On Obama's Nobel address, pick yer poison

I'm up to my eyeballs in California land-use regulations, so I didn't actually listen to President Obama's speech in Oslo today and just read it quickly. I haven't quite digested it enough to have an opinion, but I see that Joel played off of Justin Paulette's analysis at NoLeftTurns. I think Joel is a bit to quick to dismiss "just war" theory, what with its centuries-old intellectual pedigree and all.

I do think Daniel Drezner's post-speech challenge is worth highlighting, however:

A contest for readers: pour over the speech and look for evidence suggesting Obama favors the following approaches:

• Neoliberal institutionalism
• Social construcivism
• Democratic peace theory
• Feminist IR theory (I think it's there, but you have to squint)
• Human security

It's easy... and fun!!

The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll seems to have noticed the same thing, but offers a more dour take: "What comes first — freedom or peace, interests or values? For those with a taste for textual deconstruction, President Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech offers ample opportunity."

Jules Crittenden, rarely one to play coy, praises the speech with faint damns: "Maybe, like Nixon going to China, it takes an Obama to make the defense of freedom acceptable. I wonder what happened to him in that Situation Room. Hard, inescapable dose of responsibility?"

Even Commentary's Jennifer Rubin found much to like: "But this speech is perhaps the closest he has come to throwing the American antiwar Left under the bus. America will defend itself. There is evil in the world. And yes, we are at war with religious fanatics... It is not at all what the netroot crowd that lifted him to the presidency had in mind. It seems that reality may be dawning, however dimly, on the White House."

Obama is no neoconservative, and just as it was too early to hand him this rather overblown "honor", it's still too early to say whether this administration is waking up to reality. As always, I recommend anything and everything Angelo Codevilla has to say about foreign policy generally, and Obama's foreign policy in particular.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/6912

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

a whoop, a dee, and a doo

Prez gives the speech he must give. Glory be, hallelujah, amen. Unlike what Gibbs says, they do read the polls, and the great midterm year begins in 22 days, and the last I checked, world citizens don't vote. The nutroots are used to riding under the bus. Cripes, they are welded on. Need to get some of those silly middle of the roaders back on the bus and fool them all over again. Is it possible? It's time to get back on the campaign trail full time. Yes we can and Tyler too! whoopdeedoo!

Let's not get carried away

That's the advice of Paul Mirengoff at Power Line:

... according to Politico, some folks (I suspect White House spinmeisters) purport to see the makings of an Obama doctrine: "a notion that foreign policy is a struggle of good and evil, that American exceptionalism has blunted the force of tyranny in the world, and that [the] U.S. military can be a force for good and even harnessed to humanitarian ends."

I'm not sure this qualifies as a doctrine. The first prong is a metaphor, the second is a statement about the past, and third is essentially a truism. At a minimum, I would expect a doctrine to elaborate on the conditions under which U.S. military is a force for good.

Nor is it clear that Obama deeply believes all three of the propositions that make up his "doctrine."

That sounds about right. I'm encouraged by Obama's Nobel rhetoric, but he's got a history that warrants tempered excitement, if not caution.