I've tried to faithfully summarize Senator Obama's 364 page book into 13 pages. The feedback I'm getting is that while people are glad they read this overview, it helps to print it out first. It sounds like people are then writing their own thoughts in the margins of my overview. I want to thank Kurt Peppard for proofreading and formatting many of my posts, including this one, and converting them to pdf format. These pdf files should be available shortly.
This overview is not intended as a substitute for buying and reading Audacity of Hope; in fact, my hope is that reading this summary will motivate supporters to read both of his books. In the interest of brevity, I've reluctantly decided to omit several significant sections of his second book. (The parts I omitted are interesting but unlikely to be useful while canvassing undecided voters.) For the same reason, I've intentionally deleted many of the nuances of his arguments, though hopefully, without changing his underlying message.
Audacity of Hope is written in Obama's own voice, and as such is an impressive display of the depth and breadth of this man's brilliance. It exceeded my expectations, and confirmed what I knew: Senator Obama is a rare find; an honest politician, brilliant scholar, patriot, citizen of the world who identifies with every region of the country and every ethnicity; he is the once in a generation leader who draws out the best in every American whose heart and mind are open.
(My observation: While seeking non-ideological solutions to problems, Obama's voting record is decidedly progressive.) "I won't deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact." Id. at 24.
Obama considers why prior generations of U.S. Senators had more cordiality with members of the opposing party than more recent generations. Id. at 25. Someone else notes that most of the prior generation of leaders shared in common military service in WWII. Id. Obama also notes there was near unanimity due to the Cold War and dominance of the U.S. economy in the 50s and 60s. Id. at 26. Northern liberals and Southern conservative Democrats were held together by economic populism of the New Deal. Within this coalition, there was a live-and-let-live philosophy. (My observation: this philosophy was strictly by and for the power majority of white males.)
As with the Democrats, Republicans were bound together primarily by economic interests: belief in free markets and fiscal restraint. Id. at 27. After the 1960s, liberal and conservative were defined less by class than by attitude: the position you took on culture and counterculture. Id. at 28. (My observation: Hillary Clinton noted something similar in her autobiography, Living History, when she noted she was a Republican as a high school student. She said she didn't leave the Republican party, but that the party left her. Having read Living History several years ago, my recollection is that HRC did not go into 1/20th the detail Obama does, in describing the evolution of the two major parties during the 20th century.)
According to Obama, the 1960s uprooted these coalitions due to three factors: civil rights movement and legislation; Vietnam War protests; various other social movements. Id. at 27-8.
After the 1960s, liberal and conservative were defined less by class than by attitude: the position you took on culture and counterculture. Id. at 28.
Jimmy Carter was burdened by an OPEC oil embargo, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iran Hostage crisis. Part of the New Deal coalition moved to the Republican party, due to: Carter's inability to deal with some of these issues; and, social movements' challenge to white (male) privilege. These new Republicans saw liberals as valuing rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Id. at 31.
Ronald Reagan appealed to America's longing for order and common purpose. He pursued an arms race paid for the deficit spending. He succeeded in defining liberals as out-of-touch, tax-and-spend, blame America first, politically correct elites. Id. at 32. After Reagan, every issue was reduced to a polarized, partisan sound bite of choices. Obama views Bush Sr and Bob Dole as transitional figures who mouthed the polarizing rhetoric during campaigns - but who didn't govern based on polarizing rhetoric. But then came a younger generation of true believers - Gingrich, Karl Rove - who, like some of the New Left in the sixties, viewed politics as a fight between good and evil.
Obama applauds Bill Clinton for attempting to offer a Third Way that tapped into the pragmatic non-ideological attitudes of most Americans. But he felt Bill Clinton was clumsy and transparent at times in his efforts to appeal to Reagan Democrats. Id. at 34. And he felt that Bill Clinton merely paused, rather than reversed, the efforts of the conservative movement. (My observation: Throughout his book, Obama is very careful not to give HRC any credit or blame for what happened during her husband's two terms as president.)
