Friday, October 09, 2009


Here is what Prof. Paul Rahe says:

There is, [Charles Krauthammer] argues, an intimate connection between the foreign policy being pursued by the Obama administration and its domestic policy. The work undertaken in the domestic sphere by what I have called "Obama's wrecking crew" will, he points out, put a stop to the pattern of dynamic economic growth that made it possible for the United States to defeat Japan, contribute decisively to the defeat of Nazi Germany, contain communism, and ultimately defeat and prepare the way for the dismemberment of the Soviet Union.

It will produce economic stagnation of the sort that the Europeans have suffered from for decades, and it will eventuate in a collapse of the American dollar

This, as Krauthammer shows, Obama and his minions understand, and this they want -- the elimination of the foundations for American hegemony and the crippling of this country. They regard the role that we have thus far played in the world as shameful; they are intent on dismembering the alliances that gave us our heft in the world; and they are not only appeasing our sworn enemies but openly, publicly embracing them and their agenda.

This explains the praise showered on President Obama by Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. This is the meaning of our attempt to install a dictator in the Honduras on the model of Castro and Chavez; it is the meaning of our recent betrayal of Poland -- on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of that country.

It explains why Obama initially responded to the open theft of an election in Iran by professing his confidence in the Iranian government and why the State Department recently cut off funds for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center in New Haven, Connecticut, which was collecting information on the imprisonment, torture, and murder of those in Iran who protested against the theft of that election (for the details see this post).

It explains the deliberate insults offered Gordon Brown of Great Britain and Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, which I catalogued here and here. And, of course, this explains the speeches given abroad again and again by President Obama, apologizing for American behavior in the past. and signaling a radical shift in American policy.

It is for this change of posture that our President has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. And if you think that the United States is the principal source of evil in the world, you should vigorously applaud. My bet is that in his acceptance speech Obama will confirm Charles Krauthammer's worst fears and my own.

Now, all of the actions of Obama and his administration listed above are true. That does not mean the interpretation of those actions given by Rahe is true. That being said, can you come up with an alternative explanation that encompasses all of the facts listed above and exonerates the President and his motives?

Maybe it is possible, but it doesn't seem likely to me.


Anonymous said...

It has long seemed to me that Obama's foreign policy derives from the logical conclusion and application of Lenin's "Imperialism." So, I find that Rehe's remarks resonate with me. Obviously, I find it 9the notion of an anti-American American president) quite disturbing. Nevertheless, I think that it is generally a mistake to dwell on the intentions that motivate people's actions, because they are unobservable and unprovable. Obama's opponents need to focus on the likely disastrous outcomes of his policies for the American public. This is where the fight must be fought. To do otherwise would leave legitimate opposition to Obama open to the charge of paranoia.

The Iconic Midwesterner said...

Nevertheless, I think that it is generally a mistake to dwell on the intentions that motivate people's actions, because they are unobservable and unprovable.

You are most likely right here... although it never stopped liberal Supreme Court justices from trying to invalidate legislation based upon their beliefs concerning the lawmakers "motives." They must get a better class of tea leaves.

Still, its in the academic's makeup to attempt to provide a framework for understanding a complex pattern of information.

After all, with a persuasive argument in place it makes it easier to argue, "You think its bad now? You ain't seen nothing yet."