is Mr. Obama so seemingly reluctant to build a coalition with foreign leaders? A group will always be heard more clearly than a weak President.

- Jellywood

June 23, 2009 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait and Foer seem to be oblivious to the continued belligerence of North Korea and Iran, Neither of the parties are buying into BHO desire to negotiate. As far as earning the good will of other countries as a means of isolating people like Kim Jong Il and the mullahs the approach has been demonstrably woolly headed. Witness the tepid sanctions in the UN response to NK nuclear testing and Mullahs rigged election in Iran.

- Bmarks56

June 23, 2009 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think your analysis of Obama's approach is generally right, and it has had some success in dealing with Republicans - he has been able to split some of their supporters away, while appearing to be the reasonable centrist. It remains to be seen how long this perception will last, if his policies don't seem to be successful. In international relations, it might have some success in dealing with democratic countries like Germany or France, where leaders are accountable to the public, and Obama may be able to appeal over the leaders' heads to the public. I don't see how it works in dealing with fundamentally unaccountable regimes, like Iran. I also don't see how it gets the democracies to do something that they fundamentally oppose, like hard sanctions on Iran. Obama's got a bad situation, and a weak hand to play with respect to Iran, but I don't see his rhetoric as a route to success, no matter how you might define success.

- CTObserver

June 23, 2009 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What you guys aren't getting is this.. Chait is saying talks with your adversary (Repubs) or your enemy (Iran) don't have to "work". The briliance of the Obama strategy is that he benefits whether engagement achieves his stated purposes. The real dialogue is with third parties who are observing, namely the American public for domestic battles and the Islamic moderates and worldwide fence-sitting allies for foreign affairs. Making sure they are on your side is way more vital to success because they have power that can be harnessed against your opponents. Reading the responses above, I can see that this simple, yet versatile strategy doesn't seem to go over well with the big talk and big stick crowd. Luckily, their thick-headedness allows Obama to run circles around them.

- JD

June 23, 2009 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, why all this bread for the dogs? ;)

- g50

June 23, 2009 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with "the Obama method," is that it presumes that the other side won't resort to force in the middle of negotiations. Obama didn't have to worry about that in negotiation with the Republicans--but he does have to worry about that in the case of Iran. In the middle of all this "I can see things your way and let's try to work things out" business, Iran could test-fire a nuclear bomb. Then what? Obama seems to have realized that with North Korea, where he is amping up the pressure in good old-fashioned power politics. But he doesn't get that Iran must be dealt with similarly. Why he thinks Iran is more amenable to negotiations than North Korea, puzzles me.

- sinz52

June 23, 2009 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article. Well done. I would say though, that we have yet to see any of Obama's "adversaries" offer any good faith whatsoever. I don't believe Obama's good faith is false. I'm sure he'd rather work with the Republicans in a constructive way. Same with Iran. The thing with his methodoloy is that if they don't come in good faith, then he still wins. What I am trying to say is that I don't believe this technique is calculated for the worst case scenario (bad faith, acrimony), although I'm sure Obama is aware of the plan B upside.

- mattw

June 23, 2009 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Mr Chait has hit the proverbial nail on the head. One thing I believe he is wrong about is that, early on in his administration, Republicans, in the shadow of Obama's huge popularity, did try to come to the table. However, they soon found out that Obama had no intention of compromising an inch. But, he was able to fool the public into believing he was seeking common ground. I can't see that he has compromised on a single issue. Not abortion funding, not school vouchers, not Gitmo. The only compromising he has done is within the constituencies of his own party. Sooner or later, his policies will outrun his popularity. Ironically it would be better for him if it happened sooner rather than later. If he over reaches with his radical liberal policies, it is likely to land a blow to the democratic party from which they will spend a generation trying to recover

