Bereft in Berlin

In the matter of Barack Obama and his rhetorical style, a familiar and tedious critique appears -- and reappears -- each time the candidate steps on a new stage. The high-falutin' words. The inspiring sentiments, devoid of any content or connection to reality. The absence of policy prescriptions. The poverty of ideas, beyond the spine-tingling oratory.

And so it is today, following Obama's performance before some 200,000 good burghers of Berlin: "Obama, Vague on Issues, is a Crowd-Pleaser in Europe," intones a New York Times headline, in a typical example of the genre. The suggestion seems to be that Obama missed a perfect opportunity to explain his views on GATT, say, or perhaps offer his opinions on the European Union's standards for global financial integration. For that matter, why didn't Obama take this golden moment to announce a radical new initiative for the earned income tax credit?

Is there -- indeed, could there have been -- a less congenial setting and moment for wonkery than yesterday in Berlin? All the more so, in light of universal agreement among the chattering classes that the reason for Obama's trip was to introduce himself on the world stage. Would he, the central question went, succeed in appearing "presidential" in such an august setting, in front of those who, until now, had experienced Obama only from afar?

And now, having done exactly that, Obama is guilty of 'playing innocent abroad,' in David Brooks's inelegant parlance. In his column today, Brooks compares Obama in Berlin yesterday to Reagan and Kennedy in Berlin two and four decades ago. Alas, Obama comes up short. Kennedy invoked "hard realities"; Reagan cited "tough policies." Whereas Obama's "golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more."

Hard choices? Tough policies? Hmmm. Might Our Mister Brooks have overlooked one little 'bitty fact? Kennedy and Reagan were already president when they went to Berlin. Obama is more than a month away from being the nominee! I confess utter bewilderment at the inaptness of the comparison. What could explain Brooks disappointment at our current presidential aspirant?

Brooks himself provides the answer. He confesses that he was stirred by Obama's ringing oratory at the beginning of the campaign, back in Iowa. But now "it is more than half a year on" and "it turns out the vague overture is the entire symphony." Imagine! Here it is late July, just a month before the political conventions, barely more than three months until election day, and Obama has not laid out his program for even his first term in office, much less his second! Clearly, the manner and rate at which Obama reveals himself, his plans, and his policies have inconvenienced our Mister Brooks. Attention Senator Obama: speed things up, please, we're getting impatient out here.

There is one more component of yesterday's speech that Brooks and some others overlook entirely. Put simply, Obama offered up the very foundation of his foreign policy and his over-arching world view. Berlin, Europe, the world, all anxiously await what follows the calamity of the last eight years. It was Obama's job yesterday to address those anxieties. And he did so, unambiguously. An Obama administration, he made clear, would turn away from American exceptionalism and unilateralism. While declaring his love for his country, Obama announced that the era of American triumphalism would be put to rest. The United States would rejoin the community of nations which it actually quit in January of 2001, nine months before the start of the war on terror.

So, a question: what, precisely, is vague about that?

Comments

[kittyma]

Brooks cannot deal with intelligence for a prolonged period. It exhausts him to sustain that level for too long.

Also, media people (I cannot call them journalists) like Candy Crawley, John King, Joe Scarborough, Wolf Blitzer etc are totally incapable of understanding intelligence and hence if they do not hear a soundbite that they can fit into their standard headline (X blasts Y) they immediately conclude that there was no "substance" in the speech. Their brains have become addled by lack of use over their media people career. --- Or maybe they just did not begin their careers with much.

In short, firstly, Senator Obama is above their heads and secondly, they resent his intelligence.

America is showing its disrespect of learning and intellect as well as its preference for unintelligent leaders who party instead of concentrating on their schoolwork. We seem to prefer being led by people who are allowed to graduate because of who their daddies are instead of those who actually do their work and think!.

[athenasword]

Well said. I think people do resent O's intelligence, which is really very sad. I guess that that 8 years of Bush-speak has conditioned us to expect stupid. We have been trained that intelligence and being articulate are somehow "bad". We have lowered our expectations and it's time we raise the bar again.

[bluevillage]

People who do not hear the substance in his speeches are listening on the wrong wavelength. His speeches are not written to produce sound bites. They build. They build inexorably. The riff on "Hope" in the stump speech, beginning with "Hope is not blind optimism," built up, example by example: "Hope is what caused a small band of colonists to throw off tyranny. Hope is what caused the abolitionists to fight that wicked system." Up through women's suffrage to the freedom marches -- all signal moments in American history that depend on UNITY to win. By the end of this riff, people know exactly what he means by "hope," even if they can't articulate afterward what particular "point" or "policy" they remember.

