Obama's Internationalism: Echoes of FDR, HST and JFK
President Obama gave a speech last week in Moscow that conjures up memories of our greatest foreign policy presidents, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and John Kennedy. Two lines from Obama's address directly echo the themes and concerns of these three 20th century Democratic leaders.
First Obama stated: "Any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared."
And then he said: ""Now let me be clear: America cannot and should not seek to impose any system of government on any other country, nor should we presume to choose which party or individual should run a country."
His remarks are eerily reminiscent of two powerful speeches which President Franklin Roosevelt and his successor, President Harry Truman, delivered within four months of each other in 1945.
FDR said in March 1945: "We shall have to take responsibility for world collaboration, or we shall have to bear the responsibility for another world conflict."
And Truman's remarks in June 1945: "We all have to recognize -- no matter how great our strength -- that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can, or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace."
Finally there are John Kennedy's comments in his talk at the University of Washington on November 16, 1961: "In short, we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient -- that we are only six percent of the world's population -- that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind -- that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity -- and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
Obama's words represent a continuation of this historic tradition of internationalism in the Democratic Party that has helped build America into the most powerful land on earth. The Obama presidency gives hope for a return to such realistic multilateral diplomacy of yore in the coming years.
Loading comments…
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
We do have to remember, it was FDR who interned the Japanese in America because there was fear they would attack the US from within, showing a lack of multilateral ideals. In the Great Depression FDR cared more about protectionism than working with the world in solving the crisis. He allied himself with Stalin, although he did so out of necessity to fight the Nazis, and gave into Stalin’s demands at the convention in Yalta over the division of post-war Europe which lead to the division of East and West Europe. It was Truman who dropped the bomb on Japan. He also fell to Stalin’s demands of post-war Europe at the Potsdam Conference It was under his administration that the Cold War began, which dominated foreign policy for decades. Finally, it was JFK who escalated the Vietnam War and the mess at the Bay of Pigs. His handling of the Cuban missile crisis is under debate. I would have to say FDR, Truman, and JFK are actually good examples of poor foreign policy rather than great ones.
What is confusing about Schlesinger’s connection between Obama, FDR, Truman and Kennedy is that Obama’s words, which were directed at staying out of the recent Iranian election, is that FDR and Truman both strongly believed it was America’s duty and responsibility to establish democracy and their form of government on post-war Europe and Japan. In addition, Kennedy advocated for Democracy in Vietnam.
After having read the headline, I immediately wished Obama had echoed the foreign policy of Hunter S. Thompson.
The Thompson doctrine: There is no international problem that cannot be resolved through the repeated application of hallucinogens.
Saying "Any world order that tries to elevate one nation or one group of people over another will inevitably fail. The pursuit of power is no longer a zero-sum game -- progress must be shared." doesn't mean this president will be any different in his "foreign policy" approach than any other president, and although George Bush spoke to press conferences with somewhat of the same sentiments, he also talked about invading Iraq as a "bringing democracy to the people of Iraq." That's an imposition. What the hell are we doing in Afghanistan? Oh sure, the cover is we are helping the people there deal with the Taliban but that really isn't the reason we are there. Again, just as in explaining why we were in Iraq, the propaganda is that we are going after the forces that are in Afghanistan THERE so we don't have to deal with them HERE. To believe that any other president didn't have other motives in Europe, in Korea, in Vietnam or in Iraq than bringing a sort of democratic government, a government of equality, is absurd. We have ALWAYS tried to extend our own forms of political philosophy, as well as our capitalist businesses, to the nations we have invaded. Usually the business are the ones that are remembered and kept: Coca Cola, McDonald's, for starters.
Mr. Schlesinger: It all sounds nice, but would Kennedy ratify a deal to reduce America's nuclear arsenal without being able to inspect Russia's 400 square miles of underground weapon's facilities, thus putting the U.S. in grave danger of a massive nuclear first-strike? I don't think so. Would Kennedy have handed over the entire economy to two historical failures like Geithner and Summers while he took a bunch of feel-good trips abroad? I don't think so. Kennedy fought the FED tooth and nail even to the point of printing Treasury Notes rather than Federal Reserve Notes shortly before he was gunned down in broad daylight. Kennedy would have never expanded the unnatural powers of the FED over the economy when it was historically evident that it was the FED who has been responsible for selling out the American worker and unbalancing and wrecking the American economy.
