A Counterintuitive Defense

Leon Wieseltier has been one of Obama’s more interesting critics, and his latest rumination (as well as his first) is well worth reading. Wieseltier’s reaction of “How dare he?” to Obama’s assertion that there is no such thing as false hope struck me as particularly poignant.

But then, the piece also contains this:

What is the role of a conciliator in an unconciliating world? You might think that in such conditions he is even more of an historical necessity-but why would you think that all that stands between the world and peace is one man? George W. Bush was not single-handedly responsible for getting us into our strategic mess and Barack Obama will not be single-handedly responsible for getting us out of it. There are autonomous countries and cultures out there. The turbulence that I have described is not caused by misunderstandings. It is caused by the interests of powers and the beliefs of peoples. Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, Pyongyang, Islamabad, Gaza City, Khartoum, Caracas-does Obama really believe that he has something to propose to these ruthless regimes that they have not already considered? Does he plan to move them, to organize them, to show them change they can believe in? With what trick of empathy, what euphoria, does he hope to join the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds in Iraq? Yes, he made a “muscular” speech in Chicago last spring; but I have been pondering his remarks about foreign policy in the ensuing campaign and I do not detect the hardness I seek, the disabused tone that the present world warrants.

The point is well taken, but it feels as though Wieseltier is operating under the assumption that Obama’s supporters are supporting him because (or largely because) they believe his “conciliator in an unconciliating world” approach will make them more secure. If this assumption were correct, I could sympathize with Wieseltier for taking exception with the notion, even if I might not take exception myself. But I don’t think it is. As far as I can tell, the majority of Obama supporters don’t really care about American security, or at least they rank it low enough on their list of priorities as to make its impact on their choice for president negligible. So they can hardly be naively placing their hopes for peace on the lanky shoulders of one man.

And though I’m sure Wieseltier would sputter in outrage were I ever so fortunate as to have him stumble across this statement, I think there is a great deal of wisdom in that lack of concern. There are more important things in the world than survival and security. We have had eight years to test the mettle of a president who finds in war and conflict the very teleology of his administration, and the result has been not only disaster but dishonor. So embracing, via election, a perspective that sees security and the threat of international conflict as merely one priority among many strikes me as a healthy recalibration for the country to engage in. Wieseltier himself states that different circumstances call for different approaches to power, and it is precisely because of the coming upheavals that we need a president who will not make an applause line out of American defense.

~ by Jeff on February 12, 2008.