COMMENTARY

Autumn 2009

by Patrick Stephenson

RELATED ARTICLES:

---

First, full disclosure: I voted for Obama and was also part of a group that held two fundraisers for him in Brussels. But I never believed that he was either Messiah or political pop star, and certainly not a universal saint.

It didn’t hurt that he’s young and charismatic, or that he can belt out a damn fine speech. But what impressed me and so many others like me was the open-minded and practical nature of his discourse. When he spoke about issues, he seemed to have some idea of what he was talking about, and he appeared willing to listen to other viewpoints. In the wake of economic mismanagement driven by free-market orthodoxy, the call from the masses seemed to be “Shut up and fix the damn mess”. Obama answered that call, and his promise was less post-racial than post-ideological, a resurrection of the old ideal of America as a practical, can-do nation. It was his pragmatism that earned him my vote.

This “hooray-he’s-not-an-idiot” theory of Obamamania does not fit with the narrative of Obama as a hybrid of vapid celebrity and alien religiosity that some Republican strategists used to suggest that he is somehow frivolous, different, foreign, unholy, even – dare one say it – un-American. And it is this narrative that leads Werner Weidenfeld to overestimate Obama’s appeal, and then to drag this invented Messiah down from the heavens when his feet were on the ground all the time.

Dr Weidenfeld writes that Europeans will be disappointed when Obama does not lead a “global peace movement” or does not act against U.S. interests. Yet, I have not met any Europeans who believed he would. Most know very well that Obama is an American President. Then Weidenfeld brings the hammer down on their alleged fantasies saying that “the major difference between him and George W. Bush seems to be of style and tone of voice.” It is true that aspects of U.S. foreign policy will continue from one Administration to another, but this goes too far.

There was always a strain of Bush Administration thinking that believed American power to be legitimate because it was American, and that saw dependence on permanent alliances such as NATO as a dilution of U.S. power. By contrast, the Obama Administration appears to believe that power is legitimate if it is justified, whether it is American or not; that only legitimate power can be applied effectively; and that alliances like NATO, and international cooperation more broadly, provide a measure of legitimacy that helps achieve U.S. foreign policy goals. This is a fundamental not trivial difference.

The controversy over the Iranian nuclear programme is a case in point. Obama’s overtures to Tehran may come to nothing, but it is important that they were made. These overtures, combined with his declared desire for a nuclear-free world, have given the Western position a degree of legitimacy it didn’t enjoy before. Confronted by a sincere interlocutor they are unable to vilify, conservative mullahs have reacted with confusion and cracks in Iran’s ruling regime have been exposed. Perhaps this will lead to an agreement; perhaps not. But whatever the result, Obama will be able to say that he tried, and this will make far easier the crafting of a coherent U.S. and European response.

The willingness to listen is an underestimated virtue, but now Europeans have a listener in the Oval Office. This is lucky because over the course of the coming year NATO will hold a public debate on the alliance’s next Strategic Concept, a document that will likely prove a foundation stone for U.S.-European relations during the coming decade. There is much work to do on Afghanistan, on relations with Russia, on climate change and the “comprehensive approach” to conflict resolution. Barack Obama is sensitive to the concerns of NATO allies and no doubt awaits a European leadership willing to engage him on these issues. Perhaps it is time for all of us to shut up and fix the damn mess.