What Obama’s words tell us
WASHINGTON — One of the things that sets Barack Obama apart from most politicians is how much can be learned from listening to his speeches.
The president is sometimes criticized for the volume of his public appearances and, in truth, he is out there orating a lot.
But we learned in the course of his campaign—reinforced in this first year of his term—that it’s a mistake to think of these talks as routine. They have no equal in providing insights into the way his mind works and the context that guides his decisions.
The striking thing is the consistency with which he places concrete actions into the broadest historical or philosophical setting, and how much he is influenced in his decision-making by the reach of his intellectual exercise.
This first struck me during the crisis in the primaries when the racially provocative views of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, came to public attention. In his Philadelphia address, Obama took the first steps to separate himself from Wright, but he also somehow managed in the pressure of a hard-fought campaign to compose what is likely to be seen as the most significant essay on race delivered by any public figure since the days of Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr.
I had a similar reaction when reading the speeches Obama delivered during the past two weeks at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, announcing his plans for Afghanistan, and in Oslo, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.
His immediate task at West Point was to announce the conclusions of his agonizingly long review of Afghan strategy and to explain his doubly controversial decision to send in 30,000 more U.S. troops but start pulling them out by July 2011.
Beginning to answer all the questions that had been raised by the leaks of internal debates during the previous three months would have been enough of a challenge in itself. But Obama insisted on placing his decision in its historical context—as a response to the instigators of the 9/11 attacks later overtaken by the war in Iraq—and then in its strategic context, as a central piece in the unfinished struggle to stabilize the vital Pakistan-Afghanistan region.
Seeing it in that light, it was perfectly clear why Obama had decided to defy the prevailing wishes of his own party and raise the stakes.
In Oslo, the obvious challenge was to explain why a president leading a nation engaged in two wars should be singled out for the peace prize. Rather than avoiding the issue, or burying it in cliches, Obama took it head-on, beginning in the first minute of his speech and devoting half the text to that question.
He focused on the meaning in today’s world of the ancient concept of “the just war,” and found himself arguing that, contrary to the wishes of those who awarded him this prize, “We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
Afghanistan is such a case, he said, as was the first Gulf War to repulse Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. But he made no such claim for the war in Iraq that George W. Bush launched, and he insisted that the many moral compromises made by the previous administration in the war on terror were unjustified, as well.
This was not a speech tailored to his immediate audience. He even dared to argue directly with the ghost of Dr. King, asserting that “a nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies.” But it gave listeners a clear sense of where and why Obama would draw the line on using or threatening force in international bargaining. And it explained as well what had seemed the sometimes contradictory invocation of strong sanctions against Iran and the readiness to invite negotiations with Tehran.
As before, you can learn a lot from listening to this man.
David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at davidbroder@washpost.com.
Dec 16, 2009 at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yeah the money used for pork must just fall out of the sky, What planet do you live on, pork is a waste of our money otherwise why would obama say "NO MORE PORK"? the prez of DO NOTHING .... he may have fooled you. panamared: your still saying nothing ... you must be a Dem.
Dec 16, 2009 at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Earmarks do not add any more to the deficit, or debt, the money that is used for them is already appropriated. All an earmark does is direct the money to a certain place/project/idea, etc. Congressional members must post what earmarks they ask for on their websites, and sign a declaration that they will not directly benefit monetarily from the earmark. In 2005, for example, there were 13,492 earmarks appropriated, worth, $18,944,327,000. In 2008, 11,523, worth $16,641,692,000.
Dec 16, 2009 at 1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Actually justaguy, my lips don't move when I type. Do you understand signing the Bill is necessary to keep the Federal Government operating? How will millions of Americans be impacted if vital governments services are halted due to lack of funding? If I didn't read what's in the Bill why would I have bothered including a link with that very information? Thad Cochran, a Republican from Mississippi, is responsible for over $2 billion dollars worth of earmarks in 2010 and thats ONLY appropriations in the area of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. Go to his web site and you'll find 11 other headings for which he has appropriated funding. I'm not trying to pick on him since there are Senators on both sides who have earmarked probably even larger amounts. I'm not justifying earmarks but the President has little control over their inclusion regardless of his or her best intentions or "promises". Congress, on the other hand, has total control over earmarks. Grow some gonads justaguy and admit the Republicans are as much to blame as anyone or continue to bury your head in the sand and blame Obama and the Democrats for all your ills.
