Addressing Obama's Olympics Inexperience
Barack Obama has an Olympics problem which he needs to solve.
When first asked about his views towards boycotting the 2008 Olympics to be held in Beijing, Barack Obama said that he was conflicted.
After a little while of mulling it over he made a statement on the subject, which really wasn't a statement as much as it was a way of saying: I don't know what to do, let's put off the decision.
Given that Hillary Clinton has already said that President Bush should boycott the games, Obama should realize that he needs to make up his mind -- and waffling isn't exactly going to save him given that foreign policy inexperience is the biggest issue he's facing in this primary. Not only that, but boycotting the Games is one of those "sexy" issues that the media loves to talk about because it makes them feel internationalist and urbane. In other words, the boycott issue is going to keep cropping up over and over.
Therefore, Obama should take an outright position. He should completely rule out boycotting the Games.
I say this not because this is my personal position -- I don't think any democratic country should participate in the games -- but because its the one that is consistent with Obama's principles. (I'm essentially pretending to be a strategist for Obama).
What has been Barack Obama's foreign policy mojo? Simple: he reaches out to nations and leaders that other American leaders either fail to or refuse to. Remember last fall in the Democratic debates when Obama took the position that he would meet with hostile leaders? It is no different here. China is a "bad" nation. It is not democratic. It cracks down on its dissents. It is indirectly implicated in genocide. Yet, despite that, Obama should say that he is going to reach out to it.
Obama needs to clarify that China is not going to change its policies or approach if its stone-walled by the United States on a huge stage in front of the entire world. In fact, Obama should try and argue that the Party isn't the monolith that the Europeans are making it out to be. The Party has shades -- conservatives and reformers. Obama can argue that by going to the games he helps the reformers who ultimately want to participate in the international legal scheme, who welcome international institutions, who are willing to crack down on China's IP violations, and who are warm to the idea of ending China's protectionist policies.
Obama can liken China to Iran. Much the same way as the US's stone-walling of Iran since 1979 has allowed the conservative ayatollahs to shout down the reformists, the same would happen in China if the US boycotts the games. If Obama is willing to meet with Iran -- which he has intimated he will -- then he shouldn't boycott the Chinese Games.
Pretty simple, really. He gets to be consistent with himself and to have an actual position.
True, were he to openly state that he would not boycott the Olympics, there would be a backlash against him among progressives. However, if he calmly explains that his approach towards China is consistent with his earlier I-will-meet-with-anyone approach to foreign policy -- an approach that progressives previously celebrated -- then he will not face significant backlash from the left side of the Democratic Party. Most progressives want him to be what he's promised to be: consistent. With this waffle he is pulling a Hillary style triangulation. Not consistent.
For a guy who is being hammered hardest on his foreign policy inexperience, when it comes to the Olympics, Obama isn't doing much to make it go away.
Related: Obama is Nietzschean
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Ali Eteraz,
You say you don't think any democratic country should participate in the Beijing Olympics games.
If the games were being held in the Untied States, do you think no democratic country should participate in the games because of what the United States is doing in Iraq and the Congo?
None of the international leaders have advocated boycotting the entire Olympics. Only the opening ceremonies, which are traditionally where the host nation puts its best foot forward, with dancing exhibitions, torch lighting, etc.. Boycotting the opening ceremonies is making a statement, against a statement, so to speak. Brown of England is not going, but not because of a boycott- he is sending someone else. Sarkozy has called for an international consensus, we'll see if he can get one. Until late yesterday, Obama was the only candidate who couldn't make up his mind- even McCain favors a boycott of the opening. Now, he has swayed with the tide, and says he favors a boycott. This has played out very badly for him, and will be used against him later I'm sure. Imagine McCains ad- "Who do you want answering the phone at 330 am? The person who picks up on the 1st ring, or the one who can't make up his mind whether or not to answer because they're still checking out the caller id? "
The idea of boycotting the olympics I believe is flat out wrong. This is one of the few situations when people around the world put down their guns and get together. Let's put the politics away. China does not own the olympics, the world owns it. You don't boycott yourself.
If China is good enough for us to have a stong economic relationship with, then maybe it's good enough for us to attend the olympic games. Don't get me wrong, I believe their stance on Tibet and Darfour is way out of line, but there are different platforms to address this, not the olympics..
No one I've heard has ever mentioned a boycott of the Olympics; just the opening ceremony. Big difference. I do agree that Obama's inability to make a simple decision like this does show his lack of experience, judgement and leadership abilities.
This guy does not make any sense.
Talking with hostile nations like Iran is nothing like attending ceremonies in their countries.
Attending the Olympics has nothing to do with Obama's position of having discussions with any country including Iran or China.
I don't think we should boycott the Olympics either, but our President should not be attending it - that is endorsing China's political actions in Tibet and elsewhere.
