Apologizing for America

Townhall.com ^ | April 7, 2009 | Mona Charen

[Kaslin]

One of President Obama's first official acts was to grant an interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic language network that broadcasts worldwide. It signified, aides explained, the new page that Obama meant to turn in relations with the Arab and Muslim worlds. Just as he did last week in Europe, Obama began the conversation by criticizing America. Asked about relations between Israel and the Palestinians and the appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy, President Obama said " ... what I told (Mitchell) is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen." Throughout the rest of the interview, Obama returned again and again to the word "respect," stressing that his administration -- unlike previous American presidents -- would base relations with the Muslim world on "mutual respect."

In Europe, the president returned to this leitmotif, telling his audience that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. He went on to note that Europeans had responded with an anti-Americanism that "is at once casual but can also be insidious." That sounds awfully high-mindedly evenhanded -- except that in Obama's telling, America's arrogance comes first. If that were truly the case, who could blame the Europeans for feeling resentful?

Don't hold your breath waiting for any European to acknowledge that they have been guilty of arrogance. And before giving Obama too much credit for humility, consider that the planted axiom of these declarations is that he is different. It was that ham-handed predecessor of his who blundered through the world, disrespecting allies, needlessly insulting enemies, and crashing through drawing rooms like the proverbial bull, or perhaps like a Texas steer. But as former Ambassador John Bolton reminds us, during the glory days of the Clinton administration, French President Francois Mitterrand said this: "We are at war with America-- a permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans. They are voracious. They want undivided power over the world." Compared with that, the most stinging rebuke to come out of the Bush administration -- Rumsfeld's swipe about "old Europe" -- seems downright polite.

There's nothing wrong with pleasant atmospherics, of course. And if Barack and Michelle Obama wowed the crowds in London and Prague, that's nice. But what you might have missed in all the hyperventilating in the media about the new incarnation of Jack and Jackie was that President Obama was rebuffed by Europe. He had asked them to pass stimulus bills like the one the Democrats passed in the U.S. Germany's Angela Merkel and the others turned that down flat. European nations have even graver problems with promised social safety net programs than we do, and they sensibly decided that further indebting themselves would aggravate rather than alleviate their troubles.

President Obama further requested that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. He wasn't subtle about it either. "Europe should not simply expect the United States to shoulder that burden alone," he said. "This is a joint problem and it requires a joint effort." Adoring crowds notwithstanding, they refused that request as well. Oh, wait. That's not quite true. According to Fox News, "Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12."

Back to relations with the Muslim world. Lest this slander pass into conventional wisdom, it must be protested. George W. Bush was never disrespectful to the Muslim world. He was extraordinarily careful to telegraph his respect for the Muslim faith -- some thought to a fault. ("Why is it," asked one wag, "that the only people who say Islam is religion of peace are Christians?") Bush made the Feast of Eid, which marks the end of Ramadan, an annual White House celebration with prominent Muslim guests. He arguably saved more Muslim lives through the African AIDS initiative than any other world leader could claim. Mrs. Bush made improving the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan her special project. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, when this was not an obvious move, he visited the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to telegraph to the nation that anger toward American Muslims would be a misplaced response to the atrocity.

This caricature of Bush as a heedless militarist and xenophobe -- which no one is doing more to promote than the current president -- is a libel.

There is one other troubling aspect to President Obama's diplomatic debut. Being eager to ingratiate oneself with Europeans is an understandable liberal impulse. The left wing of the Democratic Party reveres European welfare states. But President Obama also bowed low (literally) before the king of Saudi Arabia. That was more than courtesy; it was abasement.

[steadfastconservative]

I think that he rejects many of the ideals that this country was founded upon, that he rejects the concept of limited government as well as the capitalist system. I’m sure he agrees with the idea that “all men are created equal” and with the idea that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (Of course, he doesn’t believe that everyone has the right to life.) But I don’t know if he believes that these rights come from God or if he thinks that they come from the state and, somehow, I suspect it’s the latter.

I think that Obama thinks that American values and institutions are fundamentally flawed because they haven’t solved all of society’s problems or created a perfect society. He thinks that the state can solve all of society’s problems and create a perfect society as long as it is given enough power and is run by the right people. To him the fact that America isn’t perfect yet and hasn’t solved all of its problems is proof that there is something wrong with it when, in reality, the state will never be able to create a perfect society or alleviate human suffering regardless of how big it gets or who’s running it. The problem with liberal fascists like Obama is that their policies will definitely make the federal government bigger and definitely erode our liberties but they won’t be able to solve everybody’s problems or to protect people from the consequences of their actions.

I really don’t know how else to explain the fact that Obama feels so obligated to apologize for the U.S. except that deep down inside, he doesn’t like this country. How else can one explain his willingness to overlook Islam’s bloody, violent history while blaming the U.S. for its lack of sensitivity to Muslims?

[Blind Eye Jones]

Thank for your response. It seems ironic that Obama doesn't care for the country and yet he has devoted such a huge effort to become its president. Maybe the office of president is more of a personal ambition that an effort to promote the well being of a country. I don't think you can divorce personal ambition from his actions. For the ambitious well being follows once they attain office for they are then the direct cause of well being — so they think. And then there are accounts that he is not his own man, that there is a Soros or some influential backer group pulling his strings. How he parcels what to whom will say a lot... if not about him then his backers.