Cold war liberalism had a fine run in the middle third of the 20th century, and it has lingered here and there since. Scoop Jackson kept the flame alive in the 1970s. Peter Beinart wrote a book called “The Good Fight,” giving the tendency modern content.
But after Vietnam, most liberals moved on. It became unfashionable to talk about evil. Some liberals came to believe in the inherent goodness of man and the limitless possibilities of negotiation. Some blamed conflicts on weapons systems and pursued arms control. Some based their foreign-policy thinking on being against whatever George W. Bush was for. If Bush was an idealistic nation-builder, they became Nixonian realists.
Barack Obama never bought into these shifts. In the past few weeks, he has revived the Christian realism that undergirded cold war liberal thinking and tried to apply it to a different world.
I know Reinhold Niebuhr. I studied Reinhold Niebuhr. Barack Obama is no Reinhold Niebuhr.
Fascinating piece. I hope his analysis is correct.
What and where and who defines the specific faith of
Barak Hussein Obama? He certanily does not speak ihis faith.
Is he Muslim, Arab, Christian, Jewish? Do God, Allah, or Jesus ever enter his speeches? Where is his exact point of origin and whom does he represent?
No one seems willing to answer these questions, including Mr. Obama. His main purpose seems to be to spend the capital money of the United States.
Why does no one question his motives?
Why would anyone, even rhetorically, ask if Barak Obama is Muslim, Arab or Jewish? Has he ever claimed to be any of these things?
Heh #1.
Clearly you haven’t read or studied Obama.
#5: And Obama hasn’t understood Niebuhr. ‘A god without wrath who sends his son without a cross into a world without sin’ is pretty much how Obama understands Christianity. He has no redemptive Christology in his thinking.
I don’t see any evidence in Obama’s public speaking that he is seriously Christian in the sense of having any deep theological belief system.
Obama, I think, is a Christian realist, which is why he upsets many on the left. And, of course, the right.
I admit that I’m a bit stunned by the comments. The speech Obama gave to the Nobel Committee could have been written by Niebuhr. And Azusa, you might choose to back up your claim from Obama’s extensive theological writings with a quote. A direct one, from the president himself. Otherwise it seems petty, cheap, and beneath you.
I’m ready to be corrected.
#3 – you raise an interesting question. A comparison with other presidents would be of merit. Would you compare him to Jimmy Carter? Or Nixon? Which of the great presidents were particularly religious? Does religious fervor guarantee leadership or administrative skill? Or can it be used as a distraction, a get out of jail free card?
#8
Obama’s specialty is making speeches. They are meaningless without action. The only place his foreign policy has resembled that of the Cold War liberals, rather than the post-Vietnam McGovernites, is Afghanistan, where his declaration of a (admittedly fuzzy and confusing, given the contradictory signals out of others in his administration) deadline to begin withdrawal belies any goal of actually sticking to the goal of defeating the Taliban.
Neibuhr was a strong advocate for standing up to the enemies of freedom, and his Christian realism had to do with the use of force in opposition to the growing trend toward pacifism in the mainline churches. Obama, on the other hand, has either wilted in the face of those enemies (his pusillanimous response to the Iranian election protests) or thrown in with them (his condemnation of the removal of Zelaya in Honduras, a legal move by the legislative and judicial branches of the Honduran government to check an incipient tyrant backed by Hugo Chavez, a move that was unaccountably opposed by Obama, seemingly for the sole reason that the Honduran military was involved, thus supposedly making it a “coup”). “Realism,” these days, in reaction to Bush’s actions in Iraq, seems mostly to be a rejection of defense of or advocacy for freedom, democracy, and human rights, in the name of placating the enemies of same. Niebuhr would be appalled.
#8. John Wilkins,
[blockquote]And Azusa, you might choose to back up your claim from Obama’s extensive theological writings with a quote.[/blockquote]
John, I seem to have missed these writings you refer to. Could you provide some links or sources for me? Is this kind of like you referring to Obama as a “constitutional law scholar” a while back?
