This president is revealing himself slowly, proving to be the logical tactician rather than the passionate do-gooder. It's nothing he tried to hide; his speeches may have been full of fire and zeal, yet his measured responses to questions, his thoughtfulness, his logic made it clear that this isn't a man ruled by emotion.
Today's Daily Beast discusses what we're learning about The Obama Doctrine. It is logical. It is measured. And it disappoints me.
I'm not looking for wild-eyed fanaticism that demands every country adopt our form of democracy - it should be pretty damned clear by now that we don't have the corner on functional government.
What I'm disappointed about is that human rights are again taking a backseat to political expediency. I have been immersed in the stories of human rights abuses lately for my show, and I still naively hope that the US should be shaking off its own shortcomings in that area and pushing for the rest of the globe to join it.
We've certainly lost our moral high ground (if we ever had it) but that doesn't mean we have to abandon the principles. It's more important than ever that we examine our own human rights record, cement policy that ensures abuses aren't tolerated, and make human rights an important plank in any platform from which we deal with the rest of the world.
That's not what's happening. I remember hearing the phrase "peace at any cost"...and much as I cannot condone war, bloodshed, violence, I also cannot accept any cost.
We keep posturing and telling the world we're "leaders". How can you lead if you don't stand for something?
Human rights should be non-negotiable issues for any nation which wants to be part of the civilized world. That applies to the US and every other member of the global community.
Is it really possible that in the 21st century we still don't make torture, oppression, murder and human trafficking violations important enough for us to withdraw our friendship?
Are we so embarrassed by our own behavior that we can't?
So sad, America. So sad.
6 comments:
Brilliant post! I agree with everything you've said here as I am immensely disappointed, too, for the same reasons.
Might I suggest that you send this post to the NY Times Op Ed page or some such entity where it will receive the wider audience it deserves? If a fire is to be lit under American complacency and ennui, someone has to light it.
Quick check of NYT rules says "nothing that's appeared in print or online before". So much for that.
But it was a cool idea. Thanks!
I think we would be the worst kind of hypocrits if we withdrew friendship based on the behaviors of other governments. Our nation was built by slaves. Women did not have equal rights until the 1970's. Blacks are still targeted and jailed more than white people.
All those great Jeffersonian ideals were just that - products of the mind.
That said, I am no cynic. I am so happy with Obama's style of governing, with his slow and steady attempts to build consensus in the country that is seriously divided. I think he is a great president.
My roommate is disappointed, too. I think for him what he wanted was an "anti-Bush" president, someone who would come into office and do whatever he wants without considering the reactions and opinions of the wildly diverse citizenship of the U.S. He wanted someone to come in swingin' for the left.
I think Obama is a gift, a blessing for us all. He gives us all the opportunity to breathe deeply, cool off, slow down after the atrocities of the Bush years. We can take this opportunity to slow down, or not.
Thank you for making me think!!
Reya,
I always love hearing your take on things and I see your point. But I still disagree.
You bet we could be called hypocrites...every single thing you said is true.
But I argue that what we have done is evolve - and I'm not saying impose holier than thou penalties on countries that still condone human rights abuses.
I'm saying make that conversation an integral part of all diplomatic conversations - and perhaps even consider creating "carrots" to encourage them to rethink what their governments condone.
Honestly, someone should be doing the same thing to us as I learn more about our way-behind-the-curve attitudes to mothers, families, children.
I just interviewed the author of the new book "The War on Moms" and it's eye-popping.
We love to chant "family values" but the reality is that work comes first and our system reinforces that.
Health care reform is a start - we've got a long way to go.
I'm not dissing the president - I'm hoping he puts what's right ahead of what's politically expedient and I think he has that potential.
Women's suffrage was not politically expedient - but it's proven to be a no-brainer. I think family/work reforms and making human rights a part of diplomatic talks are similarly obvious.
Reya,
I always love hearing your take on things and I see your point. But I still disagree.
You bet we could be called hypocrites...every single thing you said is true.
But I argue that what we have done is evolve - and I'm not saying impose holier than thou penalties on countries that still condone human rights abuses.
I'm saying make that conversation an integral part of all diplomatic conversations - and perhaps even consider creating "carrots" to encourage them to rethink what their governments condone.
Honestly, someone should be doing the same thing to us as I learn more about our way-behind-the-curve attitudes to mothers, families, children.
I just interviewed the author of the new book "The War on Moms" and it's eye-popping.
We love to chant "family values" but the reality is that work comes first and our system reinforces that.
Health care reform is a start - we've got a long way to go.
I'm not dissing the president - I'm hoping he puts what's right ahead of what's politically expedient and I think he has that potential.
Women's suffrage was not politically expedient - but it's proven to be a no-brainer. I think family/work reforms and making human rights a part of diplomatic talks are similarly obvious.
Post a Comment