“WASHINGTON — This is the speech President Obama did not make on his foreign policy (with thanks to Stephen Heintz, a shrewd observer of America’s role in the world):My fellow Americans:I have based my foreign policy on some tough realities that are hard to talk about because no American likes to hear about the limits of our power. But those limits have grown. American power in the 21st century cannot be what it was in 1945 — or even in 1990.To say this is to be accused of defeatism, of managing American decline and of giving up on American exceptionalism. That is why I have pursued an implicit foreign policy rather than an explicit one. That is why I waited so long to give this speech on my doctrine of restraint. No president wants to make a speech called “The Consequences of the End of the American Century.” It’s political suicide.”
Source: Obama’s Implicit Foreign Policy – The New York Times
Excellent comments follow this excellent piece.
This is disconcerting, if not heart-breaking. All my arguments for supporting Hillary Clinton seem to go down the toilet with this failure to support President Obama, and what is probably in the best interest of the American people. While it is possible that Hillary just wants to oppose the Trans-Pacific trade deal during the primary season, there is something foul about such calculation. Her critics keep mentioning this side of her, but I honestly never saw it clearly until this moment.
President Obama has championed the 12-nation trade pact, while liberals in the Democratic Party have vehemently opposed it.
nytimes.com|By Amy Chozick
“Updated, 7:32 p.m. | Hillary Rodham Clinton dealt a significant blow to President Obama in his efforts to secure approval from Congress on his signature trade agreement, saying on Wednesday she could not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-nation trade pact that she bolstered as secretary of state and that liberals in the Democratic Party have vehemently opposed.After months of delicately avoiding expressing an opinion on the controversial trade deal, Mrs. Clinton said the agreement in its current form did not meet her high bar for protecting American workers, the environment and advancing national security.Her opposition to the trade pact comes just before next Tuesday’s first Democratic presidential debate and represents the latest and most potentially damaging break with Mr. Obama.”
Source: Hillary Clinton Opposes Obama’s Trans-Pacific Trade Deal – First Draft. Political News, Now. – The New York Times
“In Bushworld, in other words, playing a central role in catastrophic policy failure doesn’t disqualify you from future influence. If anything, a record of being disastrously wrong on national security issues seems to be a required credential.
Voters, even Republican primary voters, may not share that view, and the past few days have probably taken a toll on Mr. Bush’s presidential prospects. In a way, however, that’s unfair. Iraq is a special problem for the Bush family, which has a history both of never admitting mistakes and of sticking with loyal family retainers no matter how badly they perform. But refusal to learn from experience, combined with a version of political correctness in which you’re only acceptable if you have been wrong about crucial issues, is pervasive in the modern Republican Party.”
via Fraternity of Failure – NYTimes.com.