- vicki in flyover usa

June 23, 2009 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope you're right, but I am almost certain you, and he, are not. Like so much of what Obama believes, this makes sense only on paper. The despots who we most need to fear (yes, fear, because that is their language) the US will see this approach, unequivocally, as weakness They have been and will continue to be emboldened by it. === Ahmadi is emboldened right now? Are you serious? He is quaking in his boots, more so than at ANY time GWB was president. What do you think other ME dictatorial powers are thinking right now? There are afraid as hell. We will not "spread democracy" or win the "war on terror" through violence. It will not work. Hasn't Iraq proved that? AND PEOPLE, WAKE THE HELL UP: we can't afford the wars we have. Are you silly? Our economy would utterly collapse with another war, *and* make us more vulnerable if we actually needed to use our military for something.

-

June 23, 2009 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are unreasonable assertions such that the public views Obama as reasonable or bipartisan and you have to be a fool to think his methods will work.

- Evangelical

June 23, 2009 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With regard to Obama's foreign policy ideas, Chait says "the results remain to be seen." I think we've seen plenty. Iran's fist remains clenched. North Korea launches missles, threatens Hawaii, conducts nuclear tests. Israel has been abandoned. The UK has been insulted. The nations of the world don't worship Obama like the media does in the US. The world has concluded that Obama is both naive and weak. They are right.

- Ernie Banks

June 23, 2009 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent article. Thank you for such a good articulation of Obama's strategy. I hope it works!

- Nate

June 23, 2009 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Raconteur,PerryM and JohnR fail to understand that the Iranian regime is in the double-bind Fred B describes. They are going down like Hillary and McCain did. This is the first article I have read that clearly apprehends the mindset of our President. He knows the end game on the Mullahs in Iran. They either cut a deal with this President or he will shut their economy down. The audience for the offer of conciliation is not only the Mullahs but also Europe,the Arab and African Islamic regimes,China and Russia. The Iranian unemployment rate is 25% today. What will it be after the President gets the Europeans and possibly the Russians and the Chinese on board with sanctions? What if the President supports the Israelis in a proxy attack on Iranian nuclear and oil facilities? The President has a lot of arrows in his quiver. After the overt extention of the olive branch this President will have a true "coalition of the willing" to support tougher action. Also,expect to see the Republicans eviserated on healthcare the way they were on the stimulus bill. The Presidents tactics are effective against both foreign and domestic enemies.The President will keep running the same play until somebody can stop it.The Mullahs and the Republicans are toast

- Menelek

June 23, 2009 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's a good reason for that kind of rallying cry this time around. You can't really arrest somebody for declaring the greatness of God. Iran is a beautiful and complex country with a fairly educated population who sincerely want the theocratic regime gone. Unfortunately, they were Obama's first real test of foreign policy astuteness and he failed miserably. One of his first public comments had to do with the differences between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad - he said they were the same. Besides the fact that there are many differences he should have probably been briefed on, the differences between those two weren't even the point. The point was alleged election fraud. He was not astute enough to exploit the situation in any way - maybe he didn't want to and that doesn't speak well for him and his team of advisers. Germany, Great Britain, and our own US Congress came out forcefully against the brutal repression of the demonstrators. Obama stayed very quiet. Along time ago I've witnessed a popular uprising first hand. The person who emerged in a leadership role was an old communist cadre - many people thought he wasn't the best choice but he was better than a power void and besides, where would you find a leader that has some leadership and political experience in a country that's been communist for forty years? I'm sure the old fox wasn't too happy but he couldn't do much to oppose the structural changes that had occurred. Where would you find in Iran a leader that has experience and has a "clean file"? They've been dealing with an islamic state for about thirty years now... If Moussavi can fight the Ayatollah's decision with the help of Rafsanjani the country could very well switch gears. It would be a process and it would take time, but it would be preferable to Ahmadinejad's schizophrenic leadership. I've a feeling Obama didn't want those gears shifting and only time would reveal the political reasons. They might be legitimate, they might be genial, or they might be plain wrong. Even so, he mishandled the situation big time.