He says people who run for U.S. Senate tend to have three traits: megalomania; single-mindedness to campaign hard at the neglect of everything else; fear of total and complete humiliation. Id. at 105. Most sins in politics derive from the need to win and the need not to lose. Id. at 109.
(Repeat from my prior post.) Some dismiss Obama's victory in the U.S. Senate campaign because he had only nominal competition in the general election. However, he soundly defeated a crowded field of better known, better financed Democrats in the primaries. He defeated Blair Hull. Hull had sold his trading business to Goldman Saches for $531 million, and during the primaries outspent Obama 6:1. Hull wasn't a charismatic candidate, and was further sunk by an allegation of ugly run-ins with ex wife. Id. at 111-113. But Obama also defeated Dan Hynes, Illinois state comptroller, in the same primaries. Hynes had been endorsed by 85 of 102 Democratic county chairmen, and by the AFL CIO. But Obama was endorsed by the state teachers union, and unions representing the textile, hotel and food service employees, as well as the state police union. Id. at 117-118. (My observation: canvassers will be referring to this paragraph on a daily basis.)
(Repeat from my prior post.) Some say that Obama lost touch with Illinois after being elected to the U.S. Senate. They argue that Obama was too busy flying around the country, campaigning and fundraising for other Democratic candidates. But in his first first year as U.S. Senator, Senator Obama held 39 town hall meetings throughout Illinois. Id. at 101.
He talks about how not all political action committees are equally (il)legitimate: " . . . [there are] those who use their economic power to magnify their political influence far beyond what their numbers might justify, and those who are simply seeking to pool their votes to sway their representatives. The former subvert the very idea of democracy. The latter are its essence." Id. at 116. (My observation: this doesn't fully account for his decision to forgo all PAC money this election cycle, including money from PACs that simply seek to pool their votes. It does, however, create a more striking contrast to HRC's policy of accepting money from all comers.)
He notes that the media has created enormous pressure against politicians showing true authenticity and candor. Every statement is scrutinized and dissected; in this environment, a single ill considered remark can generate more bad publicity than years of ill considered policies. Id. at 123. He notes that the press works in packs, has to make deadlines, and is very receptive to simply repeating the spin offered by various campaigns. Decline in civility in political discourse is due in part to the fact that civility doesn't sell newspapers - conflict does. The fragmentation of news media, and the lack of an authoritative news anchor to sift through the misinformation leads to an absence of even a rough agreement on the facts. (My observation: As Al Gore suggests in Inconvenient Truth, doesn't Bush assert that there isn't such a thing as global warming?) This puts every opinion on equal footing and eliminates the basis for thoughtful compromise. Id. at 125-7.
" . . . [I]f nobody outside Washington is really paying attention to the substance of . . . [a] bill, if the true costs of the tax cut are buried in phony accounting and understated by a trillion dollars or so - the majority party can begin every negotiation by asking for 100 percent of what it wants, go on to concede 10 percent, and then accuse any member of the minority party who fails to support this 'compromise' of being 'obstructionist.' For the minority party . . . 'bipartisanship' comes to mean getting chronically steamrolled . . . " Id. at 131. "What every senator understands is that while it's easy to make a vote on a complicated piece of legislation look evil and depraved in a thirty-second television commercial, it's very hard to explain the wisdom of that same vote in less than twenty minutes." Id. at 133.
Senator Obama says that government has historically played several roles: building infrastructure, training the workforce, laying the foundation for economic growth; dealing with market failures (e.g. trust busting, SEC, FDIC); helping structure the social compact between business and the American people (e.g. Social Security Act, LBJ's Great Society, EPA, OSHA). Id at 151-4.
(Repeat from my prior post.) Senator Obama believes the debate between "free trade" and "fair trade" doesn't address the underlying issues that need to be resolved in order for America to be competitive in a global economy. Fair trade would force other countries to enforce minimum wage laws, environmental laws, child labor laws, and address artificially low currency exchange rates, etc. But fair trade can't address the oversupply of cheap labor in other countries, automation of factories, increased efficiencies in production that require fewer workers (and outsourcing). Id. at 172-174.
