John Bolton’s farcical “realism”

Republicans have always laid claim to some sort of realism in foreign policy. Meet force with force, they say, because that’s the only way to deal with bullies. Usually Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler is mentioned, as well as John Kennedy’s disastrous meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev the year before the Cuban Missile Crisis. For reference take a look at John Bolton’s June 5 opinion in the LA Times.

The public has bought in to Republican “realism”. John McCain, for example, believes he would make a better commander in chief than Barack Obama and polls exist to show that the public agrees. Democrats, like Obama and John Kerry before him, are easily stereotyped by media pundits as wishy-washy pansies who think we can all just get along.

Nowhere has this depiction of Republicans and Democrats been made more clearly, or unfairly, than in John Bolton’s most recent opinion, again in the LA Times. Bolton not only claims that Barack Obama’s vision of the world is “radical”, “naive”, and “dangerous”, but also that Obama’s so far from the mainstream that he’s “on another planet”.

The crux of Bolton’s argument comes towards the middle of the article in a discussion of the Berlin Wall:

But beyond the incoherence [of Obama's foreign policy], there is a deeper problem, namely that “walls” exist not simply because of a lack of understanding about who is on the other side but because there are true differences in values and interests that lead to human conflict. The Berlin Wall itself was not built because of a failure of communication but because of the implacable hostility of communism toward freedom. The wall was a reflection of that reality, not an unfortunate mistake.

The distinction Bolton seems to be making is between realism and idealism. But Bolton, perhaps unknowingly, aligns himself with the idealist position. How so? Realism holds that conflict in international relations is owed to either the quest for power or the quest for security. For a realist, then, the Berlin Wall was either the consequence of two states struggling for power (irrespective of ideology), or of a failure of communication that spiraled out of control into the infamous security dilemma (often recognizable as an arms race or, in this case, as the building and militarizing of the Berlin Wall). But Bolton is not a realist.

Bolton’s position is deceptively idealist. He sees the Berlin Wall, and no doubt the Cold War, as a confrontation between two ideologies: communism and liberalism (although Bolton prefers the term freedom, which isn’t associated with effete senators from Massachusetts). He even anthropomorphizes communism, assigning it qualities like “hostility” and perhaps ‘evil’. In Bolton’s vision of the world ideas drive interests, not the other way around.

That said, let’s drop the semantics game and address the more practical implications of Bolton’s so-called “realism”. Should we agree with him that conflict between countries is best described as a titanic collision of competing and intractable ideologies, or might it be more realistic to acknowledge that cooperation is possible on the basis of shared interests? Is the Homo sapiens species really so different in France or Germany or Iraq or Iran that there isn’t any profit in confronting some challenges together? Bolton facetiously claims that Obama’s from another planet, but I’m more inclined to believe that Bolton’s from another planet. His “realism” is a farce; it can’t be realism if it has little or no basis in reality.

American Idealism

As our token idealist, I would like to draw your attention to a nice editorial in Saturday’s New York Times by Susan Neiman. She talks about a very old and heavily discussed trans-Atlantic divide. She describes old Europe’s world-weariness and how it has caused resistance to Obama’s superstar, savior image. Europeans are uncomfortable with Obama’s apparent blind optimism.

Midway through the piece Neiman makes a distinction between optimism and idealism. She defines the distinction at the end: optimists refuse to acknowledge reality; idealists remind us that it isn’t fixed. Neiman argues that Obama’s speech was not mere optimism but instead, “he was using the past to remind us all that we need not resign ourselves to the way things are now.” What makes America great, according to Obama, is our loyalty is less tied to the tribes of our birth. Instead, it is tied to a particular idea: we are not bound to our allotted station in the natural ordering. We are the true authors of our own lives.

At the end of the piece Neiman hopes that Europeans will see the difference between optimism and the American idealism Obama has come to embody. This idealism reminded me of the idealism of two great Europeans of the past. In his review of Democracy in America John Stuart Mill writes,

By Democracy, M. de Tocqueville does not, in general, mean any particular form of government. He can conceive a Democracy under an absolute monarch…. By democracy M. de Tocqueville understands equality of conditions, the absence of all aristocracy, whether constituted by political privileges, or by superiority in individual importance and social power. It is towards Democracy in this sense, towards equality between man and man, that he conceives society to be irresistibly traveling.

Obama brings campaign to Western Wall

Is that really an Obama campaign banner in front of the Western Wall? (And it’s in Hebrew?)

Before Obama arrived at the Western Wall today in Jerusalem

Consider that just earlier today, in a column at The Huffington Post, Obama supporter and Florida Democrat Robert Wexler called McCain’s criticism of Obama’s comments at Yad Vashem “shameful” and “unconscionable”. I’d like to agree with Wexler that it’s inappropriate to use “Senator Obama’s somber visit to Israel’s Holocaust Museum Yad Vashem as a backdrop to score cheap political points”, but it’s difficult to do so when Obama uses a separate visit to Judaism’s holiest site the Western Wall as a campaign photo op.

Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. It certainly doesn’t belong at Yad Vashem or the Western Wall. Apparently the Obama and McCain campaigns just don’t care.

UPDATE 7/24:

It’s been reported that the Obama banners were distributed by the campaign itself. And Jerusalem Police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld says this is not typical practice for political visits to the Western Wall.

If Barack Obama were President…

We’d get along with everyone, or so has been the storyline of his recent tour of the Middle East and Western Europe. At the halfway point of his trip, Obama’s met with literally everyone: Hamid Karzai, Nouri al-Maliki, Jalal Talabani, King Abdullah, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Mahmoud Abbas, Shimon Peres, Ehud Olmert, plus several governors, mayors, and other dignitaries. His reception has been overwhelming friendly, complete with smiling photos ops, glowing praise, and fawning media coverage.

Obama with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani earlier this week.

And that doesn’t even include the Western European portion of the trip, where Obama is expected to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The New York Times reports the Germans are expecting the crowd at Obama’s public Berlin address to be as high as ONE MILLION (!). What, one million protesters (like when Bush visits)? No — more likely one million adoring fans, German no less.

Obama’s media team has been careful to remind reporters that there’s only one president, that this trip is not a policy-making trip, but come on, what kind of US senator gets one million Germans to turn out for a glorified campaign speech? Maybe one who’s getting a little ahead of himself? Does Obama mean to suggest that as President he’d enjoy this kind of international support?

Or maybe we’re all to blame — perhaps we’ve bought in so easily to Obama’s charm that it’s blinded us to the fact that he’s a politician who does stupid things domestically (supporting the farm bill, destroying campaign finance) and is likely to do them abroad given the chance. The New York Times even reports that comedians are struggling to find funny Obama material. Apparently he’s too pure. Huh?

It’s easy for leaders like al-Maliki and Karzai to cozy up to Obama when he’s a media-managed starlet, but once he’s been in office for a time and had to make hard decisions, he probably won’t draw a million Germans to hear him speak. Or if he does, they’ll be there to protest his decision to stay in Iraq for another year or his unrelenting support for American farm subsidies that impoverish the third world. As David Aaronovitch, columnist for the Times of London, tellingly observes, eventually we will all hate Obama.