[Before proceeding, I intended to include Kessler's criticism of Giuliani in this post, which I started first, but decided to publish it separately
here.]
I'm toying with the idea of a category of one-off commentaries called "Talking Points". I become routinely annoyed when I see dubious talking points dominate the news cycle. One current example is a comment former 9/11 NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani made
recently concerning Obama:
I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.
Giuliani recently expanded on these comments in a
WSJ piece:
I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart. I cannot read President Obama’s mind or heart, and to the extent that my words suggested otherwise, it was not my intention. But I can only be disheartened when I hear him claim, as he did last August, that our response to 9/11 betrayed the ideals of this country. When he interjected that “we tortured some folks,” he undermined those who managed successfully to protect us from further attack. When asked last week whether I thought the president was a patriot, I said I did. My intended focus really was the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance...Irrespective of what a president may think or feel, his inability or disinclination to emphasize what is right with America can hamstring our success as a nation. This is particularly true when a president is seen, as President Obama is, as criticizing his country more than other presidents have done, regardless of their political affiliation.
Before going on, let's recall a couple of infamous flubs. This first photo was of normally PR-savvy Sen. Obama at a 2007 Iowa steak fry during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner (as every schoolchild knows, your right hand goes over your heart):
The following is of President Obama saluting while holding a coffee cup last September:
I think when I mentioned the latter one in the blog, I discussed having learned a lesson as a young ensign in Orlando. I happened to be walking past the messhall one day when a large group of enlisted men spotted me and then proceeded to walk past me in a single file, effectively forcing me to return dozens of consecutive salutes. I can't speak on behalf of all active-duty military or veterans, but I personally found a half-assed salute extraordinarily unprofessional--recall that he's been President since 2009 and it's not the first time he's been greeted by Marines or other military coming off a plane. I mentioned before he should have left the coffee in the plane and gotten a fresh one at his destination or at least shifted the cup to his other hand or momentarily set the cup on the ground until he finished saluting, but you don't salute with a cup in your hand. I'm sure other people don't see this as a big deal, but think of the example being set, the message being sent of the Commander-in-Chief more interested in his cup of coffee than in maintaining military discipline.
Remember the
2007 kerfuffle he set off by a decision to STOP wearing a flag pin on his lapel? "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, D-Ill., said he will no longer wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for “true patriotism” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks... "You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That’s what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals....Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security”
This comes across as extremely judgmental of people wearing flag pins--he's clearly asserting at least some of them aren't "true" patriots, are hypocrites... This is a sore point with Democrats who often seem obsessed that some unnamed Republicans are questioning their patriotism--Obama defensively is trying to flip the phantom accusations back, presumably at his opponents. Now personally I didn't know or care whether Sen. Obama was wearing a flag pin on his lapel. But I thought, at minimum, it was a gaffe on his part, because he was essentially admitting that he had been wearing a flag pin for show. The bigger point is what I raised in my
recent Kessler post: who does he think his audience is? Who is he trying to impress? The "progressive elite" back in San Francisco vs. those Midwesterners clinging to their guns and Bibles? He seems to have a compulsion to stick up for the "true" Islam. Why? Is he an imam? He seems obsessed with confessing the historical sins of Americans and his predecessors to foreign critics. Why? To validate their criticisms? To satisfy America-bashing academics?
Now let's cut to MTP moderator Chuck Todd and his rhetoric in discussing the kerfuffle
2 Sundays back:
This week's race to the bottom, led by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, is proving why Americans are learning to hate politics and the media... And now into this controversy jumps former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who insisted again and again this week that he believes Mr. Obama doesn't love his country. Should Giuliani's opinion even matter, though? Giuliani even used an old racial dog whistle of the Civil Rights Era: communism...Florida Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated that it is possible to criticize the president, but stay rational.
MEGYN KELLY:
Mr. Mayor, do you want to apologize for your comment?
RUDY GIULIANI:
Not at all. I want to repeat it. The reality is I, from all that I can see of this president, all that I've read of him. He apologizes for America. He criticizes America.
Let's be clear: the issue is not criticism if and of itself. I have been critical of many American policies and past leaders. But it's one thing for me to do that as a blogger or an academic; I'm not representing all the people. It is more the nature, extent, and context of the situation. As a President, what America and her leaders have done in the past is spilled milk, beyond my control. I could criticize my predecessors, but why? I am setting policy for the present and near future; attacking a predecessor behind his back comes across as unnecessary, defensive, unfair and uncivil; if I were President discussing ex-President Obama, I might say something of the nature that he faced complex issues and I was not a party to the process; he acted consistently with his pro-Statist ideals. I might deliver a rant at a fund raiser, but not during my official duties. And representing the US abroad, I would project a positive image of America and avoid the appearance of validating anti-American criticisms. Does that mean that I am in a state of denial about past mistakes and policies?
