Benchmarks: The Union and the Rest of the World
Published in Le Devoir
(Canada) on 26 January 2012
by Claude Lévesque (link to original)
(Canada) on 26 January 2012
by Claude Lévesque (link to original)
Translated from
by Rhianna White.
Edited by Tom Proctor.
On Tuesday, Barack Obama spoke very little of foreign policy in his State of the Union address. The context has much to do with this: Electoral campaigns rarely being about foreign countries and almost always being about questions of bread and butter.
Bill “Its the economy, stupid!” Clinton understood this, as did George W. Bush. The two appealed to voters in addressing their portfolios, even though events later forced them to dedicate a good part of their energy to foreign politics.
In 2008, Barack Obama spoke on the economy because his fellow citizens were starting to suffer, even though the crisis hadn’t truly blown up in his face until after the elections. Contrary to what happened to his predecessors, no international event compelled him to divert his attention away from the "in-house" practical issues. Gloom continues to characterize the economy, and it’s coming out strongly in the current electoral speech.
The American president still started his speech on Tuesday with Iraq, Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. As he was calling for an end (real or wished-for) to unpopular conflicts, one could say that it was good for the election battle, as were gestures like saluting the bravery of the U.S. military. Evidently, he hadn’t spoken on the violence which destroyed the two countries from which America is retreating, or on the relationship between Washington, Kabul and the Afghan insurgents who have open marriages and love affairs as if they were characters in Feydeau [French playwright known for his farces].
Barack Obama skillfully made the connection between national security and the economy, affirming that the best way to guarantee the first consists of relaunching the second as some basis for stabilization.
He raised his tone in regard to China, criticizing them for tolerating the piracy of American products and for engaging in unfair practices in business matters. "Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -- America will always win," he said with the assurance of a quarterback as the Super Bowl approaches.
Some have made a connection with a speech from 1952, in which Dwight D. Eisenhower underlined the importance of the economic foundation and fiscal power of the United States. Without going as far back, one can see in Tuesday’s speech that Obama's unfamiliar segment reflects what we have previously said about his foreign policy.
It was inevitable that the president would tackle the Iranian nuclear issue succinctly (to say that “all options remain on the table”) and the relationship with Israel (to say that it is “ironclad”).
Barack Obama welcomed the Arab Spring with a little more emphasis, recalling that the United States will advocate their values and will defend their interests in the concerned region with a mix of resignation and modesty, while admitting that the future appears uncertain. Like a number of his fellow citizens, the president understood that the United States has neither the capacity nor the prestige necessary to dictate their commands to everyone on Earth.
In fact, perhaps he didn’t need to go on for very long on global issues, given that the weak ideas will inspire the enemy camp.
Bill “Its the economy, stupid!” Clinton understood this, as did George W. Bush. The two appealed to voters in addressing their portfolios, even though events later forced them to dedicate a good part of their energy to foreign politics.
In 2008, Barack Obama spoke on the economy because his fellow citizens were starting to suffer, even though the crisis hadn’t truly blown up in his face until after the elections. Contrary to what happened to his predecessors, no international event compelled him to divert his attention away from the "in-house" practical issues. Gloom continues to characterize the economy, and it’s coming out strongly in the current electoral speech.
The American president still started his speech on Tuesday with Iraq, Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. As he was calling for an end (real or wished-for) to unpopular conflicts, one could say that it was good for the election battle, as were gestures like saluting the bravery of the U.S. military. Evidently, he hadn’t spoken on the violence which destroyed the two countries from which America is retreating, or on the relationship between Washington, Kabul and the Afghan insurgents who have open marriages and love affairs as if they were characters in Feydeau [French playwright known for his farces].
Barack Obama skillfully made the connection between national security and the economy, affirming that the best way to guarantee the first consists of relaunching the second as some basis for stabilization.
He raised his tone in regard to China, criticizing them for tolerating the piracy of American products and for engaging in unfair practices in business matters. "Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you -- America will always win," he said with the assurance of a quarterback as the Super Bowl approaches.
Some have made a connection with a speech from 1952, in which Dwight D. Eisenhower underlined the importance of the economic foundation and fiscal power of the United States. Without going as far back, one can see in Tuesday’s speech that Obama's unfamiliar segment reflects what we have previously said about his foreign policy.
It was inevitable that the president would tackle the Iranian nuclear issue succinctly (to say that “all options remain on the table”) and the relationship with Israel (to say that it is “ironclad”).
Barack Obama welcomed the Arab Spring with a little more emphasis, recalling that the United States will advocate their values and will defend their interests in the concerned region with a mix of resignation and modesty, while admitting that the future appears uncertain. Like a number of his fellow citizens, the president understood that the United States has neither the capacity nor the prestige necessary to dictate their commands to everyone on Earth.
In fact, perhaps he didn’t need to go on for very long on global issues, given that the weak ideas will inspire the enemy camp.