Barack Obama offers hope but does he possess wisdom?

Joe Loconte is concerned about Barack Obama's preparedness to be America's Commander-in-Chief with so many gathering storms on the horizon.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—For a flickering moment, at the start of the New Hampshire Democratic debate on Saturday night, Barack Obama had the stricken look of the school boy who discovers he can’t answer the opening essay question on the final exam.

For months Obama mostly has dismissed any serious discussion of America’s national security threats with his tidy mantra: “I’m for a politics of hope instead of a politics of fear.” Hope is our friend, he constantly reminds us. And he’s definitely not for fear. No more fear-mongering politics, please. "We can't afford the same politics of fear that invokes 9/11 as a way to scare up votes." We just can’t afford it anymore. It’s scary to scare up votes that way. So I’ll say it again: “I don’t want to talk about fear.”

But there was the debate moderator, Charlie Gibson of ABC News, and all Charlie wanted to talk about was fear and the politics of fear.

GIBSON: Let me start with what is generally agreed to be, I think, the greatest threat to the United States today, and, somewhat to my surprise, has not been discussed as much in the presidential debates this year as I thought would be, and that is…nuclear terrorism.

What a minute! That’s the Bush Administration’s bogeyman routine! They’ve even turned news anchormen into their marionettes! Where’s that talking snowman when you need him?!

GIBSON: And for some background, here’s ABC’s Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross.

BEGIN VIDEO CLIP

BRIAN ROSS, ABC CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: After more than six years of trying, the United States still does not have a reliable way to spot nuclear material that terrorists might smuggle into the country, much as ABC News twice did in demonstrations without being caught. And after six years of trying, the United States has yet to capture the man who says it is his religious duty to get nuclear weapons: Osama bin Laden.

GIBSON: Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is, how aggressively would you go after Al Qaeda leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama…

Gibson reminded Obama that he pledged as president to launch a military strike in western Pakistan if he had “actionable intelligence” that bin Laden was there—whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Obama implied he would take this action with or without approval from the United Nations Security Council, meaning he would act “unilaterally” to violate the sovereignty of a U.N. member state. He would do this not in response to an attack against the United States, he suggested, but to prevent another anticipated attack, meaning he would act “pre-emptively.” In other words, he would act pre-emptively and unilaterally if the security of the United States depended on swift military action.

GIBSON: Do you stand by that?

Obama’s lips begin to move, slowly.

OBAMA: I do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaeda, which is now based in northwest Pakistan…What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.

GIBSON: I’m going to the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. (Italics added)

There they go again! The politics of fear!

OBAMA: No, this is not the same thing…this is not speculation.

Hence the Obama antidote to the politics of fear: Be certain, very certain, about the intentions of the bad guys before you apply the Bush doctrine to international threats to U.S. security. And be certain, very certain, never to call your doctrine pre-emption or imply you might approve unilateral action or that you suspect the Patriot Act might have prevented another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The problem with Barack Obama is not his personal story or his themes of hopefulness and change. It is heartening that Obama, an African-American, could generate such enthusiasm among voters of all ages and races, as his electrifying victory in the Iowa caucus suggested. For the cause of race relations in America, that is a very good thing.

But there are other causes facing Americans at this political moment. There are gathering storms that can’t be wished away because they’re unpleasant to think about, as ABC’s Charlie Gibson had the temerity to suggest. Keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of genocidal jihadists, rebuilding the failed states of Afghanistan and Iraq, prodding democratic reform in the Arab world—these are not causes to be undertaken by those armed only with hope. Wisdom is needed as well: the ability to make difficult strategic and moral decisions, and to get them right when it really matters. Liberals like to imagine that wisdom emerges spontaneously, without effort or depth of character. No need for the crucible of experiences in leadership that produce humility, offer perspective, and sharpen judgment. Barack Obama not only lacks these experiences, but wears their absence as a badge of honor.

