Politics of Integrity and Politics of Falsehood
It was customary in recent days to draw a comparison between Obama and Netanyahu based on their stated positions and their speeches. But the gap between the two leaders is tremendous.
Barack Obama’s rhetorical skills have already won almost all conceivable interpretations. There is no doubt that he’ll be remembered as one of the greatest political speakers in American history. In terms of presidential speeches over the last decades, only John Kennedy can hold a candle to him.
In Kennedy’s speeches, too, there were repeated stylistic motives. For instance, he paid heed to wording of contradictions. “We choose to go to the moon … and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard …” Or “[a]sk not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
His speeches on complex issues do not try to avoid the political or personal mines awaiting him, but tackle them directly. When Obama goes to AIPAC, he’s not content to clarify his statements, but explains that his remarks were misinterpreted, reiterates his statement regarding the ’67 lines without mincing words and then takes it a step further.
He expresses what all those present think of him, and says that he’s definitely not interested in a confrontation with the community on the eve of elections in America. “I don’t need Rahm to tell me that. I don’t need Axelrod to tell me that,” divulges Obama. This confession is immediate and outrageous and channels a rare political honesty. It’s a dangerous step, and so is Obama’s warning to Israel that “[t]he world is moving too fast.” Yet Obama chooses this because he knows that’s how he buys his fans.
Obama’s Use of Honesty Indicates His Political Sophistication
Obama’s straightforwardness is a formidable weapon, and he insistently makes use of it in nearly every speech. One of his favorite phrases is “let me be clear.” After these words, there comes a formulation designated to elaborate things with absolute clarity, in a meticulous and lucid way.
Openness is a principal political tool for Obama. When he wrote his book, “Dreams from My Father,” a memoir that shaped his back story for the American people, he disclosed a personal anecdote that could have been considered deadly in American politics (single mother? father from Kenya?) and confided that he used drugs in high school and grappled with a “wild period” in college.
He takes his personal candor to his conduct of American domestic affairs. With his rise to power, he admits that America is going to face a very difficult period (a self-fulfilling prophecy) and maybe even the return of a recession — this is a lowering of expectations that will help him.
And certainly, in foreign relations, he declares time and time again the defaults of American policy: “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense.” This frankness is suitable, of course, for private matters as well.
When Obama goes to the annual White House Correspondents’ dinner, he has no problem laughing at the health agenda of his wife Michelle Obama, and saying that at Halloween [sic], “I’d give out bags of candy to the kids, and she’d snatch them right back out of their little hands. (Laughter.) Snatched them. (Laughter.)” The listeners laugh, but Obama is moving here on unsure ground, an inch more from the truth would be over the top for his supporters.
Obama is a politician. Just like any political personality, he’s certainly carefully hiding some truths and lies if necessary. But his extensive use of honesty indicates the ingenuity of his statesmanship and realization that the ability to whitewash, in a world like ours, is limited. Obama’s sincerity is an instrument for transferring a message. It neutralizes resistance, increases trustworthiness and enables him to take the edge off potential crises.
Netanyahu Is Doing Everything to Conceal His Real Positions
And now let’s turn to our prime minister. Two days ago, he was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer a moment after his address to Congress. Over and over again, Blitzer asked him whether he trusts President Obama. Netanyahu opted to talk about cooperation between the countries, about the Iron Dome* and about Obama’s speeches and his commitments to Israel.
This cunning has become a news item. CNN decided to run it all day long under the headline asking “Does Netanyahu Trust Obama? Let’s See the Answer.”** To viewers, the twisting evasion was obvious. It was to the White House as well.
Speaking of statecraft, Netanyahu has done everything, really everything, to reveal his real standpoints as little as possible. When going to the Knesset to give a speech on the permanent arrangement, he orated about “retaining the settlement blocs,” but did not shed light on whether he recognizes the evacuation of the settlements that are not in the blocs. In Congress, he said that “some settlements will end up beyond Israel's borders.” The perpetual expedition to guess at Netanyahu’s inner desires has already become a sort of journalistic specialization. Churchillian or Ben-Gurionist, revisionist or Gaullist — you can’t guess at the prime minister’s genuine positions.
Naturally, you can say that his policymaking is tactical for the purpose of negotiations, but the truth goes deeper. Bibi’s shortage of sincerity is fundamental to him, and it would indeed be trivial to bring up minor cases of his lack of credibility — not to mention his lack of honesty.
Netanyahu Is a Politician of the Mid-20th Century
A superb example of this is the announcement by the prime minister’s office this week, which was the least important notice published this week. It had as its subject Netanyahu’s evening walk with his spouse in Roosevelt Park in Washington — seemingly, a nice short stroll in a park after fatiguing days of work.