Senator Obama believes American workers can better compete in a global economy if we have better K-12 education, especially in math and science. Teachers should be paid more, especially in math and science, as should teachers in certain inner-city schools; they should be given more autonomy, but also be held accountable for showing their students are learning; he would adjust performance reviews to factor for higher scores in more affluent neighborhoods, and supplement teacher evaluations with peer review. He would reform the teacher certification process so people with certain skills could obtain teaching certificates after taking fewer classes. Id. at 161-163. He favors having some charter schools.
He would also increase government assistance for access to post secondary education, through Pell grants, low interest loans, tax free educational savings accounts, and/or make tuition and costs fully tax deductible. Id. at 164-165. He cites Robert Rubin's conclusion that open trade, if combined with government support for top quality education, will be a net gain for our country. Id. at 175. (My observation: Obama conspicuously omits reference to either free or fair trade at this point in the discussion.)
But he voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), because he felt that Bush hadn't done enough to show American workers that its government was on their side. Id. at 172-176. (My observation: By that, I assume Obama means Bush hasn't done enough to prepare American workers to compete in a global economy.) In contrast, he has backed a free trade agreement with the Middle East country of Oman. He reasoned that the financial impact to the U.S. was small, and worth it to expand engagement with the region.
He believes that parents have the primary responsibility for installing a work ethic and academic achievement in their children, but that parents rightly expect the government, through public schools, to be full partners. Id. at 160. He says the single biggest factor in determining a student's achievement is the child's teacher. Id at 161. (My observation: Obama's comment on page 161 seems to be in tension with his observation on page 160. How can parents have the primary responsibility for their children's achievement if the teacher is the main variable. From my review of various studies, it appears that the socioeconomic background of the parents is the main cause of a child's performance, though certainly, a caring, competent teacher makes a world of difference.)
Specific ideas in his book: doubling federal funding for basic scientific research over the next five years, training over 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years (Id. at 166); end all tax breaks for the oil industry, and require 1 percent of revenues go towards alternative energy research (Id. at 169); in the Senate, he proposed "Health Care for Hybrids" as described in my earlier post (Id. at 170)
Interestingly, he gives President Clinton [full] credit for attempting to seek universal health care, but doesn't mention Hillary Clinton as having any role. Id. at 183. (My observation: this is an excellent campaign strategy - one that we as his ambassadors should be emulating. Bill Clinton is popular with black Americans. Bill Clinton has a network of fundraisers he is loaning to Hillary Clinton.) He strongly opposes appealing the death tax (estate tax). Id. at 192. His reasons for doing so are the obvious - and correct - ones we are all familiar with.He notes that the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans is between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. Id. at 201. Mainline protestant churches are losing membership while nondenominational evangelical churches are growing rapidly. Id. at 201-2. (Repeat from prior post.) He embraces religion, and invokes his Christian faith in public discourse. But he writes repeatedly in Audacity of Hope that he also believes in separation of church and state. "Contrary to the claims of many on the Christian right who rail against the separation of church and state, their argument is not with a handful of liberal sixties judges. It is with the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the forebears of today's evangelical church." Id. at 216-7. He notes that neither his mother nor step-father were religious. Id. at 202-205. His maternal grandfather was raised Baptist, and his maternal grandmother's family was Methodists, but neither was very religious. Id. at 202-203. Barack Obama's father was raised a Muslim, but was a confirmed atheist by the time he met Barack Obama's mother. Id. at 204. He joined Trinity United Church of Christ for several reasons. African American churches spur social change. You can belong to a church even if you have doubts. Id. at 206-7. He notes that some who claim to police private morality ignore public morality (e.g. poverty and malfeasance). He notes that we shouldn't abandon discussion of religion in political discourse. He says that when we only discuss religion in the negative sense (of where it should and shouldn't be practiced), others will fill the vacuum. Id. at 214. (My observation: I'm not sure HRC is similarly at ease speaking about her faith in the context of political discourse. Obama's ease in speaking with religious groups should be played up by canvassers; it's part of his overall appeal to independents and Republicans.) He notes that "the majority of great reformers in American history - not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes . . . our law is by definition a codification of morality . . . [O]ur deliberative, pluralistic democracy . . . demand[s] . . . that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values . . . subject to argument and amenable to reason . . . in a pluralistic society we have no choice . . . " Id. at 218. Political and scientific beliefs are developed through the accumulation of knowledge; religion is based on faith in things not