This character deficit may not, at the end of the day, trouble many voters. It hardly registers among our media elites—who remain obsessed with superficialities, in awe of Obama’s political momentum, and sympathetic to his appeal. The day after the Bush administration released its latest intelligence report, “The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,” The New York Times followed its predictable script. Its lead editorial, “The Politics of Fear,” accused the White House of stoking anxiety for raw political gain by highlighting the terrorist activities of al Qaeda in Pakistan and beyond. That was back in July. Five months later Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto was murdered in broad daylight by the forces of extremism.

Well, so much for the politics of fear. Senator Obama’s first response to Bhutto’s assassination was to castigate the Bush White House for continuing its efforts to stabilize Iraq—and, by golly, he’s going to change that. His media cheerleaders don’t seem to mind. George Stephanopoulos of ABC News noted that Obama grew up in Hawaii and spent a lot of time surfing. “What he’s got to do,” he gushed, “is just ride this wave of change.” NBC’s David Gregory captured the effervescent mood: “At the end of the day, Barack Obama is going to make people feel something.”

If that’s all we really expect of our leaders—emoting but not thinking, riding the change wave regardless of the reefs and the undertow—then perhaps the greatest threat to the United States is already among us.

Joe Loconte is a senior fellow at Pepperdine University’s School of Public Policy and a commentator on religion and politics for National Public Radio.

Related link: Barack Obama's worldview

Comments

[Tony Makara]

Obama comes across as being a knee jerk big-fix politician. His comments on Pakistan are naive to say the least. If this man were to become president you can bet that president Putin for one would take the opportunity to test the water with Obama, as Russian leaders are oft prone to do. I wouldn't feel safe with Obama as president.

[Politico]

Obama would be brilliant for the UK and Europe...I dont think he knows how to use the real political power america has (the extent to which UK and european decision making is heavily influenced by america) - Bush strengthened this position - Hillary is smart enough and experienced enough to put her own people in place to continue it - but Obama isnt, which gives Europe time enough to regain superpower status and end the American century. What exciting times.

[John Ionides]

Well, after reading this I get the impression I have just been very heavily spinned at.

The Bush Jnr foreign policy has been scarred by heavy political infighting (which, IMHO, is the greatest single contributing factor to the mess that emerged in Iraq). Policy is important, but so is the ability to deliver that policy and if Obama is capable of putting together a team that is willing to pull together (and that is one thing that his campaign seems to be singularly good at) then that is much more important than the details of policy at this point.

[Adam in London]

Obama is lucky that Joe Biden wasn't at the New Hampshire debate. He would have torn him apart on Pakistan.

You do not combat the threat of nuclear terrorism by launching a pre-emptive strike into the territory of an unstable nuclear power without it's approval. That is basically asking for the Pakistani government to fall, and hand bin Laden his best opportunity for getting his hands on the material for a nuclear weapon.

[John Ionides]

I take it you were strongly against Iraq for the same reasons then Adam.

The problem with the Pakistan situation is that pretty much any set line can be attacked. Want Pakistan to try to resolve its own problems? You are just sitting back a watching a nuclear state falls into the arms of radical Islam. Want to go in hard? You are just forcing a nuclear state into the arms of radical Islam. The place is a mess and if the situation is resolved it will be by quiet pragmatic measures that it would be almost impossible to articulate on the campaign trail.

I can't believe that Biden doesn't realise this which is why I think he is up to making mischief rather than actually making a serious point in pushing this angle.

[Tapestry]

Makes sense to me. Either the bad guys are coming after the US or they are not. If you have intelligence showing that they are, then a responsible President would act, whether Pakistan would be affronted or not.

[Patsy Sergeant]

I think that whatever else Barack Obama is, he is very young to be a US president, he does not have much political experience, I fear that he might come under the influence of someone like Rumfeld or some other 'fixed opinion' politician. I don't think that being honest and straightforward, which Obama comes across as, is necessarily of any help in having to manage a job of such vast influence and complication as President of the US.

[Tony Makara]

The primary is being carried by C-Span at midnight UK time if anyone is up to watch it.

http://www.c-span.org/

[talleyrand]

I agree with Obama that pre-emptive military action is not per se illegal or imprudent. The problem with Iraq is that the reasons for invading were spurious. If Iraq really had been planning an imminent attack on the US with WMDs, a pre-emptive strike would have been justified. I think Obama would agree with that.

