When it comes to foreign affairs, Barack Obama may be learning that a policy of apologizing profusely, bowing low and carry a small stick doesn’t get you as far as realpolitik. In fact, this victory in personal growth may be the only thing he could possibly take away from his recent trip to Asia, as other victories proved elusive. As Gabor Steingart of Der Spiegel wrote:

In Tokyo, the new center-left government . . . pulled out of its participation in a mission which saw the Japanese navy refueling US warships in the Indian Ocean as part of the Afghanistan campaign. In Beijing, Obama failed to achieve any important concessions whatsoever. There will be no binding commitments from China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A revaluation of the Chinese currency, which is kept artificially weak, has been postponed. Sanctions against Iran? Not a chance. Nuclear disarmament? Not an issue for the Chinese.

The White House did not even stand up for itself when it came to the question of human rights in China.

. . . Obama's new foreign policy has also been relatively unsuccessful elsewhere, with even friends like Israel leaving him high and dry.

This seemingly naïve approach to foreign policy has caused some to label the Obama presidency Jimmy Carter redux. Whatever you call it, though, we have to ask: Is such behavior more a function of naïveté or arrogance?

For sure, liberals are famous (infamous?) for the flowers-in-your-hair approach to problems; they are the ones who will try to reason a two-year-old out of bad behavior — both those who are two chronologically and those who are so just morally, such as Saddam Hussein. And a good example is a conversation I had many years ago with a very liberal young woman. I explained to her that there were some people — they’re called bullies — with whom you just can’t reason. You can be fair and friendly and they’ll smile at you — and then stick a knife in your back when you turn around. Such people see virtue as weakness. Unfortunately, liberals see wisdom as foolishness, so the young lady would have none of it. I don’t think she wanted to know the truth.

Yet, before you credit liberals for being irrepressible Pollyannas, note that they don’t apply the aforementioned philosophy to conservatives and assume that the latter just need some tender loving care and understanding. Instead, this is where their faith in the reasonableness of their fellow man goes out the window (or maybe, deep down, they know that reasonableness precludes a belief in liberalism). So we have to ask: Is Obama’s approach due to faith in his fellow man? Or is the man he really has faith in the one in the mirror?

That is to say, there is a sort of arrogance evident here. Obama sailed into office on media-greased skids, driven by the winds of adoring crowds. But there’s a reason why we hear that old advice, “Don’t believe your own press clippings.” People may build you up and invest you with demigod-like qualities — casting you as, let’s say, a transformative agent of hope and change — simply because they need hope. But it may not mean you’re so great but that the people are so needy.

Moreover, however deep half our nation’s love affair with Obama was, we can be sure it ran far deeper than the feelings other peoples — and most particularly, other leaders — had for him. Like it or not, nations don’t have friends; they have interests. A wise person knows this, understanding that when a foreign leader doesn’t fit the bully mold, there’s a good chance he is in the least like a shyster lawyer (not coincidentally, our halls of government are infested with lawyers). Sure, diplomacy is necessary when dealing with other heads of state, and you can even do the G.W. Bush, buddy-buddy, good ol’ boy shtick. But you’d better understand this: Foreign leaders will be like a member of a different party, only, they’re from a different country and culture to boot. They are looking to advance themselves and their nation, and they’ll happily let you twist in the wind to serve that end.

So what explains Obama? In truth, it is both naïveté and arrogance, as he is naïve enough to believe his own press clippings and have a messianic self-image. Thomas Sowell noted this shortly before the 2008 election, saying that Obama is all “ego and mouth” and writing:

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else.

Anyone who has actually had to take responsibility for consequences by running any kind of enterprise — whether economic or academic, or even just managing a sports team — is likely at some point to be chastened by either the setbacks brought on by his own mistakes or by seeing his successes followed by negative consequences that he never anticipated.

The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges — very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

There is another important point to be made here. Blind faith in the self is a function of blindness to the self, of self-knowledge so wanting that you’re blithely unaware of your own sins and frailties. It’s the stuff of which god complexes are made.

This inability (or unwillingness) to understand your own human nature reflects, and perhaps leads to, a dim understanding of human nature in general. And this is why leftists are notoriously poor at reading others. As to this, I think of how the 1980s Soviets were actually worried that the U.S. might launch a nuclear first strike against their nation. I think of former congressman Patsy Schroeder, who, after a Rush Limbaugh spoof in which he said he would send his mother a new can opener so she could eat her dog food (mocking the Democrats’ notion that the elderly would suffer privation under a Republican Congress), took it seriously and stated on the House floor that it revealed the true nature of conservatives. Or, in the same vein, I think of a debate I got into with some feminists after an education conference. Wanting to be rid of me, they offered to send me some literature and asked for my address. I agreed but quipped that I hoped they wouldn’t send a hit squad to my house. Yup, you guessed it; they took that seriously and insisted they didn’t do such things. Now, what does this behavior tell you about these leftists’ ability to discern reality? What it tells you is why they’re leftists.

It also tells you why it’s dangerous to have leftists at the helm of your nation. Steingart in Der Spiegel theorizes that Obama’s foreign policy failures and fear of Carter comparisons may inspire him to take a tougher stance abroad. But of what good is toughness without sound judgment?

Of course, I’m sure Obama would get an obvious joke, but the best of foreign demagogues aren’t obvious — and they aren’t joking around. And to negotiate this world we’ll need a little more than apologies, bows, ego and mouth.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew said:

	Jimmy Carter dedux? I never thought I'd say this... Obama leaves me pining for the "good old days" of Jimmy Carter! F.D.R. was a social conservative and Woodrow Wilson was firmly grounded in reality. L.B.J. was kind and gracious. I guess it's just a matter of perspective.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +0

DDW said:

	The sooner we get Obama out, the better.
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +0

Eddington said:

And what is your point? I think JBS.org would better serve its cause if it promoted authors who accept the position our president John F. McManus highlights in Overview of America. We are not fighting a left - right battle. We are fighting a oligarchy bent on total government. (A financial oligarchy actually that we are being forced to put our children and grandchildren in debt to) Obama is just as much as a front man as was George Bush. This article does nothing to direct people in the direction of addressing the correct problem. It belongs over at war mongering outlets like Rush Limbaugh and World Net Daily. Robert Welch is spinning in his grave.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 24, 2009
Votes: +0

unowho said:

	Worried The high point of this piece for me, was learning that Duke talked with a young woman. Keep it up champ!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2009
Votes: +0