tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post6952401087543412..comments2024-02-10T04:32:14.218-05:00Comments on Kevin Slaten's Blog: Obama's Missing PieceKevin Slatenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-65237383896143003662009-03-02T11:17:00.000-05:002009-03-02T11:17:00.000-05:00I understand what you are saying in that he may ev...I understand what you are saying in that he may eventually describe his policy. But there is *one time* every year that he has the ear of every American: the State of the Union. And it is his responsibility as commander-in-chief and head diplomat to use that opportunity to educate the people on his foreign policy. <BR/><BR/>As I said in another response on my blog, every president up to this point has been able to chew gum and walk. So can Obama. At the height of the recession in the 1980s, Reagan didn't just forget about his grand strategy of seeing capitalism prevail against communism. Obama can do both. And he must. Or else we will become a reactionary superpower, being shaped by crises around the world.Kevin Slatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-86656631571878099892009-03-02T11:16:00.000-05:002009-03-02T11:16:00.000-05:00I don't agree with you on this one - I agree these...I don't agree with you on this one - I agree these issues were not addresswed; but, I truly believe given time [maybe more than a month in office] he will focus on these issues and give us a detailed policy. Even Obama, I believe, would agree with your questions and there importance. But, we must get our "house" on order if we are to lead by example and not by military might. Give him just a little more time?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-78008009659203206462009-03-01T11:34:00.000-05:002009-03-01T11:34:00.000-05:00Thanks, Cindy. But I'm not sure I'd want many more...Thanks, Cindy. But I'm not sure I'd want many more Kevin running around -- too many opinions! :)<BR/><BR/>I agree that the US audience, unfortunately, often has a difficult time realizing the effects of international affairs on their daily lives. <BR/><BR/>But I disagree with you that it is the primary job of the president to only speak to what most people in the audience know about (i.e. domestic affairs). Let's put aside that he is America's commander-in-chief and head diplomat (so it his job under law to think/talk about foreign affairs). MOre importantly, he should use his privileged position of knowledge and a bully pulpit to *explain* to the American people how international affairs affect them.<BR/><BR/>You say that it requires a "massive evolution". I'd say it requires massive education. And it begins with our leaders.Kevin Slatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-58315759633768330272009-03-01T09:35:00.000-05:002009-03-01T09:35:00.000-05:00Obama did what every public speaker does, especial...Obama did what every public speaker does, especially in time of crisis and magnified interest. He spoke to the main interest of the audience, in this case, everyday Americans worried about jobs, homes, family. Unfortunately, most everyday citizen doesn't think beyond self interest and leaves larger issues like foreign affairs to intellectuals. In my opinion, not a good idea beacause often intellectuals get caught up in their own idealistic or realistic world, and forget the daily stressors faced by Joe blow from windy city. Personally, I wish we had more Kevins than Joe Blows, but that would require massive evolution in homes, and schools that produce thinkers. CindyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-71033584649261348012009-02-26T16:54:00.000-05:002009-02-26T16:54:00.000-05:00prioritization re: I accounted for this in my post...prioritization re: I accounted for this in my post. I didn't say that foreign policy should take precedent or even be *equal* to domestic policy (it usually isn't anyway). But a president is not just the chief executive; he is the *commander-in-chief*. This is key. He was elected (and is responsible under the Constitution) to do both. Every president up to this time has been able to walk and chew gum at the same time; I have no doubt that Obama can as well.<BR/><BR/>American superiority re: You seem to misunderstand/mischaracterize my argument here. You used a quote as evidence, but forgot to consider the immediate predecessor: "...it is not enough for *any country*, especially a global superpower, to leap from crisis to crisis, reacting to flashpoints as they present themselves." [My emphasis.] Every country... no... every social agent in the world (this includes organizations and individuals) should have a vision. A person ought not live life from event-to-event without an overall framework. Neither should a nation-state. <BR/> So no. The US is not the only global power that should have a vision for the world -- whether or not it is the only superpower (that is debated). Further, since this principle normatively necessitates around 200 national visions, it is of paramount importance that states work together to try to forge *common* visions, less we have 200 competing, uncoordinated motives in international politics. (Hence, the importance of international governmental organizations [IGOs].) <BR/><BR/>international law/organizations re: at evidenced above, there is necessity for international organizations. Unless you prefer the somewhat perpetual state of conflict and war of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries (and the 20th wasn't so hot either!), then you *must* have neutral IGOs with loyalties to no one state. (Ideally, their loyalties should be to every citizen of the world equally.) Of course, the reality is more complex because states *fund* and *run* IGOs like the UN, so power politics still matter greatly. And of course, IGOs are still run by humans, so by default, they are imperfect and corruption can/does occur. (However, "completely corrupt" is an unfounded statement. Corruption is the exception in the UN and its related bodies, not the rule. And I would like to see your evidence for "complete" corruption.)<BR/> Your last sentences got to the root of IGOs, though. What is the alternative? The US government often shows signs of corruption; should we give up on it altogether? Of course not. The key is better governance. The same applies to the international level. <BR/> And I agree with you that international law and, especially, IGOs suffer from a deficit of enforcement. But how can you both realize the problem and then propose to move in the opposite direction of the solution. The solution is not to defund and dissemble international law or IGOs. To the contrary, more effective international governance requires better funded and more empowered international bodies. <BR/><BR/>All of this, though, assumes that your *vision* is one of better international governance through IGOs and international law. This requires a vision in the first place. What does Obama want? The argument comes full circle...Kevin Slatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07892885228803292894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7971426430678948233.post-81844475275651152012009-02-26T16:51:00.000-05:002009-02-26T16:51:00.000-05:00I don't know if I agree with your blog comments ab...I don't know if I agree with your blog comments about how Obama should have spent more time outlining a foreign policy vision in his speech from the other night. While I don't want to see him get so mired in our domestic problems that he forgets about fixing the foreign policy debacle of the last 8 years, we are in the middle of the greatest recession since the 30s. Now is not the time to be articulating an American vision for international relations. Too much is in disarray here at home - a foreign policy vision can wait. I say that Obama needs to let Hilary do her job as Secretary of State and be his mouthpiece for the time being while he wades through the much of financial re-regulation here. I do agree with you, however, that a path for the bureaucrats to follow is necessary and that time will be wasted if he doesn't articulate that path soon. But this can wait at least a year.<BR/> <BR/>Also - I know that you asked the rhetorical question of whether or not America should be the only superpower, but many of your comments from earlier paragraphs seemed influenced by an idealistic sense of American superiority. (This sentence, for instance: "America must actively shape the world it wants to see five, ten, or twenty years from now.") What do you think? Maybe the statement is just an acknowledgment that for the time being America is still the only superpower so it has to be the one to shape the world? I don't think you intended to come across as a superior American, but it is interesting how growing up in this country influences how you feel about the world, right? <BR/><BR/>It's interesting because when I was in law school, I took several classes on international law, including the general survey class on international law, international human rights, international trade and national security law (which was fascinating, let me tell you). I was a firm believer in the UN - up until they utterly FAILED to keep Bush from invading Iraq. As I get older, however, I wonder if my idealism about international relations and comity is misplaced. Technically speaking, there is no way to enforce international law. Sure we have the ICJ and the ICC, but they can't really FORCE any nation to follow their judgments. And the US has many times stated that they just wouldn't listen when the ICJ found for the other side. The UN has shown itself to be completely corrupt and ineffective. There has to be a better way to get countries to work together, to protect the weak from the overly aggressive, etc., and enforce international norms when needed. But I don't know what that way would be and I'm not sure that Obama (and by extension America) should be the country leading the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com