seen. Id. at 219. While religion and science do not allow for compromise, politics involves the art of what is possible through compromise, based on shared aims and reality. Id. He notes that moral arguments are more persuasive when the speaker is consistent in their moral outrage: to be credible, one must be just as outraged by homelessness, as they are by indecent music. Id. at 221.His own family includes "a sister who's half Indonesian but who's usually mistaken for Mexican or Puerto Rican, a brother-in-law and niece of Chinese decent, with some blood relatives who resemble Margaret Thatcher and others who could pass for Bernie Mac, so that family get-togethers over Christmas take on the appearance of the UN General Assembly meeting. . . [and so he's] never had the option of restricting . . . [his] loyalties on the basis of race, or measuring my worth on the basis of tribe." (My observation: Senator Obama speaks for all of us, in part because he can so easily identify with all of us. This paragraph should be cited by Obama's canvassers.)He notes that Hispanics and Asian Americans are growing as a percentage of the population, and that shortly after 2050, whites will no longer be a majority of Americans. Id. at 232. He notes that Blacks and Latinos in particular still experience systematic discrimination that is borne out by numerous statistics even after adjusting for socioeconomic differences. His own upbringing isn't typical of the African American experience, but he can recite the usual litany of petty slights experienced by all African Americans. Id. at 233.
But he notes that "whatever preconceived notions white Americans may continue to hold, the overwhelming majority of them these days are able - if given the time - to look beyond race in making their judgments of people." Id. at 235. (My observation: this is one of many reasons I am confident his poll numbers will continue to steadily go up throughout 2007 and beyond.) He notes that while discrimination is now looser and subject to refutation, many minorities, especially African Americans, "as individuals . . . must prove [them]selves anew each day, that [they] will rarely get the benefit of the doubt and will have little margin for error." Id. at 236. He notes that he doesn't dwell on discrimination because he doesn't "want to confer on bigotry a power it now longer possess." Id. at 240. Instead he wants to focus on those whites who defy the peer pressure to be racist; Senator Obama wants to be ready to work with white progressive in a common cause [of uniting all aspects of the country?].He notes that of the first $500,000 he raised in the primaries of his U.S. Senate campaign, half came from Black Americans. Id. at 240. (My observation: Why is there a litmus test for how much support Senator Obama must have among black voters to be considered a credible candidate? I can't name the last white male Democratic candidate for president who received a majority of the white male vote in a general election, yet that isn't a litmus test for white male candidates. I have my theories on why his poll numbers among black Americans aren't higher, but again, I am confident these numbers will go way up, especially in the general election.)He implies that people of color shouldn't use race as a crutch, nor point to discrimination as an excuse for failure. Id. at 241. They can, should, and often do work hard to succeed. But government needs to ensure that they are competing on a level playing field, because there's still discrimination - systemic and otherwise. More people of color are living the American dream, but their hold on the dream is tenuous. Id. at 243. Unfinished civil rights work includes: enforcing nondiscrimination laws; university scholarships and education enrichment programs (My observation: this is my interpretation of a statement Obama makes in a different context); modest scholarship programs for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in underrepresented fields. Id. at 244. Where there's " . . . strong evidence of prolonged and systemic discrimination . . . goals and timetables for minority hiring may be the only meaningful remedy available." Id.He notes that people of color, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to lift themselves up. He focuses on the collapse of the two parent black household; "[the] casualness toward and sex and child rearing . . . that renders black children more vulnerable."He says that "what ails working-class and middle-class blacks and Latinos is . . . [also] what ails . . . white counterparts: downsizing, outsourcing, automation, wage stagnation, the dismantling of employer-based health-care and pension plans, and schools that fail to teach young people the skills they need to compete in a global economy." Id. at 245. He defends affirmative action as a limited but useful way to expand opportunities for underrepresented minorities, but says that a far more helpful policy would be to spend political capital improving k-12 education for all children regardless of color. The same reasoning helps explain his support for universal health care. Id. at 247. He notes it's also good politics to seek programs that help all Americans; he notes that a certain other black state senator in Illinois would argue that a political position was racist, and in so arguing, alienate even the most liberal white senators. "[P]roposals that solely benefit minorities . . . can't serve as the basis for the kinds of sustained, broad-based political coalitions needed to transform America . . . [U]niversal appeals around strategies that help all Americans . . . can serve as the basis for such coalitions - even if such strategies disproportionately help minorities." Id. at 248. (My observation: this is an important argument, one that canvassers could work into their conversations; it is yet another example of how Senator Obama tries to find apolitical solutions for traditionally political problems.)
