The Naive Foreign Policy Of Senator Obama

During the first Presidential Debate of the 2008 race, Senator Obama's naivety was on display for the whole world to see. No doubt his fans in Old Europe, and those ensconced in the Ivory Tower on the Hudson River, aka the United Nations, his naive nuance was a welcome change. At what cost? Will the US. vote for self-neutering? Will the US. put its own self interest aside in favor of gaining favor from an largely irrelevant Europe and her socialist ideals? Senator Obama is trying to take the United States out of the safe bosom of Capitalism and replace it with the disincentive policies of Socialism with a final push of globalization. One World Government. This is in keeping with his campaign, and his Senate sponsorship of the 'Global Poverty Act'. The GPA, commits the US. to .07% of our GDP, or $850 billion dollars to be given to the United Nations to fight world hunger. This amount is over and above our current foreign aid commitments, and does not address poverty in the United States. It also commits the US. to the criminal division of the World Court. Usurping our own Supreme Court.

For the first time, America would have a president who believes that his country (1) was born in original sin; (2) is a force of evil on the world stage; and (3) is now obliged to atone for its malevolence.

Mr. Obama would implement a foreign policy that is no longer based on America's concrete interests, but rather on some vague notion of what pleases the "world." As Mr. Obama explained to us during the debate:

"It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism. And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America's standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago...

But because of some of the mistakes that have been made-and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security-because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill...
And part of what we need to do, what the next president has to do-and this is part of our judgment, this is part of how we're going to keep America safe-is to send a message to the world that we are going to invest in issues like education, we are going to invest in issues that relate to how ordinary people are able to live out their dreams."

The "America has to restore its standing" meme is a major component of contemporary anti-American Leftist ideology. While living in Europe in the early part of this decade, I heard Leftists lament countless times that the United States somehow owes it to the world to prove that it is nice, that the bad old days of capitalist exploitation are over.

The domestic equivalent of this neo-Marxist gibberish is the shibboleth of "root causes." Want to fight crime? Want to put criminals in jail? Sorry, society is responsible because we oppressed them. Same idea in foreign affairs. Want to fight terrorism? Sorry. America is responsible because we oppressed them. They are freedom fighters, as we know in our hearts.
Let us assume that Phase One of the Obama foreign policy dream is implemented: we pull out of Iraq, cease interrogation of terrorist suspects, talk ad nauseam with our most implacable enemies, recognize the UN as a binding source of law, boost foreign aid to unprecedented levels, convict the perpetrators of American "torture" and "war crimes," and sign all the Kyoto treaties one could imagine.

Wait a minute -- those evil American corporations still exploit the Third World. So it turns out that we are not a shining beacon after all. Okay, let's put an end to that. Wait -- we use more oil per person than any other country. Okay, let's stop that. Wait -- we still have some restrictions on immigration, etc.

There is only one possible way that Mr. Obama could carry out his vision: by a systematic policy of appeasement and groveling. How else can one convince the "world" that we are worthy of its love?