Part of the intention of the Berlin speech, besides addressing the global, interconnected nature of all our problems, was intended to arouse love for America, to arouse a demonstration of it overseas, and to show his own. Saying "I know how much I love America" is a pretty corny thing to do in Europe, so the fact that he succeeded in his purpose is a testament to his ability to reach deep into our scabbed-over idealism. I haven't felt that vein of true patriotism tapped in me since I was a child watching my father march in a military parade. This speech brought tears to my eyes. You can't reach the elemental with policy prescriptions.

[serena1313]

David Brooks does not understand Obama.

Although Obama is a politician, he is not your "typical" politician. Washington pundits expect him to follow their lead, but that is not what a leader does. Obama is a leader not a follower. But they venerate him for it anyhow.

The world got to know Obama in a personal way. They respect and like him a lot. Worldwide support from the people is a powerful tool for Americans, too. McCain does not have that level of respect. The world sees McCain as representative of Bush's destructive policies that affected their lives (and ours) in unseemly ways.

Obama ignited hope for America and the world. As a result the world community has welcomed America back into the fold to take its place on the world stage. That is by far more important than the opinion of David Brooks and those of like mind.

[jasmine2008]

Barack is totally all about speeches. That is so healing to me! That's why so many people are getting upset and feeling resentment! He has not shown that he has initiated any substantive good works, heavy lifting while he was a community organizer, state legislator, and only one year in the US Senate before he starting running for President. We have a multiple of serious problems in the world. As a junior Senator, people are asking themselves, why was not Barack more involved in going to our NATO countries, and the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan, many times over before he started his run for President? What has been his accomplishments: He's an unaccomplished lawyer, an author, a political strategist, and a basketball player!
Where's the leadership? Where's the beef? Please give me strong evidence that he has changed people's lives and government policies in a substantive and results based way through strong and effective leadership. I do not see Barack as a Uniter nor a person who truly understands the complex issues of this country and the people of this great land.

[bluevillage]

Well, you obviously won't be convinced. But if you want beef, here's a sample list:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/7/165439/7919/327/547838

[cdembrey]

The problem is that Obama never seems to says anything of substance in his speeches. Anywhere, not just in Berlin. Just like Bill Clinton he comes across as sincere, but sincere about what ???

We know that McCain is Bush two, but I guess we will have to wait till after the election to find out if Obama is Bush too.

Why oh why do the Demos keep offering us the lesser of two evils ???

[athenasword]

C'mon... If he HAD made a major policy speech while on an overseas trip, he would have been roasted by the GOP and the press for being presumptuous. He is not yet the President and he isn't trying to be. His objective was not to make policy with those speeches. His tour was about building partnerships and giving people a chance to see him on a world stage. I think he accomplished his objectives brilliantly! More policy speeches coming soon, I'm sure.

[OBAMAthePRESIDENT]

I am amazed at the mere fact this man (McCain) was in one of America's worst mistakes (Vietnam War), and he is now riding on this horror claiming he knows how to win wars.
Well Senator McCain, these are not wars of armies, but rather wars of ideology. It is not just about ARMS and MISSILES, but TRUST, STABILIZATION, ECONOMY, & FUTURE in the Middle East and Obama gets it, you don't!!

[PALinda]

Thank you for framing the true perspective of Obama's world tour.

Has any other POTUS candidate even undertaken such and for such a noble cause ... that, being to -

"... (offer) up the very foundation of his foreign policy and his over-arching world view ,,, to address those (world) anxieties ... ***unambiguously***... (America) would turn away from American exceptionalism and unilateralism.... the era of American triumphalism would be put to rest. The United States would rejoin the community of nations."

A paradigm shift NEEDS to be guided by a rhetoric that frames it. It is said that there is no specific training for the presidency. We know now just how well Obama's perspective, training and experience in conflict resolution and community organizing will serve this country. We know now that he IS ready to LEAD on DAY ONE.

[wm1066]

CNN pretty much ignored it. When they did mention Obama's speech they followed it with a Republican talking point. It was truely pathetic on CNN's part, they really out did themselves.
Obama gave a great speech in Berlin and CNN spiked the story.

[walkthewalk]

The MSM and the McCain campaign have created a lose-lose framework for anything Barack Obama says, does or doesn't say and do. If he's specific in his speeches abroad, he's overstepping his role as merely a candidate for President. If he speaks in general terms, he is vacuous. If he goes to visit troops, he is politicizing them but, if he doesn't, he is dissing them.

After 8 years of Bush, it's time for a little truth-telling from the MSM. Comparing Obama and McCain as potential leaders of our country in the 21st century is like comparing a PhD. to a high school dropout.

[S1m0n]

They may indeed be trying, but the lose-lose scenarios aren't getting traction.