". . . tight labor markets, access to capital, and programs like Pell Grants and Perkins Loans benefit blacks directly; growing incomes and a sense of security among whites made them less resistant to minority claims for equality . . . As recently as 1999, the black unemployment rate fell to record lows and black income rose to record highs not because of a surge in affirmative action hiring or a sudden change in the black work ethic but because the economy was booming and government took a few modest measures - like expansion of the Earned Income Credit - to spread the wealth around. If you want to know the secret of Bill Clinton's popularity among African Americans, you need look no further than these statistics." Id. at 246.
(My observations: note that he speaks of how Bill Clinton is popular is popular with black Americans for what happened under his watch. I would also note that Mr. Clinton appointed numerous black Americans to positions of power. These are some reasons why Mr. Clinton is sometimes affectionately referred to as the first Black president. Why should HRC automatically be credited with the accomplishments of her husband? If she's saying she was co-president with her husband, then she should clearly say so. Otherwise, she shouldn't speak of how "we" or "Bill and I" accomplished x and y during 8 years in the White House. HRC likes to say she's the least known famous person; if she's so little known, she shouldn't cite relatively high poll numbers - based solely on name recognition - as proof that her nomination is inevitable.)He feels there are two aspects of American race relations that require special attention: deteriorating conditions of African American inner-city poor; and undocumented Latino workers. Id. at 249. (My observation: there's no reference to Native Americans in this part of his book.)Statistically, children of any ethnicity do far better in life when they have the benefit of an intact two parent household. But inner-city children are in an especially difficult situation. He quotes approvingly from a black businessman who tries to hire convicted felons as a way to give them a second chance at life. The businessman speaks about the plight of inner-city blacks: Their mothers are often still children themselves, and father is in jail; no one is there to guide these children; gangs become their family; black families with middle class values leave the inner-city to provide a better life for their children, thereby leaving the inner-city with even fewer positive role models. Id. at 251. "These are the stories of those who didn't make it out of history's confinement . . . serving as repositories for all the scars of slavery and violence of Jim Crow, the internalized rage . . . the shame of men who could not protect their women or support their families, the children who grew up being told they wouldn't amount to anything and had no one there to undue the damage." Id. at 252.
Conservatives reacted to LBJ's War on Poverty by arguing that poverty was due to a cultural pathology that was compounded by welfare, and liberal judges who coddle criminals. Liberals for the most part acted as hapless foils for conservatives: not wanting to blame victims of historical racism, they downplayed the role of entrenched behaviors among the black poor that contributed to intergenerational poverty. [Middle class?] blacks are more conservative than white liberals in understanding the causes of a class of African American inner city poor. But they do not make the harsh judgments about the black poor that some [white conservatives?] do: "African Americans understand that culture matters but that culture is shaped by circumstance." Id. at 255.