Brooks..[blockquote]He talked about the “core struggle of human nature†between love and evil.[/blockquote] I think St. Paul described the core struggle best between good and evil (not love and evil) in Romans Chapter seven.
#11. Dcn Dale:
Obama taught constitutional law at U. of Chicago — which, incidentally, is always among the top handful in the country, along with Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, etc. Are you seriously suggesting that one of the best law schools in the country hired a con-law idiot to teach con-law classes, and then kept him on for years despite manifest unfitness to teach the subject at hand?
13. fishsticks
[blockquote]Are you seriously suggesting that one of the best law schools in the country hired a con-law idiot to teach con-law classes, and then kept him on for years despite manifest unfitness to teach the subject at hand?[/blockquote]
I don’t know where you get the word idiot from what I said. That is rather inflammatory language. My point was that John Wilkins once referred to Obama as a constitutional scholar. Teaching constitutional law does not mean one is a scholar. How many books has he written and how many papers has he published in peer refereed journals on constitutional law?
#14. Dcn Dale:
You didn’t use the word “idiot;†you did make it perfectly clear that you do not believe Obama can be described as a “constitutional law scholar.â€
Incidentally, a scholar is:
If he cannot be considered a scholar of constitutional law, my question stands: are you suggesting that one of the best law schools in the country hired as a con-law instructor someone who was unqualified to hold that position?
David,
First of all you seem to imply that Obama might not have good reasons to make the point he did. First of all, the war in Afghanistan is unpopular. Second, it looks as if there were many mistakes he has to correct given the poorly executed war. You might also want to check out the great theologian’s writings on imperialism. Niebuhr was a fairly complex thinker, with nuance.
For example, taking firm action in Iran would have undermined the opposition because it would have made the protesters seem to be in bed with the great Satan. The situation in Honduras is a bit more complex than you suggest; it was still military action and probably unnecessary.
Actually, my statement about Obama was a joke. My point is that Obama is not a theologian. To expect him to be such is … remarkable. If Obama walked on water, conservatives would claim he couldn’t swim.
However, he did have a conversion experience that is interesting. I don’t see it referred to very often.
As far as Obama’s scholarly work, I don’t have your expertise in evaluating it, Deacon. But one can have skills in writing and teaching without having been published (and apparently, his skills in both were pretty outstanding). Personally, it was probably wise he didn’t publish. He might not have gotten elected.
🙂
Here is one general article I pulled up:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/700499,CST-NWS-Obama-law17.article
I think the implication I find offensive is that Obama is somehow not qualified intellectually or administratively for the job. What has been apparent is that he inherited a mess; and that things are clearly moving. And moving forward. He might have made some mistakes, but nobody can say he hasn’t been working hard and making some tough decisions. At the very least, Obama has been a leader, a chief executive and a commander.
#16. John Wilkins:
Hear, hear!!
fishsticks,
I am an emeritus professor with twenty years experience and have published research and contributed to edited journals. I do not consider myself to be a scholar. I consider myself to be a good instructor based on student perception inventories and peer reviews during my tenure.
Based on my understanding of what scholarship means President Obama and I are not scholars. I believe Obama the instructor got good evaluations from his students and suspect he was an excellent instructor. I would refer to someone such as N.T. Wright as a New Testament Scholar based on his books, publications and respect in the professional community.
If you disagree with me on what constitutes a scholar that is fine with me.
#16. John Wilkins,
[blockquote]Actually, my statement about Obama was a joke. My point is that Obama is not a theologian[/blockquote]
Sorry John, but I don’t see the humor. your statement in #8. could easily be seen as sarcasm, diminishing Obama who I know you are intending to defend.
#18. Dcn Dale:
I suspect that the distance between us on this score may be partly attributable to modesty. For example, I know a few people who I believe would qualify as scholars in your book, but I sincerely doubt that any of them would ever describe themselves that way.
Of course, Obama (to my knowledge) hasn’t described himself as a con-law scholar; others did so, you disputed the appropriateness of that description, and here we are.
But back to something else you said: I’m not at all convinced that one must necessarily have published either books or articles before one may fairly be considered a scholar. Certainly, being a published author can play into it, but surely you have known one or two people who have made themselves devoted scholars of a particular subject, and yet keep it mostly to themselves.