Yet Netanyahu could not be satisfied with that. A person like him would not just go for a short walk and breathe in the cool Washington air. He and his wife, as the prime minister’s office informed us, “discussed U.S. history during their walk.” Just like a normal couple. After everything Netanyahu has been through this week — all that his soul desired was a conversation with Sara about Thomas Jefferson and the American libertarians.
Wait, it’s not the end yet. When he reached the Jefferson Memorial “the prime minister recited sections of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,” added the prime minister’s office. A reasonable, normal individual, one who might also know something about American history, has to ask himself: What’s that? What’s this message supposed to mean? Why recite the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
This is such a preposterous picture: The Israeli premier standing in the park, the sunset’s glow shining upon his face, one foot on the stairs by the memorial, proudly reciting to his wife stuff that he “remembers by heart.” I wonder what his bodyguards said to themselves. Even if someone wanted to, it would be impossible to set up a more contrived situation. It’s not clear what’s worse: whether the report is completely false, or that it’s true. Either way, it conveys a profound sensation of dishonesty.
It was habitual over the past days to compare Barack Obama with Benjamin Netanyahu on the grounds of their stated positions: One is a liberal and revolutionary, the other is a conservative and cautious. This is a mistake. At the end of the day, we’re talking about two sworn pragmatists here. But the chasm gaping between them is deeper than their philosophical differences in approaches — it is also an intergenerational chasm. Obama represents a new age of politician. His own personal story is sweeping and versatile, and his veracity is another firearm in his rhetorical arsenal. The iPhone is a part of his tool kit. The teleprompter is his best friend.
Netanyahu is a statesman of the mid-20th century. He launches notifications about the speeches he delivered to his wife on American history in the middle of the night. He says that he’s currently reading a book on the country’s security. He doesn’t surf the Internet, does not SMS and does even not have a computer on his desk …
Netanyahu the leader can publish [press] releases about his “reciting by heart” the American Declaration of Independence and can think that a regular guy will emit an admiring whistle in response. Obama the leader understands that he has to produce a round and open figure in himself in order to establish solidarity and evoke support. Netanyahu still thinks that his body language sells interviews. Obama already understands that the world wants somebody who “will talk clearly.” And over here? They’ll just keep on reciting.
*Translator’s Note: The Iron Dome is a counter-rocket defense system.
**Editor’s Note: This headline, while translated accurately, could not be verified.
Barack Obama’s rhetorical skills have already won almost all conceivable interpretations. There is no doubt that he’ll be remembered as one of the greatest political speakers in American history. In terms of presidential speeches over the last decades, only John Kennedy can hold a candle to him.
In Kennedy’s speeches, too, there were repeated stylistic motives. For instance, he paid heed to wording of contradictions. “We choose to go to the moon … and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard …” Or “[a]sk not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
His speeches on complex issues do not try to avoid the political or personal mines awaiting him, but tackle them directly. When Obama goes to AIPAC, he’s not content to clarify his statements, but explains that his remarks were misinterpreted, reiterates his statement regarding the ’67 lines without mincing words and then takes it a step further.
He expresses what all those present think of him, and says that he’s definitely not interested in a confrontation with the community on the eve of elections in America. “I don’t need Rahm to tell me that. I don’t need Axelrod to tell me that,” divulges Obama. This confession is immediate and outrageous and channels a rare political honesty. It’s a dangerous step, and so is Obama’s warning to Israel that “[t]he world is moving too fast.” Yet Obama chooses this because he knows that’s how he buys his fans.
Obama’s Use of Honesty Indicates His Political Sophistication
Obama’s straightforwardness is a formidable weapon, and he insistently makes use of it in nearly every speech. One of his favorite phrases is “let me be clear.” After these words, there comes a formulation designated to elaborate things with absolute clarity, in a meticulous and lucid way.
Openness is a principal political tool for Obama. When he wrote his book, “Dreams from My Father,” a memoir that shaped his back story for the American people, he disclosed a personal anecdote that could have been considered deadly in American politics (single mother? father from Kenya?) and confided that he used drugs in high school and grappled with a “wild period” in college.
He takes his personal candor to his conduct of American domestic affairs. With his rise to power, he admits that America is going to face a very difficult period (a self-fulfilling prophecy) and maybe even the return of a recession — this is a lowering of expectations that will help him.
And certainly, in foreign relations, he declares time and time again the defaults of American policy: “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind. Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our own interests at their expense.” This frankness is suitable, of course, for private matters as well.