- heliana sand

June 23, 2009 at 7:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We are now familiar, to the point of gagging. with the ostensible differences between "realist" and "idealist" perspectives on foreign policy and their purported results. Old farts like me remember Truman, a hard case who did what he thought was right and damn the criticism (and who had a singularly wise group of advisors on foreign/national security policy). I am no fan of Obama, in general, but I thought his original remarks on the Iranian situation were sober, careful and realist. Inevitably, they would draw a retort from those who are devoted to an "idealistic" approach (e.g., McCain). Tacking politically in response to momentary media response has weakened the president's, and therefore the nation's, position. Mr. President: We are blessed/stuck with you. Find a position, stick with it, take the heat and change your mind and your rhetoric only when you are convinced you are wrong.

-

June 23, 2009 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

See most of you completely missed the point of this article. You think he's weak, naive, he draws you in, paints you into a corner, and either co-opts you or divides your base of support to weaken your position. Then he eats you for lunch. This is far from being naive, or weak. This is straight off the pages of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Sun-Tzu's "The Art of War." It's also a refreshing change from the dopey, psuedo-tough guy cowboy bs we suffered through the last 8 years.

- truedat

June 23, 2009 at 8:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Chait: Could we just get one piece that is not blindly supportive of the Obama Administration? I am a Democrat, but even I get sick of this stuff after awhile.

- Walter

June 23, 2009 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting analysis, although it misses quite a few obvious points. For one thing, while Obama was campaigning, both in the Democratic primaries and in the General Election, he had a fawning, credulous, cheerleading press doing everything in their power to elect the guy. He also followed one of the least popular Presidents in modern times, and even with that, was behind in the polls in September until the financial meltdown hit. In Iran, North Korea and Russia (among other places), not only is there no fawning press to tell everybody how great Obama is, there is no press at all, except the one controlled by the state. Was Obama ruthless in dealing first with Hillary Clinton and later with Republicans? Yes. Are either of them preparation for dealing with the world community? Hardly. When John McCain lost the election, he conceded graciously, as is the custom in American elections. The Iranian theocracy isn't going to concede even if Obama does score some brilliant debating point somewhere along the way.

- buffaloboy

June 23, 2009 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, a lot of you seem to define strength by how much you pee your own bed over the thought of Kim Jong-Il. Put it this way: if Kim Jong-Il had multiple real, reliable allies (analogues to the American relationship with Canada, the UK, etc.) that would fight alongside it in major wars, NK would be a lot more powerful. Instead, China is coming to see it as a nuisance and anyone who wants to be close to Kim tends to be a poor, isolated dictatorship with nothing to offer the outside world. Turning others against your adversaries when necessary weakens their potential power. The idea that we can "slap down" NK is laughable. We are already putting more sanctions on them. Any military action would likely result in Seoul getting leveled and who knows what would happen to other major East Asian cities. A pundit saying that the time is now to "slap down" NK is only saying they are insecure with their own strength and (if male) probably their own masculinity and thus confuses hawkishness for strength. Conservatives still haven't learned that the US military isn't their personal playtoy.

- Yoyo

June 24, 2009 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the Peter Keating strategy: appeasement. It is a wonder how few see through his solipsism. There is a reason his fantasy mentor is FDR (at least in domestic affairs), who was called the chameleon in plaid. Not really having a "core" you listen to your advisors and split the difference.

