Obama Shouldn’t be Blamed for What Happened When He was 3 Months Old. Neither Should We.

In his response to Daniel Ortega’s excoriating remarks to Obama in front of the Summit of Americas nations at last weeks meeting, Obama curtly replied “I’m very grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old.” However, Obama left the rest of America out on the curb.

It turns out that more than half of Americans were born after Obama. According to 2007 census bureau information 100.9 million people were born in 1962 and later and 97.3 million were born 1961 and before. Since most of the population in the US was not yet born, we too should not be blamed.

I don’t blame Obama if he didn’t know the age demographics of the population. I did not know until I did the math and looked up the population of the nation. However, something must be said regarding how Obama has been going on about his “listen and lead” foreign policy. He needs to realize that the US is at least as guiltless as himself.

The most important omission in Obama’s policy (not defending America) is the most dangerous omission from his policy. This is especially true in South America, where dictators like Ortega and Chavez have maintained their oppressive governments through distraction created by blaming their country’s poor living standards on “oppression” from the North.

I’m not saying Obama needs to be defensive on the accusations being leveled, but he should at least be a voice for all the good that America has done in the world. There has been at least as much good done by America as there has been bad. He does both America dishonor in not vigorously advocating these positives as he does damage to the citizens in the countries run by Ortega and Chavez and leaves the people in these country’s hanging out to dry in more ways than one.

Obama correctly pointed out in Europe that we are a nation of “principles and ideas,” but those ideas are not welcome in the dictatorships in this world because they offer their subjects a life of independence, free of their rule. There are many in these oppressive countries that do in fact agree with our way of life. These peoples are working in their countries to bring about the freedom that we so lavishly enjoy. In ideology, they are our allies. The dictators hate us, because they hate them. In failing to herald the good in the US, he has not only left America down, he’s let the world down and made it easier for these dictators to continue their regimes.

If you don’t believe me, Chavez declared victory on Tuesday. The result, is obvious to those who oppose Chavez in Venezuela, they will get no support from the freest nation in the world. This is yet again another example of the unintended consequences of progressive thought.

Obama’s International Policies: Weak or Transformational?

I did a lot of web surfing this weekend to try and get perspective on Obama’s comments and policies emerging from his recent international trip. No surprise, he is being immediately applauded by the liberal left and denounced by the conservative right. Although, there are many that are going to disagree with me on this, I have a much more moderate view of Obama’s trip. I feel on both sides, Obama’s policies are being judged too quickly as a success or failure. Although I am no expert on international politics, here is my take on the unfolding Obama foreign policy.

In my opinion (take it for what it’s worth), I believe the conservative view of international policy as a chess game is much more appropriate than the liberal view of a party chalked with a few party crashers and the US as the belligerent and obnoxious drunk picking fights with those in the unpopular clicks. I see the international political canvas as a multi-party negotiation table where ultimately all parties are trying to get the best outcome for the sake of their own interests. As someone in business, I do know a lot about negotiation.

I need to explain negotiation a little more if you are to understand why US actions are not exploitation, but also why I believe we need to give Obama a break in the short run. Simply put, negotiation is a game to further your agenda and there are many different ways to play. Most are familiar with competitive negotiation, which is where two parties are pinned against each other in a win-lose match. Often, relations are strained when this type of negotiation game is played, because of the win-lose aspect and the fact that deception is often an essential element to the game. To win at competitive negotiation you need to hold a lot of strong cards. If you don’t have them, you need to be creative in establishing some. The US happens to be good at this type of negotiation, primarily because the US holds some pretty strong cards (3rd largest nation, strongest military and strongest economy in the world).

Spotlight on North Korea. You will notice that although no country is comfortable with North Korea having long range missiles, there is not unity in an international response for sanctions for North Korea. This is not because China and Russia feel the North Korea is misunderstood and they have some kind of peaceful relationship that the US could also have if they would simply stop picking on the poor country. No, by opposing sanctions that the western world wants, Russia and China get another chip in the big competitive negotiation game. North Korea also gains a chip in their defiance. By stepping up their efforts they become a bigger threat to the West.

Competitive negotiation is not the only type of negotiation game that can be played. There are also games involving compromise and collaboration (there are actually two other types as well, but there is no need to do an exhaustive explanation here). These are win-win types of negotiation. I would venture to guess, that most Americans and specifically, progressives, favor this type of negotiation. I will not disagree that this type of negotiation has merit.

So why do I feel it is too early? First of all, it is simply unwise to use the same negotiation tactics over and over again. If you use the same tactic constantly you will become predictable and since US has long favored competitive negotiation, many other countries approach US relations competitively. Second, we may be able to entice nations that have been competitive into collaborative or compromise negotiation. Bush has long been the “bad cop” when it comes to US foreign policy and there may be a benefit for Obama to play “good cop” in the short run.

I hope that this is the reasoning Obama is following. Although I believe there is opportunity, there is also great risk. If countries are not enticed into collaborative or compromise negotiation, other competitive countries will take advantage of the US. If Obama truly does believe that all problems can be solved through compromise and collaboration, then we will see much more aggression. Despite the left’s desire for the US to fade into the background, the US will always be the face of the Western World and as the face, we will continue to be a target for every aggressor aimed at weakening the Western World. It is also important to note that although it may be more desirable to be collaborative or compromising, we need to change our strategy up from time to time and that means being competitive also.

Already it seems that Obama’s strategy is not working. He was not successful in garnering support for a world stimulus or the war in Afghanistan. Most importantly, he was unable to get a response from the UN regarding North Korea. Still I believe it’s too early, but time is running out quickly. We as citizens must draw a line and hold Obama to it. I believe there are far too many people willing to give Obama a pass in his policies. At some point, no matter how nice Obama’s speeches might sound, a failing policy is a failing policy no matter how much you wish it wasn’t.