Victor Davis Hanson: America Rides Off into the Sunset - The only people excited about the...

The only people excited about the “change” in America's foreign policy are the world’s bad actors.

Thousands in Tokyo have been echoing Barack Obama’s signature call for “change” — as in “Change Japanese-U.S. relations!”

Our military is rushing anti-missile batteries to Iran’s Arab neighbors in anticipation of new Iranian military escalation.

As in the case of the 2004 Indonesian tsunami, the U.S. both gives the most aid to a devastated Haiti and still seems to receive the most criticism.

China has just warned us not to supply more armaments to Taiwan.

Our Predator drones continue to be the judge, jury, and executioner of suspected terrorists in Pakistan.

What’s gone wrong with Obama’s dream of multilateral cooperation?

For starters, the world’s tensions were not caused by, and remain far larger than, George W. Bush — and thus cannot be easily solved by his absence.

Obama also has apparently confused what people say with what nations do.

The world’s masses — most of them young, poor, and non-Western — may applaud a hip, post-racial Barack Obama more than they ever would an old-money Texan like Bush. Obama may give soaring Wilsonian speeches abroad and be crowned with the Nobel Peace Prize for his anointed vision of a new global brotherhood.

But, unfortunately, national leaders themselves do not behave like excited concertgoers or European intellectuals. Instead, they have only long-term self-interests — not temporary emotional crushes — and so seek to expand their influence whenever they can.

Obama had better understand that difference. A world without strong U.S. leadership really would become a far more dangerous place where the strong do as they please and the weak obey as they must.

After World War II, a reluctant America guaranteed a global system of secure trade and encouraged free-market capitalism and democracy. Both Communist and fascist tyrants fought those efforts, eager to expand totalitarianism beyond their borders. Envious allies and neutral countries that benefited enormously from the American-enforced system resented the high profile of the United States.

All that responsibility was unpopular and costly for the United States. But the American people felt the activist bad choice was far better than the alternative of passively allowing more of the kind of chaos that had wrecked much of civilization in the first half of the 20th century.

And if allies sometimes derided America, privately they were mostly relieved that there was some sort of policeman — and that it was us and not an authoritarian nation like China, Iran, or Russia.

After winning the Cold War, the United States continued to keep the peace that allowed globalization to lift millions worldwide out of poverty. In bipartisan fashion, under presidents Reagan, Bush I and II, and Clinton, America dealt with right-wing and left-wing tyrants alike that threatened regional order, whether Moammar Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Manuel Noriega, or the Taliban.

Obama may for practical and idealistic reasons believe that America should not or can no longer afford to play that pre-eminent role; he may even believe that such prominence was never really needed and was mostly counterproductive.

That diffidence often seems to be the message from Obama’s serial apologies, attacks on prior American foreign policy, and suggestions that tensions abroad are caused by misunderstandings — many of them our own — rather than irreconcilable differences in national character and objectives.

But he should at least admit that in such a vacuum of American power and influence, the natural order of things abroad would be chaos.

Let us hope that Obama learned that tragic fact when events heated up in 2009. Promising to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay; initially planning to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York; broadcasting supposed past American sins; issuing meaningless deadlines to Iran; and snubbing allies such as Britain, Israel, Poland, and the Czech Republic won’t win over enemies or ease world tensions.

Al-Qaeda claims credit for the Christmas Day attempt to blow up another American airliner — and promises more havoc to come. North Korea still demands bribe money to put aside its nukes. Russia is bragging about a new generation of weapons. Hugo Chávez keeps talking about becoming a regional bully with his new oil-supplied arsenal.

Implicit in all this braggadocio is a growing suspicion abroad, whether right or wrong, that a more naïve, more unsteady America is broke, tired, and unwilling to confront challenges as in the past.

Right now the world’s bad actors confidently see “hope” for a vast “change” in the old world order — but not the kind Obama once so boldly promised.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and editor, most recently, of Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome.

“soaring Wilsonian speeches”

First by Wilsonian, VDH means that the rhetoric is untethered to reality, idealistic and empty.

Second, actually Obama is a pretty good public speaker by most measures.

We may despise what the man says (or doesn't say), but his delivery is polished and fluent.

There is nothing wrong with his use of a teleprompter. He generally uses it very well.

He pauses for dramatic effect, varies his vocal inflection and gestures naturally.

He is with out a doubt the best public speaker we've had as president since Reagan.

Not that I can stand to listen for long without screaming about the appalling contradictions and manipulating devices.

For proof of my defense of the O man, imagine a Martian coming to earth to study public speakers. He gets to listen to Obama, Hillary, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. Based on fluency of delivery and occasional eloquence of expression, the Martian would pick Obama as the best.

Flame on.

I agree with your point (contrary to many freepers’) that Obama is a master of speech delivery. We are not talking about the substance here. But, on the matter of delivery: I am amazed that not Obama, not his handlers, reacted to the very specific critique of his style that is now, when the charms worn out a bit, draws fire not just from the opponents, but from sympathizers as well.

I mean the chin up in the air, looking left and right and never straight into your eyes delivery. I understand that there are suckers out there for above the crowd godlike figure of legend. But most of normal Americans regardless of their politics are irritated by “I am so far above you” stance. Obama’s team was very good during the election campaign, polling attitudes, finding just the right words to play different groups of people. And they are remarkably tone deaf on this “I am above you” irritant. I am not complaining really - it works in our favor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.