A Liberal Reads National Review 1.23.2017
On inauguration day eight years ago, I felt an optimism that I had not previously in regard to American life. Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States meant something to me, and a lot of other people, that cannot be described easily. It was, in many ways, something that I did not think I would see in my lifetime. And so, as with anything else that is both positive and unexpected, there was great rejoicing.
Watching Obama in Grant Park with his family, I thought about my father, who died three years before the election, who’d lived in a segregated community, attended segregated schools and graduated from Howard University. What I felt was a feeling of arrival.
Watching the Obama family on stage I felt, for the first time, that our country had turned an existential corner.
Eight years later, as President Obama departs and an unqualified buffoon prepares to take office, despite a bit of angst and a realization that we have not, in fact, turned that corner, I remain optimistic. In his farewell speech, the President urged everyone to get into the political game, to refrain from hanging their heads, and to fight for what is right. He urged us to speak with people we disagree with, even if it’s difficult, in order to return make our country a place of civil discourse and connectivity.
In keeping with that spirit, I continue my project of reading National Review in 2017.
And, surprise, surprise, this week’s issue devotes most of its content to reflection on the Obama Presidency. Perhaps understanding the dangers that are on the horizon with President-elect Trump, their examination of the 44th President was not filled with extreme invective outside of the policy realm. There even appeared, to me, a certain amount of admiration for the outgoing President.
The cover presents a cavalier Obama carrying golf clubs while he walks away from a White House in flames. Despite this, the contents of the issue do not portray Obama as someone who did not care about the office and is walking away without regrets. The criticisms leveled against the President are notably mainstream, and focus on his foreign policy, particularly decrying his lack of hawkishness on some issues, and that he was too Progressive, caring too much about health care and climate change. While there is some personal criticism of his elitism and distant personality, the personal attacks are limited.
There are particularly substantive, though not terribly convincing, arguments made by Thomas Donnelly and Richard Fontaine about Obama’s foreign policy, noting particular failures in Syria that led to the tragedy in Aleppo. And criticism should be on the table. Many foreign policy experts insist that the least the President could have done was to implement a no-fly zone in Syria, even as Russia came to the aid of the Assad government. But this is not the only focus of criticism concerning the President’s foreign policy: Iran, the South China Sea, Russian movement into Ukraine and Crimea, are also given attention in this issue.
What is interesting here is that the only significant policy suggestion is that the US should have implemented the no-fly zone in Syria. No matter that such an effort may not have been supported in the places that it needed support (UN Security Council). The argument seems to be that if the US had implemented a no-fly zone alone, then the tragedy in Aleppo would not have unfolded the way that it did. Maybe it would not have. But there is no way to know now. And what of a possible escalation of such an action? Well, all actions have consequences. And now that we know that awful human rights violations have taken place, it is clear that we should have acted.
This to me seems perfectly reasonable armchair assessment. Of course, the same thing could probably be said about Saudi Arabia’s bombing in Yemen, which the US provided weapons for. But that’s not really in the news.
As for the charges of weakening the military, one would probably be able to gauge this more clearly in relative terms. Should we be able to fight two full-scale wars at the same time? Well, I don’t know. We certainly shouldn’t want to do that unless absolutely necessary. Showing restraint, as opposed to cowboy-like-swagger, is a good way to avoid the types of quagmires that we have witnessed over the past 15 years. We have proven that it is quite easy to start a war of choice, but very difficult to get out of one.
What is clear is that the American people are not prepared to engage in more long-lasting conflicts, and that merely relying on assessments of military strength that might have been important in the past is not adequate. War is changing. President Obama was keenly aware of this. He was also keenly aware that none of his advisors could give him adequate thoughts on what it would mean to engage in conflicts that we could not easily pull out of, and that the consequences of what appear to be straightforward actions are often unforeseeable. And none of the people I’ve seen writing in periodicals like National Review, or speaking about this topic on television have been able to adequately argue otherwise.
As for the charge of being too Progressive, I don’t buy it. While Obama did sign the Paris agreement, he also led the U.S. to become the biggest oil and gas producer in the world. His solutions on healthcare, which is a pretty big deal to most people, were cribbed from Republicans. His use of Executive Orders was tied to Congress’ unwillingness to do anything. If anything, Obama was a pragmatic centrist, who was trying to address issues that actually impact our society and our world.
Lastly, the fantasy that Obama wanted to be Reagan because he occasionally invoked his name is silly. Reagan was a shitty actor who told people what they wanted to hear. But his administration was scandal-plagued, he encouraged massive deficits, and he contributed greatly to the decline of the middle class. Obama invoked Reagan to reach out to Republicans, not because he viewed him as a unifier or a success.
But this issue is most notable for its actual insistence that Democrats and progressives are not dead. There are nods to the gerrymandering that has helped Republicans take control of Congress, as well as to the shortcomings of Trump. While I don’t agree with all of the conclusions drawn in this issue, I do respect the thoughtfulness and consideration given to the outgoing President, who, in many circles is loved, and in many other circles is reviled. I for one, despite his trending toward the center, am going to miss him.