Obama's solutions: encourage teenage girls to finish high school and avoid having children out of wedlock; "more police and more effective policing" in the inner city; "community based health centers that emphasize [preventative care]"; access to affordable child care; radical transformation of schools; prenatal counseling; access to regular pediatric care; parenting programs; and quality early-childhood education programs; work - not welfare - must be the focus of any strategy to reduce intergenerational poverty (" . . . work provides order, structure, dignity and opportunities for growth . . . "). Id. at 256-7. He would also expand the federal Earned Income Tax Credit. (My observation: Obama also expanded Earned Income Tax Credit in Illinois.) The government should encourage private-sector contractors to hire and train ex-felons on projects that benefit the larger community. Any drop in recidivism would pay for the program. Id. at 258. He then compares the cost of [eradicating?] inner-city poverty with the cost of spending one year in Iraq. Id. at 259.
For many years, Latino immigrants faced discrimination and saw African Americans as natural political allies. Id. at 261. But as they achieved a critical mass, Latinos in Illinois pursued their own path. Latino businesses thrived where some black businesses didn't, "helped . . . by financial ties to [their countries of origin] and by a customer base held captive by language barriers." Id. at 262. He believes that many blacks and whites are concerned about undocumented workers because undocumented workers are now immigrating in larger numbers than any group of immigrants in over a century. (My observation: I'd be interested in reading the study that supports Obama's last conclusion. It seems exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to prove or disprove this piece of conventional wisdom.) But he also believes that there are signs of a familiar xenophobia to some of the anti-immigrant rhetoric that we hear from others. Id. at 263. (My observation: I agree with Obama's last point.)Obama wrote or co-wrote a couple amendments to an immigration bill to protect American workers. One amendment makes it more difficult for employers to hire undocumented workers. Another amendment requires employers not to undercut American wages by paying guest workers less than they pay American workers. This would presumably have the effect of eliminating any incentive to hire undocumented workers who are willing to work for less. Id. at 265. (My observation: this is an important point for canvassers to mention when speaking with voters worried about undocumented workers.)
In the end, he says America is big enough to accommodate all their dreams. (My observation: Please see my prior posts for more details about Senator Obama's position on undocumented workers.) He says that an earlier generation fought the [White Citizens' Counsel], and that his children's generation will fight demagogues with their own wedge issues. Id. at 269. (My observation: If I'm reading this last passage correctly, Senator Obama is aligning himself with both American workers and unspecified immigrants.)He talks about arriving in Indonesia in 1967 at age six, when his mother was 24. His step-father was a lieutenant in the military, his mother, an English teacher at the U.S. embassy. His family wasn't affluent enough for the private schools attended by other expatriot children. He attended public schools, and "ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors and clerks." Id. at 274. But he knew his family was better off than many: they always had enough to eat. Even at that age, he understood that his family's status was determined not only by their wealth but by their status as U.S citizens. In 1971, he moved to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. He returned to Indonesia for 3-4 short visits, but his attention was elsewhere.
(My observation: While he was fully immersed in life in Indonesia, and learned to appreciate its culture and people, his years there appear to have made him more American. I'll speak briefly here of my own life experience as a first generation Asian American who immigrated to the U.S. at age 4, not understanding a word of English. After working my way through ESL classes in the United States, I tutored native English speakers with their English. I then studied in England as an impressionable 20 year old. It was a transformational experience - probably in the same way as Obama's - making me feel more American than ever before while also appreciating British culture; and yet it's based on this type of wonderful, uplifting experience that some right wing conservatives try to paint Obama as not being one of us. As anyone who has lived and studied overseas knows, it only makes the heart grow fonder for the United States.)He appears to devote significant attention to Indonesia's history for several reasons: to provide context for his years there; to implicitly rebut assertions that the country had a radical, anti-American culture during his years there; and to show how the abuse of American military power can breed anti-American sentiment. "It's dangerous to extrapolate from the experiences of a single country . . . [a]nd yet in many ways Indonesia serves as a useful metaphor for the world beyond our borders." Id. at 279. The paragraph that begins at the bottom of page 279 and continues on 280 summarizes what he means by this.He also outlines his early foreign policy credentials. At Columbia, he studied international relations. He also "studied" nuclear arms policy [at Columbia?]. Id. at 289. He notes that he opposed war in Iraq back in 2002, when support for the war and Bush's approval were both at 60%. Id. at 293. Some of his friends advised him against speaking at an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002 - but he did anyway: "What I could not support was 'a dumb war, a rash war, a war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics . . . I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda." Id. at 294-5. (My observation: Canvassers will want to refer to this paragraph often.)