Oh, and from what I’ve heard from Obama’s former students — I’ve known one or two for years, and have met others through them — he certainly was “an excellent instructor.” One old friend, in particular, is a life-long Republican (with, in my opinion, a reasonably strong Libertarian streak), and she told me years ago that she truly hoped he would run for president one day; when he did, she voted for him without reservation or hesitation — the first Democrat to get her vote, in any race.
#19. Dcn Dale:
I disagree: I don’t think John Wilkins’ comment at #8 can “easily” be seen as sarcasm which diminishes Obama; I did think it was a joke.
#21. fishsticks,
I know the source of the comment and yet I was confused enough to ask John to supply me with references or links. If any known conservative had said the same thing, guess what the criticism would have been? It would have been better for John in terms of communication to be up front about what he meant. Clever is not as important as clear especially with electronic communication.
John,
Obviously there’s a lot more to Niebuhr than I could mention in a brief comment. You’re certainly right about that. But I’m still don’t see Obama as his disciple.
For example, taking firm action in Iran would have undermined the opposition because it would have made the protesters seem to be in bed with the great Satan.
A lot of Obama defenders have taken this line, and I don’t buy it. Every piece of research I’ve seen about the attitudes of average Iranians indicates that they admire the US and want closer relations. The mullahs are unpopular enough that they’ve had to resort to stealing elections and street thuggery to maintain their power, and that’s only if the Revolutionary Guards allow them to keep it. I would contend that Obama’s silence told the Iranian on the street that we don’t care whether they are free or not as long as they don’t threaten us or Israel. I can’t imagine a worse message to send.
The situation in Honduras is a bit more complex than you suggest; it was still military action and probably unnecessary.
The military action may not have been necessary, but it was undertaken in obedience to legal actions taken by the legislature and judiciary. The military only moved when ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. It’s not the way we would have done it, but would it really have made us happier if the HSC had used policemen rather than military forces?
The Honduras situation is one in which the US position would have been adopted almost regardless of the occupant of the White House. Our interests are in preserving constitutional systems in Latin America. Chavez’s boosterism for Zelaya made the situation tricky for the US, but the ultimate policy line was consistent with US interests in the region.
#24, it was the constitutional system in place in Honduras which caused Zelaya’s removal. Our government’s actions were efforts to undermine Honduran constitutional procedures. Those procedures and requirements were drawn up and ratified for the purpose of preventing dictatorships, which is what Zelaya was attempting to impose with an illegal rigged election. No way was what we did consistent with U.S. principles and interests.
You’re absolutely right, Katherine. That was confirmed by the Law Library of Congress in a report that John Kerry later tried to get changed, but backed off when his attempt to politicize the report was revealed.
John#16, I can’t make your link work. It ends with “.article”?
David, it’s actually a position suggested by anti-mullah Iranian organizations, not just by Obama defenders. You don’t “buy” it, but it is because Obama did not act like the “great satan” the protests were as popular as they were. The Iranian Mullah’s couldn’t triangulate the issue. By and large, Iranian organizers take the view that they have to do the work, not the US. It is patronizing to think otherwise.
My point, David and Katherine, is that Obama’s decisions – even if they may have been wrong – were not poorly made. We can make bad decisions based on good information. Obama’s decisions, in these two cases, were along the line of solid anti-theocratic Iranian advocacy organizations in Washington, and Latin American organizations.
I did not know that Zelaya was attempting to rig the election. But in any case, it is not merely Obama, but the entire Organization of American States that was duped if the coup was justified.
The previous administration strengthened the theocratist position in Iran immensely by playing into their portrayal of the United States as a great enemy of both Islam and Iranian autonomy. dictators frequently use the perception of an evil, external enemy to get populations to overlook their shortcomings. We accommodated the Iranian ruling elite by providing them with a catalyst that they could use to distract from their internal incompetence. Without our feeding the caricature of the United States as a reflexively anti-Iranian, anti-muslim bully, the Iranian regime becomes more brittle and fragile.