Home > Afghanistan, Ira Sharkansky, Iran, Israel, United States of America > Is President Obama the new George McGovern?

Is President Obama the new George McGovern?

November 19, 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

By Ira Sharkansky

JERUSALEM–Remember George McGovern? His clone is sitting in the Oval Office.
 
The 2008 campaign differed in several ways from 1972 that explain Obama’s victory. His speaking ability excels that of other politicians, including McGovern. Obama was running against a ticket with an intellectually handicapped vice presidential candidate, whereas McGovern was embarrassed by his first choice for a vice presidential candidate. The racial scene changed to something much closer to neutral, and in some places favorable to a Black candidate. Gone were the prominent issues of busing and crime in the streets.
 
Once in office, Obama has demonstrated why so many centrists voted for Richard Nixon. Like McGovern, he acts as if Christian values prevail in international relations. They are not prominent in domestic American politics (leaving aside what can be said about Christian values and abortion or same sex marriages), but they are further removed from international politics. National interest rank higher than doing what the American president wants.
 
The Middle East is one case in point. The President got no more than polite words from Palestinian and other Arab leaders when he asked for something he could offer the Israelis. In response to the President’s latest tirade about construction in settlements, Shimon Peres has responded that Gilo is Israel. When the senior statesman of the Israeli peace camp speaks that forcefully against President Obama, Americans should know that something is wrong in the White House. Obama has brought on himself the ridicule of the Israeli center, and expressions of dismay from the Israeli left. Without those populations on board, he has no hope of bringing Israel to support his ideas. And he should know that no one has ever brought the Palestinians to anything like an accommodation.
 
Hamid Karzai has been sworn in after an unsurprisingly flawed election in Afghanistan. He is pledging reconciliation and a fight against corruption. Only a George McGovern, or a clone, could expect Karzai and other Afghan elites to give up the drug money and war lord alliances that allow them to preserve their fortunes and their lives.
 
The Iranians are twisting the President in the wind. Why should they agree to export their partially enriched uranium when they are sure that Russians, Chinese, and Western Europeans will continue trading with them, and provide the Americans with nothing more than a few words of worry about the Iranian nuclear program?
 
Another test is coming for the President out of Ft Hood. The administration is doing all that it can to downplay the influence of Islam. Surely the United States should not do anything more to incite all those Muslims. The few million living in the United States are manageable (leaving aside 9-11 and Ft Hood), but greater problems can come from those in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, and other places important to the White House.
 
One does not have to accept the claims of those who see Islamic evil under every bed to accept the indications that Major Hasan was plugged into to extremists. Members of Congress are pressing for candor, but the White House is resisting. We can hope for reality based thinking in the White House, but we’ll have to see what happens. 
 
Health care and economic stability are the brightest hopes on the President’s horizon. Shouts about socialism, rationing, and death committees indicate that madness is not far from American culture and the public relations budgets of health insurance companies. Claims about costs are more reasonable objections to what the President’s program includes, or does not include on account of what physicians and others find unpleasant. Some time after a bill signing and applause, the costs may feed into the next economic crisis.
 
Life is uncomfortable at the summit of the world’s greatest power, and the ringing rhetoric of innocence will not make it better.
 
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University
  1. Ian
    November 19, 2009 at 9:51 am

    That has to be the weirdest take on Obama I’ve ever read.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a comment