When Obama goes to the annual White House Correspondents’ dinner, he has no problem laughing at the health agenda of his wife Michelle Obama, and saying that at Halloween [sic], “I’d give out bags of candy to the kids, and she’d snatch them right back out of their little hands. (Laughter.) Snatched them. (Laughter.)” The listeners laugh, but Obama is moving here on unsure ground, an inch more from the truth would be over the top for his supporters.
Obama is a politician. Just like any political personality, he’s certainly carefully hiding some truths and lies if necessary. But his extensive use of honesty indicates the ingenuity of his statesmanship and realization that the ability to whitewash, in a world like ours, is limited. Obama’s sincerity is an instrument for transferring a message. It neutralizes resistance, increases trustworthiness and enables him to take the edge off potential crises.
Netanyahu Is Doing Everything to Conceal His Real Positions
And now let’s turn to our prime minister. Two days ago, he was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer a moment after his address to Congress. Over and over again, Blitzer asked him whether he trusts President Obama. Netanyahu opted to talk about cooperation between the countries, about the Iron Dome* and about Obama’s speeches and his commitments to Israel.
This cunning has become a news item. CNN decided to run it all day long under the headline asking “Does Netanyahu Trust Obama? Let’s See the Answer.”** To viewers, the twisting evasion was obvious. It was to the White House as well.
Speaking of statecraft, Netanyahu has done everything, really everything, to reveal his real standpoints as little as possible. When going to the Knesset to give a speech on the permanent arrangement, he orated about “retaining the settlement blocs,” but did not shed light on whether he recognizes the evacuation of the settlements that are not in the blocs. In Congress, he said that “some settlements will end up beyond Israel's borders.” The perpetual expedition to guess at Netanyahu’s inner desires has already become a sort of journalistic specialization. Churchillian or Ben-Gurionist, revisionist or Gaullist — you can’t guess at the prime minister’s genuine positions.
Naturally, you can say that his policymaking is tactical for the purpose of negotiations, but the truth goes deeper. Bibi’s shortage of sincerity is fundamental to him, and it would indeed be trivial to bring up minor cases of his lack of credibility — not to mention his lack of honesty.
Netanyahu Is a Politician of the Mid-20th Century
A superb example of this is the announcement by the prime minister’s office this week, which was the least important notice published this week. It had as its subject Netanyahu’s evening walk with his spouse in Roosevelt Park in Washington — seemingly, a nice short stroll in a park after fatiguing days of work.
Yet Netanyahu could not be satisfied with that. A person like him would not just go for a short walk and breathe in the cool Washington air. He and his wife, as the prime minister’s office informed us, “discussed U.S. history during their walk.” Just like a normal couple. After everything Netanyahu has been through this week — all that his soul desired was a conversation with Sara about Thomas Jefferson and the American libertarians.
Wait, it’s not the end yet. When he reached the Jefferson Memorial “the prime minister recited sections of the U.S. Declaration of Independence,” added the prime minister’s office. A reasonable, normal individual, one who might also know something about American history, has to ask himself: What’s that? What’s this message supposed to mean? Why recite the U.S. Declaration of Independence?
This is such a preposterous picture: The Israeli premier standing in the park, the sunset’s glow shining upon his face, one foot on the stairs by the memorial, proudly reciting to his wife stuff that he “remembers by heart.” I wonder what his bodyguards said to themselves. Even if someone wanted to, it would be impossible to set up a more contrived situation. It’s not clear what’s worse: whether the report is completely false, or that it’s true. Either way, it conveys a profound sensation of dishonesty.
It was habitual over the past days to compare Barack Obama with Benjamin Netanyahu on the grounds of their stated positions: One is a liberal and revolutionary, the other is a conservative and cautious. This is a mistake. At the end of the day, we’re talking about two sworn pragmatists here. But the chasm gaping between them is deeper than their philosophical differences in approaches — it is also an intergenerational chasm. Obama represents a new age of politician. His own personal story is sweeping and versatile, and his veracity is another firearm in his rhetorical arsenal. The iPhone is a part of his tool kit. The teleprompter is his best friend.
Netanyahu is a statesman of the mid-20th century. He launches notifications about the speeches he delivered to his wife on American history in the middle of the night. He says that he’s currently reading a book on the country’s security. He doesn’t surf the Internet, does not SMS and does even not have a computer on his desk …
Netanyahu the leader can publish [press] releases about his “reciting by heart” the American Declaration of Independence and can think that a regular guy will emit an admiring whistle in response. Obama the leader understands that he has to produce a round and open figure in himself in order to establish solidarity and evoke support. Netanyahu still thinks that his body language sells interviews. Obama already understands that the world wants somebody who “will talk clearly.” And over here? They’ll just keep on reciting.
*Translator’s Note: The Iron Dome is a counter-rocket defense system.
**Editor’s Note: This headline, while translated accurately, could not be verified.