As far as "experience" goes, there is no set of experiences that could possibly prepare a person adequately for the awesome responsibility of President of the USA. So you have to look for qualities--intelligence, flexibility, judgment and moral courage. Obama has shown all of these qualities, particularly in his decision to publicly oppose the invasion of Iraq when the vast majority of the US approved it.

[Steevo]

Politico, send me your sense of humor if those exciting times do come to pass ;)

[Simon Chapman]

The New Statesman's cover piece for this week lays into Obama with a Clinton-esque ferocity:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801100000

[Sage Robinson]

Simply put,

1.) Barack Obama is not an African-American in the sense that we REAL African-Americans are.
2.) He has no connection to the legacy of slavery in America. He also has a "Blue-blooded" White-American mother (who I'm sure made it clear to him that he is not "one of them"; meaning those blacks connected to the history of slavery in America. So why would someone consider him the hope and the dream of the slaves. I'm sure they wouldn't want just any person of color to be considered the fullfillment of their dreams.
3.) He's deceptive. He's using the facade of being African-American to get the black vote.
4.) Lately during my readings, I've noticed that most people in America think that he comes from a poor background, which is ridiculously far from the truth.
5.) Finally, he does not have enough experience, and he's doesn't have enough personal power, yet, to fight the republicans which is a definite for any Democrat that's elected.

[TheUrbanRevolution]

to Sage: You are right Barack was not raised by people who have slavery as their legacy, but make no mistake about it, He IS AND AFRICAN AMERICAN. And we do, here in America, view him as one of our own. You see, in America it doesn't matter how you are raised, life will show up and slap you back to reality. The reason why he has been able to rise above, is because he doesn't have the mental and spiritual baggage that has been passed down from generation to generation. But he knows how America treats people of color because he has been the recipient of it -- and still is.
As far as experience, see talleyrand's post. He is NOT deceptive, he's the real deal. His mom was NOT a blue-blood, Hillary is a blue blood. His mom nor grand parents did not have that kind of clout, that's why his grandfather had to go into the military to afford college. Lastly, we African American's are NOT idiots - I resent the implication. Nor are we easily fooled. Alan Keyes did not get our vote. Clarence Thomas is not in our favor, and I could list more. Now the people who DO NOT deserve our support are people like: Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Congressional Black Caucus, ex mayor of Denver Wellington Webb, Congressman Lewis of Atlanta, Bob Johnson, Magic Johnson, etc, etc, etc.

[Doug Koehler]

Obama's montra is "CHANGE", I would like to know what he plans on changing and more important...how?

Doug (OKC)

[Obama Fan]

Congratulations to Barack Obama on winning the Presidency of the United States of America! I believe that he will do his best to improve this country which we all love.

[buy viagra]

USA has always been in the eye of the terrorists is a problem that will make it hard to fix. Meanwhile must have security at airports and in their cities!

[kamagra]

Sharing the information is a good thing.The way you express your feelings are best.A very post.Great article post.

[coach handbags]

It was more or less taken for granted that everybody held certain beliefs and needed certain reinforcements of their own strength and that that came through your belief in God and your knowledge of prayer.

[Asics Running Shoes]

Your philosophy of life led me to a whole new world that broadened my horizon.

http://www.yaahshoes.com/asics

[asics shoes]

This character deficit may not, at the end of the day, trouble many voters. It hardly registers among our media elites—who remain obsessed with superficialities

[christian louboutin]

Fantastic to hear from you and how are you doing? All the plans on your proposal are totally acceptable. Thank you for you hard work.

[asics onitsuka tiger]

and how are you doing? All

[christian louboutin shoes]

She is a good girl.She helped everyone.She study very well.But almost more than I.hehe.

[chanel handbags]

Everyone should have a love.Because love is pure.We can not to pollute it.Love is wonderful.

[rossignol axium 100]

found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later ..