- Ashley King

June 24, 2009 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not showing much sympathy for the Iranian people's struggle against tyranny because freedom is not one of Obama's values. His blend of anti-western "multiculturalism” and post-modernist Marxism is an illiberal ideology, to put it mildly. His program is to take down the "arrogant" US by turning it into a banana republic. [

- bulbman1066

June 24, 2009 at 1:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well somebody else gets it. I've been advocating this approach to Iran for years. Maybe its because I grew up in a family so Christian they still believed in the divine right of kings but the whole thing is obvious to me. What all the people blathering about the dictators miss is that they are not the point. He has been speaking past them to the people not to them. As Bob says above fear is their language which means when its all fire and brimstone they know what to do. But this nice guy routine sends them reeling. They understand it about as well as old moralists here understood jazz, Elvis, and the Beatles. Doesn't it seem just a touch to coincidental that after 30 years of successful control they throw together such a panicked election fix right after the Cario speech? You have a bunch of medieval Mullah's a massive generation of young people who use facebook and MTV. Hmmm, doesn't that second profile sound just a little familiar from the campaign last year? I'm not saying the Iranians necessarily have Obamania but what these people the resistance wants is to be talked to like they are mature adults capable of rational and mature decisions. Obama does that, Bush didn't, no previous president really has in fact because they are to busy obsessing on the scary, scary mullahs that they treat the people like children.

- johnnyb

June 24, 2009 at 8:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The GOP was deeply fractured before Obama hit the scene. It's easy to push Republicans around" Floyd's analysis is deeply flawed because: A: Its not easy to push Republicans around. They are as stubborn as rocks. Democrats are easy to push around. B: Its not just the GOP. This is what he did to the Clintons as well. He skipped the polarized old political rhetoric they were used to and talked directly to his target audience. They ,like the Mullahs, kept trying to bring it back around to making it all about them and him while Obama and his audience understood that it was about the people not the politicians.

-

June 24, 2009 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Democratic partisans think the enemy is vicious and must be met with uncompromising force. If only they thought that way about al qaeda. Insofar as we want to deny you crappy gov't- sponsored healthcare, humongous tax increases, zero economic growth, abortion-on-demand, then yeah, we're you're enemy. But we're not the ones looking to shove you under a hijab, beheading you for missing mosque on sunday, or blowing you up for not being devout enough. The reason you can run your mouths and scream for the environment, animals, or ice cream is because of conservatives in the military who defend your rights.

- jwl2672

June 24, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rove was a pseudo-Machiavellian, a tactician; his methodolody (either mirrored, or adopted, by members of the Bush administration) never seemed (or seems) to be capable of getting past the "swift-boating" technique, and whisper campaigns. I've long been saying that I wish for a "real Machiavellian" - meaning, a true genius of deft political broad strategy - who also has the best interests of this nation and its people at heart. A commentator on MSNBC said today (and I unfortunatley cannto remember hsi name) made an excellent analogy: while Congress is playing an emotion-laden game of checkers, Obama is the Chessmaster. Could it be that he is, indeed, the political genius who can save this nation from breaking asunder? I wait, I watch - occasionally, I find myself catching my breath...

- k_michael

June 24, 2009 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your assessment could not be more incorrect. First, as evidenced by recent news accounts, there will be no recount, the Iranian government is clamping down on protesters Ahmadinejahd will continue as president once more. In this case our president will have to continue the process of diplomatically negotiating with the regime in place, whether he likes it or not. Don't you think he's in a better position for having stayed out of the fray?

- fed up

June 24, 2009 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem with Obama's foreign "policy" is that it continues to project a weak and overly conciliatory Presidency. This does more to encourage the bad behavior of those dictatorships determined to oppress their people and keep them enslaved, all the while restraining people who might more actively oppose those regimes. That Obama eventually speaks and is "appalled" and even "outraged" at the violence against the demonstrators but fails to even hint at consequenses did NOTHING to quell the violence and may well have given the Iranian regime the green light. He has failed to express this keenly felt "outrage" about the enslavement of Iranian women as well as the DELIBERATE MURDER of so many demonstrators preferring to call it merely "violence"...that is, anybody's violence, maybe the government...maybe the demonstrators. He makes no determination, no moral judgement. He projects wealness and a timidity that will get him liked in Germany but hated by the demonstators on the streets of Iran. Americans are about freedom and independance. Obama is about endless negotiation. No problem is too big, no injustice too great no number of dead demonstrators too many for HIM not to have hot dogs, "engage" and "negotiate" with the Thugs of Iran. He will however, see fit to bully Israel...our ONLY ally in the region. His foreign policy is a failure. No amount of vacuous intellectuallizing will make it any different.