Like most people this guy does not get the difference.
Pelosi seems to be the only one making sense on this issue (though she has been joined recently by both Hillary and Obama)
NO BOYCOTT OF ANY KIND
Boycotting the Olympics will prove not a dam nthing
This article is just not sensible.
To be willing to talk to an enemy about your issues is NOT the same as going to that enemies backyard barbeque or social event. He should do EXACTLY what he is doing and weigh the options.
It's more intelligent and internationally sound.
How many friends in the Chinese government did Hillary make with her quick boycott the games statements. Sometimes the Idealistic snap response is not always best. But again....h
This seems to be a part of the plan to attach the words inexperience, wishy-washy, weak and flip-flopping to one politician because they saw that the tactic worked against John Kerry. Well, John Kerry didn't have an army of people willing to push back so this isn't going to work this time around. You may have gotten the bold headline but little else.
Obama's inexperience ha? What experience does Hillary have with the Olympics? Your poorly worded heading just turned me off from reading your article.
We ask for honesty in our politicians and when we get it we spin it into weakness or inexperience.
Obama said he was conflicted. Chicago is seeking to host the Olympics and whom do you think the organizers will be looking to help them sell the city? Boycotting the opening is an ineffective gesture that will solve absolutely nothing. We cannot continue to trade as we have been doing and then talk about boycotting a sporting event so as to effect significant change. This is hypocrisy of the highest order. I am conflicted too. Most fair-minded, principled people are conflicted. What does inexperience have to do with that, pray tell?
Let's not confuse mountains with molehills. A non-boycott does not equate to a condoning, and I don't think there's anything wrong with postponing a decision. One thing voters want is a leader who makes thoughtful decisions, not the precipitous poll-driven schlock politics we've been used to for so long. The US can afford to see how the Chinese address the already ongoing Tibet protests. The Chinese, more than anyone else and for reasons of their own interest, are concerned that the Olympics go smoothly.
For Obama, the pattern is clear.
He once again voted: "Not Present."
:)
In Reference to the Boycotting of the olympics:
JOE KLEIN, COLUMNIST, "TIME" MAGAZINE: Yes, I think that what Obama is doing, what you call what he's doing is acting presidentially, and what Hillary Clinton is doing is acting politically and desperately. You know, Fareed Zakaria earlier in this program talked about Chinese pride and face in China is even more important than money.
http://tra
From his radical stance on abortion to his prominence in the corruption scandals that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media, Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator -- not to mention the next President of the United States.
How is his stance on abortion radical?
Let's hope nobody wants to boycott us the next time we host the games.
Sorry Ali, but I'm a little tired of the absolutism we've seen with the Bush Administration. We've known for years that China would be hosting the Olympics and for years they've held Tibet under tight control. None of the current hubbub is new. A boycott keeps us out of China at a time when they are inviting the world in. We have an opportunity to shine a light on what goes on there, good and bad, and expose the people to our ideals. Is a symbolic slight against the Chinese government really going to accomplish than that? I don't know, but I do know we need measured action and thoughtful response, not the either-or reactions of Bush, to make the most of this situation.
And really, who are we to judge whether China is a "bad" nation? We live on stolen lands that were worked by slaves. We took half of Mexico and are building fences to keep Mexicans out. The Navajo Nation is getting their Internet access cut because our government doesn't want to pay the bill (Yeah, that's happening now. Sounds ironically familiar.)
Agree. I've always felt we should strongly resist the urge to make the Olympics a political football. Instead, we should use it as a diplomatic opportunity. think Bush should go to the ceremonies, and give press conferences urging China to build on the spirit of the Olympics to respect human rights, embrace the concept of liberty, etc.
Thank you Sumocat!
Bravo, what an intelligent post. Worth ten of the original article. I only had to roll my eyes once (uvymopkq, wtf? sniff some better glue, bro) before I got to this gem.
The Huffpost had the article by Don Kaplan from New York Post, he has stated in full on this issue.
this included China is our banker. There to continue these sad a*s sound bites, it is time to turn the page.
It is also clear Chicago is also looking forward to hosting the olympics. To piss off your communist banker and the people who votes for you to represent them can indeed cause a conflict.
In my mind China as a country is much older than the United States, and they are a communist country. Why did the voter years ago allow this country to become so powerful. Big Business, We can not put this
1000 lbs guerrilla in a corner and expect it to day there. When Nixon first started doing business with them they were having problems with Russia. China was a 25lb guerrilla, now they are a super silver back. We gave them that power. Again piss poor judgment with long term effects. 9 millions plus jobs lost to them. We buy product that go in body. What are we taking?
Why do you let Clinton take care of the Olympics?
Loading comments…
Posted April 10, 2008 | 09:36 AM (EST)