[bluevillage]

The snarky comments by McCain and the right -- no matter what Obama does it's no good -- doesn't sit well with reasonable people. When Obama says he's counting on the decency of the American people to come through for him, he's absolutely right. And there will be enough of them this time. Even the most die-hard Republican members of my family are Obamacans. They're incredibly impressed by him as a man and as a leader. McCain and his griping types are a downer. No one wants to see and hear that in the White House.

[SimiDem]

I think the crux of the matter is that the MSM not only wants, but NEEDS this to be a close race. Sells papers, raises ratings, MORE MONEY! WooHoo!

The only way they can keep this close, and from becoming a Johnson v. Goldwater type of absolute blowout is to ignore the McCain gaffes (or at least play them down) and go after Obama for every tiny, little thing. You are absolutely right in your article, that was not the forum for a policy speech; if he had, boy, you would have seen the sharks feasting on *that* chum...

NYT: Obama Campaigns on Foreign Soil!
LA Times: Obama STILL vague on earned income tax credit
Fox News: (O'Reilly with a huge smile on his face): "I'm more than happy to #$@& do this one live!"
McCain: East Prussia is no place for a policy speech!

The MSM HAS to make this interesting, which is why they cover Obama obsessively, waiting for the slightest slip, interview every Hillraiser and PUMA they can track down to keep "That Old Time Division" going, and just cover the sound bites with McCain that don't make him look bad so they can keep this close. They want McCain to pull even, THEN, if he pulls ahead they will follow him for 10 minutes, wait for him to open his mouth, and get all the material they need to knock him back down. More coverage does not necessarily mean good coverage.

[DasBoot]

What is equally enraging are the two standards that the MSM consistently uses when they judge Democratic and Republican candidates: When Bush doesn't slip and fall on the way to the podium, we are all supposed to be pleasantly surprised how well he did; when Gore/Kerry/Obama don't let the angels sing each time they speak, we are supposed to be disappointed.

But, contrary to Obama's beautiful rhetoric, that trick is wearing thin.

[outnow]

Bottom line is that either Obama is for oil or against it. I bet that he is for oil. Period. But that doesn't make him a bad guy because the supine congress is for oil, too. In fact, Americans are for oil. But that doesn't make them bad guys because the British are for oil. But that doesn't make them bad guys because the Russians and the Chinese are for oil. Bottom line: oil is the new gold.

[JennyJay]

Great article, it gives me a better take on all this stupid criticism. Now I veiw the critics as mere
Puffer Fish, full of nothing but air.

[Gma11]

Good metaphor for the critics, JennyJay! --full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

[PumaAnn]

Obama's speech in Berlin was panned by most of the editorial writers I reviewed as being overly vague and naive.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to give the speech. I'm one of the ones not leaning to vote for him, and the American Idol goes to Europe gig only convinced me more that he's just nothing more than a big marketing story with no substance.

German fans don't vote, but I do.

[Hemmingplay]

I love Huffington Post.

[Gma11]

Of course you would think as you do!! You are self-defined.

[kittyma]

That is the problem. It is a shame that some Americans get to select the American president. What, pray tell us, would you have said if you were he.

Americans have to realise that it is part of a great big world and that it the world is not America and the nothing vacuum. If we still have not realized that China and India and United Arab Emirates have real say in the world--- get real.

Americans need to travel outside of the US more and to live in some other countries to understand reality a bit more. Believe it or not, there are people who live in other countries who are well educated, have systems of government that work well and who love their country more than they love America (which is not their country). They like us when we act like decent people and dislike us when we function stupidly as we did under GW.

It is ridiculous and pathetic that some Americans attacked Senator Obama for addressing "citizens of the world'. Guess what! America is not the world and Americans ARE are citizens of the world. And Americans have responsibilities as citizens of the world. We can't fix global warming in America and ignore it in the rest of the world because the weather stops at the US borders. We can't address oil prices in the US without addressing them world wide. Sorry, people but we are connected.

[PumaAnn]

I would have preferred he campaigned at home rather than abroad. I thought it was in poor taste.

I liked the trip to Iraq. I was embarassed that he failed to visit the troops and tried to blame the pentagon.

I thought the Israel leg was OK.

I thought the overall tenor was OK. His reception was fine from the heads of state, if expected.

Overall, the trip seemed gaudy to me, including the poster and the rally in Berlin.

[akkadian]

The MSM is deceiving no one, anyone who has done even the most cursory research on Obama, read his books or visited his website, knows what his views and policies are.

[Gma11]

I was interested in the fact that Shimon Peres specifically stated having read Obama's books. And he referred to Obama as a great president, already!! I had never anticipated that.