-

June 24, 2009 at 7:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's foreign policy consists of smiling and bowing to dictators and enemies of the US like the Iranian mullahs and Chavez, while bullying relatively powerless, but friendly states, like Israel. It is unlikely to be profitable.

- elwin9

June 25, 2009 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Beautifully phrased article. 31% of the electorate are probably not intellectually equipped to understand it - too busy salivating over the latest talking points on cable faux-news and other channels of political pornography. But the remaining 69% got it just fine, did so from the git go and thank their lucky stars that there is finally a functioning brain at the seat of power. An extraordinary American president once said "Walk softly, and carry a big stick". The current American president "talks softly and carries an even bigger stick". He does tend to ignore those who haven't the smarts to figure out what he's up to, which drives them into fits of impotent rage. But we didn't elect him to pander to self-infatuated belligerent blowhards - right or left. So, here's to the "Obama Method"! Go for it!

- JKL

June 25, 2009 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does anyone here actually think Bush's "invade them now and ask questions never" approach ever scared anyone important? How do you out-crazy a suicide bomber? When did NK develop nukes? Under Bush. Bush's "Axis of Evil" rhetoric was a temporary stake in the heart of the reform movement, which is partly why Ahmadinijad won back in 2005. Never mind Hamas becoming more powerful in Palestine, Chavez is tunneling in even further in Venezuela's power structure, Putin continues to be running Russia from behind the scenes, Hu cracked down brutally in Tibet as did Karimov in Uzbekistan's capitol, etc. Not all of these are Bush's fault (even in part), but they also aren't the actions of anyone afraid of Bush. On 9/12, Bush was the most powerful person in human history. Today he is a punchline that accomplished little and destroyed much. Just because you're worried about your own masculinity doesn't mean the world works according to your delusions.

- Yoyo

June 25, 2009 at 11:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#24-Pnaut-- You are right on! It is so obvious to a casual observer, that Obama's opponents are relying on voters ignoring their justification for voting against his proposals. They have none. They're for tax cuts and smaller government at least until they return to power. Hopefully, they will continue to vote against change in lock step and we won't need to worry about a replay of the last 8 years.

- Hal B

June 26, 2009 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the author's ideas are a bit weird. To me, such a description would better describe his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, if you are talking about how he views and treats Republicans. I don't think Obama plays those kinds of games, and no I didn't support him. I think he's trying to play fair with the Republicans as far as what ideology is in his mind and heart, but therein lies the problem. He's been as liberal as liberal gets as a state legislator and then US Senator. Only during the Presidential campaign has he ever faced an electorate with any significant number of Republican voters in it (I don't consider Illinois particularly conservative), but had the luxury of facing an incumbent party with low approval ratings- 28 percent for Bush and a highly favorable media hyping what is little more than a bad recession- right before it even happened, of course. So even there I think he got something of a free pass. I don't think he particularly wants to harm or trash Republicans, but like the stimulus bill's final vote suggests, he doesn't care much of what they think because he thinks his ideology is so much more advanced from where their's is. He does it in a naive, but professorial style. He is simply wrong and the Republicans are more or less politically betting on failure or nonsuccess depending on your vantage point. So far, his popularity is about where Bush's was eight years ago, but Republicans have a year and half to turn it around. I'm guess they will simply because every political party has to answer for its most recent White House occupant, and sorry to say for your magazine's left-leaning readers, I think Bush's record over eight years is far better, minus financial regulations, than his popularity rating when he left office. This country has a political ideology nothing like the professorial staff at the University of Chicago or the authors and readers of The New Republic.

- Portland

June 28, 2009 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close