No. For instance, I support ending the Cuba embargo and liberalizing trade and travel, but I would present that as consistent with my pro-liberty position; there's no need to bring up the Bay of Pigs or to throw JFK under the bus. I would agree the Cuban people, not any foreign government, have the same right to self-determination as our Founding Fathers. But I would put policy ahead of personalities. However, whatever mistakes in American policy, Cuba's authoritarian government is responsible for its economic failures, not the American embargo: there are alternatives to American products and services and I have no doubt there is some grey or black market of goods arbitrage. But I can imagine Obama visiting Cuba and confessing the sins of America's past. For what purpose? Because he's getting his talking points from leftist academics and wants to validate them? What's insane is that right off the Florida coast is a relic of the Cold War past long after we've engaged in better terms with Russia and China. I have no interest in asking why we have failed through several Presidents to move. Part of the issue with Obama's policy is that he needs to get a GOP-led Congress to repeal a relevant embargo law, easier said than done. The fact that he waited until after the mid-terms (along with his unilateral immigrant plan), i.e., the start of his lame-duck period, makes it look blatantly political.
Let's now go into Ed Roger's
recent op-ed, although I would probably develop the discussion differently. First, I would argue that Obama has cheapened the Presidency by the nature and extent of his media appearances. He has appeared on a number of entertainment shows; he has made so many speeches that more recently he's
been unable to convince the networks to give him airtime. Less is more; this is a problem I warned of during his first term: as the leader of the free world, it's important to treat the Office with all due respect and access should be limited, otherwise it conveys the message that appearing on "The View" is more important than his regular routine or he feels that his job is boring. I'm not saying an occasional public appearance is wrong, but in Obama's case it's overdone. If you are not worried about the prestige of the Office, if the Office is all too familiar, you are not taking the responsibilities of the Office or the country itself that seriously: you don't "really, really love it".
Then there's his notorious issues dealing with radical Muslims; he uses the term 'ISIL' instead of 'ISIS'; his administration scapegoated a video for the Benghazi tragedy; he went out of his way during the recent national prayer breakfast to condemn the Crusades, a common radical talking point. His obsession with Muslim sensibilities is overdone and one-sided: we don't see comparable attention to the current persecutions of Christians in the Muslim world. I see word games as trivializing foreign policy issues and unworthy of the President's time and attention. Again, it's a point of nature and extent; if it was an occasional reference, I wouldn't have a problem. But repetitious condescending rhetoric and talking points cheapen the Office. He was not elected to be Nanny-in-Chief.
But perhaps just as troubling was his unconditional willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue countries like Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea. Apparently if you're a crackpot Communist or theocratic dictator, Obama will waive the prestige of the Office of the Presidency to reward dysfunctional policies and actions by meeting with them unconditionally--while his policies with allies like Egypt, the Ukraine, and Israeli are hopelessly convoluted or even contradictory. His administration was notably AWOL during Iran's Green Revolution while eagerly backing radicalized insurgents during the Arab Spring. Yes, he will meet with dysfunctional leaders at any cost--but he won't negotiate in good faith with the Speaker of the House, he'll attack the Supreme Court during the State of the Union Address, and he'll
walk out of a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister to go to family dinner and openly opposed a Congressional invitation for the same PM to address Congress. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize and then doubles down on Afghanistan and radically upsizes the nature and extent of droning runs. He embarrasses a long-term ally in Pakistan with an unsanctioned raid to kill UBL, leading to a fracture in bilateral relations. The leader of the world's strongest, most consistent free speech laws refuses any American state presence at the post-Charlie Hebdo massacre international rally in Paris.
It's not clear how anyone, domestic or foreign, perceives America in an improved light because of Obama's tenure as President. He's already more than doubled the publicly-held debt accumulated prior to his Presidency. Senior entitlement unfunded liabilities more than double the size of our economy, and reserves will run dry in less than 20 years. Our dollar is so suspect as the world's reserve currency that a number of nations have agreed to non-dollar trade agreements. We have record numbers of American citizens renouncing their citizenship. Our global standing on economic liberty is no longer in the top 10 countries. We have the developed economies' highest corporate tax rates. We've had one of the slowest, most jobless economic recoveries in American history, with the lowest labor rate participation rates in over 3 decades (including urban teens and young adults); we have the highest food stamp enrollments in American history. Our public school rankings are mediocre at best. Household income and net income have been down for virtually all of Obama's time in office. We've had some of the most polarized Congresses and President in history after Obama called for a post-partisan America.
Does Obama love America? Almost any wife-beater will insist that he really loves his wife. I imagine that Obama sees himself as the "good Progressive" fighting the good fight against an obstructionist political opposition. But the public lost faith in his vision to the point his 2009 super-majority Congress is now controlled by the GOP. I hold different criteria to the question: if Obama really loves America, wouldn't he want to leave an America better off than he inherited? (Yeah, I know the economy was in free fall after the economic tsunami of 2008, but the recession technically ended by June 2009, with little more than trace amounts of stimulus released, so it's hard to trace that to Obama's policies.) I'm rather referring to the universal wish of parents for their children to have a better future. We now have the largest retirement tsunami in American history, with Baby Boomers expected to live longer in retirement than preceding generations and smaller generations of workers to support them. Many young people face huge debts and limited job prospects and are putting off marriage and families. We seem to be emulating the path of Japan and Europe's debt-laden anemic economies. We face more militarized police and eroding civil liberties. Obama has done little more than to push divisive class warfare politics, which ignores that even if the State confiscated all the assets of the rich would barely account for a one-time down payment on government deficits--and what do you do after that? And instead of negotiating with the Congress, he's added unconstitutional power grabs at the expense of the Constitutional balance of powers. When he leaves office in 2017, what will his successor inherit? A better America? I don't see it.