28 of 50 Democratic Senators joined all but one Republican in authorizing war in Iraq. Id. (My observation: defenders of HRC's vote to authorize war - and of Edwards' sponsorship of the bill to authorize war - argue that these Democrats may have had access to additional intelligence that people like Obama didn't have, making their vote more difficult. My rebuttal is that nearly half the Democrats in the Senate didn't find anything persuasive about Bush's case for war in Iraq; like Obama, half the Senate Democrats had the political courage to stand up to Bush's then-60% approval rating and say that the threat Saddam posed was not imminent.)In January of 2006, he made his first trip to Iraq. He did so as part of a delegation of Congress men and women. He was briefed in the Green Zone by reconstruction teams and intelligence officers. Later, he met with members of the Iraqi Election Commission, and U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad. He met with various American troops. He had an off the record discussion with foreign correspondents. He had dinner at the home of Iraqi interim President Jalal Talabani. He went to the Marine base in Fallujah and met with the camp's senior officers. Obama's foreign policy staffer met with one of the majors responsible for counterinsurgency strategy in the region. Id. at 296-300. (My observation: for all the criticism Obama receives for lacking foreign policy experience, it's difficult to have such experience without having already been president. How many governors or U.S. Senators have any real foreign policy experience? Of the leading candidates, only McCain has much more political experience than Obama - foreign policy-related or otherwise - and McCain's too tied to war in Iraq. And how can John Edwards say he's prepared to lead the country when he's been out of office - and without access to the type of extensive military intelligence that Obama has gained in several recent trips overseas.) Obama also demonstrates a strong understanding of China. Id. at 305-7. (My observation: the possible exception to this is when he appears to possibly underestimate the size of China's military budget. According to reports in the NY Times, China may be grossly understating the size of their military spending. Still, I agree with his conclusion that China is primarily an economic rival, not a military one.)
He sees our primary military adversary as being terrorists. Our goals are "to incapacitate the destructive potential of terrorists networks and win the global battle of ideas." Id. at 308. (Emphasis in original.) He says that all nations have the unilateral right to defend itself from imminent threats to national security: against a group that is actively preparing to strike U.S. targets, or has or will have the means to do so in the immediate future. He notes Iraq didn't meet this threshold test. In all other circumstances, it's almost always is our strategic interest to act multilaterally when we use force.
Boldly - and I believe, correctly - he doesn't see value in the U.N. Security Council as the vehicle for acting multilaterally. He notes that its rules and [composition?] appear frozen in a Cold War era time warp, and that we shouldn't be held hostage by a veto from a fellow permanent member of the security council. Id. at 309. Instead, it means duplicating what George W.H. Bush did prior to the first Gulf War: engaging in hard work of diplomacy to secure the support of most of the world. "[N]obody benefits more than we do from the observance of international 'rules of the road.' We can't win converts to those rules if we act as if they apply to everyone but us. When the world's sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following, and robs terrorists and dictators of the arguments that these rules are simply tools of American imperialism." Id. at 309. "Legitimacy is a force multiplier." Id. at 310. He also calls on America to help to help Africa for moral reasons, and to preemptively battle for public opinion against terrorists. Id. at 319.He lists some of his lesser known Senate accomplishments in the first full paragraph of page 326. (I'll supplement this later when I have time.)Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this post.
Comments are closed for this post.