Dec 15, 2009 at 10:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
panamared: your mouth moves alot but you say nothing. YES i'm blaming obama, he knows it's loaded with pork "one of the things he said he wouldn't do" but now that he's the prez why should he keep his word, he surely can't run a country. "By signing a Bill with lots of important stuff and some less important stuff" Did you read some of the "less important stuff" going into this bill? NO i didn't think so, what a joke. He doesn't have to sign the bill "loaded with pork" but he will, so when it comes down to it it doesn't matter who writes it .... get the picture? if not you best find that fifth grader again ... you have a nice day.
Dec 15, 2009 at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sure seems to me you're blaming Obama for earmarks in the latest budget bill, justaguy. You surely don't mention any of the Congressional bodies that put the PORK in the Bill in the first place. Oh, now I see. By signing a Bill with lots of important stuff and some less important stuff its all Obama's fault. Typical. After all, "NO MORE PORK" I think his words were?" Let me guess, you're a Republican. Every person running for President in the past 15 years has talked about the evils of PORK. So why do these Bills get signed? I decided to ask a fifth grader and he said, "Congress should be accountable for what is included in both legislative and spending Bills. Open your eyes justaguy, where did I say who put the PORK in the Bill? Oddly enough putting PORK in Bills is one of the few bi-partisan efforts taking place in Washington.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group, listed some of the earmarks being proposed by members on both side of the aisle. Read more of the group's analysis by clicking on this link; http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?ca....
-
Gee vatoloco, I don't think Feingold is too worried about getting re-elected. He is one of the few members of Congress that does not tow the party line.
Dec 14, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Also if you read what I wrote it doesn't say either the Dems or the Rep brought in the pork, i'm sure they both have their hands in it. It still comes down to obama signing his name and as I said he already said he will sign it. I don't even think a fifth grader can help you, I'm guessing your a Dem?
Dec 14, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
panamared: Open your eyes, where did I say he wrote the bill? He signs it and he said he will, maybe you need to ask a fifth grader. Open your mouth too soon and you look like a moron and you did a good job of it.
Dec 14, 2009 at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Funny you didn't mention the fact that one of our very own Democrat Senators voted against the Bill for the very reason you mentioned; the volume of PORK."
Funny Panama, because Feingold has to appear more fiscally responsible and conservative because he is up for re-election. Who are you crapping?
Dec 14, 2009 at 2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Are you kidding me Di Griz! We should leave it to Pakistan and Afghanistan to "stabilize" the region where a majority of the inhabitants are plotting and training on ways to inflict damage to the United States? I'm sure if Mexico was a threat to China they would believe it to be our responsibility to defeat that threat FOR them.
-
Actually justaguy, the President does not write Bills. Congress (the House and Senate) write Bills then submit them to the President. Ask a Fifth grader, they could probably explain the process to you. Funny you didn't mention the fact that one of our very own Democrat Senators voted against the Bill for the very reason you mentioned; the volume of PORK.
Dec 14, 2009 at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
obama did give himself a firm B+ for his first year in office, I wish I could have given myself grades while in school, I would have lied too :) .... On the other hand I hear we might have another bill in out pocket at a cost of 1.1 trillion dollars and loaded with pork .... yeah obama gave a good speech ... while running for Pres didn't he ... "NO MORE PORK" I think his words were?
Dec 13, 2009 at 11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz-...Yes....and we also learn how many times that a president can refer to himself in a speech.
Dec 13, 2009 at 3:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
After reading this I had to double check if this was written by Chris Mathews or David Broder...I guess it doesn't matter, they pretty much sound the same nowadays.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.