You don't know what you're talking about -- you've been listening to Fox News again, and they only tell lies. America is not in any danger because the president wants to reduce its nuclear arsenal. ALL the experts say that we have MORE than we need at this point in time; a small percentage reduction would be inconsequential.
Try to find a credible source, one that deals in facts, before you shoot your mouth off so you don't sound so misinformed and just plain ignorant.
Excellent post. The enemies of Obama are suffering from historical amnesia. Besides, the man has only been in office six months and his enemies are already blaming everything on him. It is as if he was the president for the past eight years. Now it may be the case that Obama's policies may not work but I do not remember any previous president subjected to the same critiques as Obama has. Republican members of Congress are already labeling the dire economy Obama inherited from Bush the "Obama failed economy." I am sure they are counting on the majority of people being so stupid to have no memory of who was president the past eight years..
"I am sure they are counting on the majority of people being so stupid to have no memory of who was president the past eight years."
And they will be sorely disappointed. Fool the American people twice, shame on you; fool them 3 times, shame on them. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.
It already has, pal, it already has.
Obama has frustrated all our allies and emboldened our adversaries. His moves towards protectionism have frightened all our trade partners and have resulted in the weakening of international trade. While engaging our adversaries in diplomacy isn't necessarily bad he has cost us a significant amount of leverage in dealing with Iran, Cuba, and North Korea. Putin gave him a verbal beat down, Chavez treats him like Bush, and Gordon Brown wants DVD's that work.
Obama fails to understand what he perceives to be the purveying of kindness is seen as the exposure of weakness, and there is a handful of countries that will gladly exploit this. Stephen should have added Carter to the list of presidents he emulates.
You can make things up all you want but people who know the truth know that you are just lying about Obama. Obama has done exactly the opposite of what you claim he has done.
So your saying that he has reprimanded all the above? That he has increased sanctions on Iran that he has refused to talk with Cuba, that his policies have been anti-labo union and pro-import, and that he gave Brown DVD's that dont work cause of region codes?
The stuff i wrote should have inspired a negative response but please read what i wrote before you argue.
Obama was against protectionism- it was the Republicans who demanded "buy American."
Your criticism of his diplomacy is based on Republican talking points (Putin's "verbal beat down"? Brown's DVDs?) Really, how superficial.
Kindness is now a weakness? Again, such a simplistic view is just sad.
and Putin did not verbally beat down the President -- that's right-wing spin. They are so jealous of Pres. Obama's success in international affairs that all they can do is try to lie about it. They cannot hope to come close to achieving what he's done in a few short months. They can only hope the voters don't notice.
You are on-point with almost everything you said; evidence of this is the fact that nk007 can't give one instance of why you are wrong, he/she just states that "you are wrong" and hopes that carries the day... The only disagreement I have is with the Chavez comment; while Chavez may view Bush and Obama as American "evil" (=success and power), Chavez does not treat Obama the same; or, should I say, Obama allowed himself to be treated in a way that Bush would never have allowed, and similarly, Chavez would've never tried that with Bush...(the incident where he made an absolute mockery and joke of Obama by handing him in a book in front of the international press that blames USA for all of South America's woes). Chavez laughed with mischief as he handed Obama the book, and Obama sat there like a deer in headlights, smiling awkwardly and holding it up. "Of mice and men."... Say what you want about Bush; that s%&t would've never flown on his watch.
I didn't see anyone in any of the countries that Obama visited throwing shoes at him.
Good column. I agree.
I think that even during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford and even Reagan and Bush 41, foreign policy was basically on the same track. I haven't forgotten about Vietnam or Iran-contra. I am not saying that foreign policy was perfect. I am just saying that the framework of our foreign policy was basically adhered to the whole time from 1945 until 2001. My point is that Obama's multi-lateral "smart-power" foreign policy wouldn't be that exceptional except for the fact that the Neo-con "Katsenjammer Kids" made such a mess of things during their time in power from 2001 thru 2008.
"made such a mess" is an understated; which is why President Obama's multi-lateral 'smart-power" foreign policy isn't just exceptional but crucial as well
A mess? You are probably going to say Iraq and try to say Afghanistan. That is it. He has done much in the expanding of free trade (which to the world's dismay is being reversed), the most in foreign assistance to Africa, stymied Sudan, and actually made us safe from terror attacks unlike the 8 years before his presidency.
I think you're absolutely right, for while foreign policy under the Nixon, Reagen,and even HW Bush administrations wasn't exactly Shangri La, it pales by comparison to the nationalistic hy.ste.ria cooked up by W and his fellow fan.a.tic.s over the past 8 years,
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
