If Obama can continue his "tacking to the center" routine on domestic matters as he has on foreign policy, he could end up to the right of Ronald Reagan. I look forward to that day I can write a column with the heading Ronald Wilson Obama. The sad sack "looking for love" puppy dog Obamomedia couldn't wait for him to arrive in Berlin so he could historically "triangulate" with Kennedy and Reagan. The speech itself had some interesting "tacking to the center" moments on foreign policy. But the spectacle itself of Obama speaking in the city Kennedy and Reagan gave historic speeches has been the "lead" story. I will address some of the speech's substance in my next commentary. But it is the chosen location of the speech that is discussed here. After all, we all know that in part "the medium is the message".Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post has noted the arrogance and presumption of Obama's virtual demand he speak in the city where 2 of the greatest speeches by an American president were given. The Audacity of Vanity
Germany did refuse his request (Merkel warns Obama not to use landmark for ‘electioneering’) to speak at the sight of Reagan's June 1987 Tear Down this Wall speech, The Brandenburg Gate. Prime Minister Angela Merkel understands the "audacity of vanity" even if Obama does not. The speech was instead given at the foot of the Victory Column in Tiergarten, a well known tourist attraction in Berlin.
Krauthammer's sensibility on this seems to be one the general media does not quite get. As I say below the headline in my "Law of the Bad Premise" blog, the media definitely has "forgotten or never learned what made America great". It really is pathetic. Obama is fond of referencing basketball at his speeches. My basketball analogy for his speech in Berlin is this: Obama was slam dunking on an Olympic opponent with 20 seconds left in the game, against the 3rd string, with his team up by 60 points after Magic Johnson and Larry Bird led the team to victory. Then he did a "whirly bird" dance down to court to celebrate. Yes, definitely that bad.
The reason Krauthammer is properly offended relates to the context of each of the 3 speeches. The first 2 speeches were given by American presidents at 2 of the most critical moments in the Cold War and this country's history. They were not "lets play president" events after the Beatles or REM were finished attracting and warming up the crowd.
When Kennedy gave his famous Ich bin ein Berliner speech on June 26th of 1963, it was 8 months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. His opening line (after the appropriate expressions of gratitude for being invited) was: "two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum". Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner"" ("I am one with the people of Berlin"---one urban legend has it that he mistakenly said "I am a jelly donut"---funny but not true).
Khrushchev was one year away from "retirement" and the Soviet Union was at the height of its power. Khrushchev never did politically recover from the public and humiliating back down in Cuba, despite getting concessions from the US on nuclear weapons in Turkey. Kennedy, in making this statement, was definitively telling Berlin, West Germany, Europe, and the entire world that the United States was willing to risk all to prevent the spread of communism. Like Germany itself, Berlin was divided into "east" and "west" and was located in the now defunct East Germany. Kennedy's choice of West Berlin was meant to give extra credibility to the assertion that the United States was not backing down to communism. Berlin was physically situated in the Soviet Bloc and it was there Kennedy chose to deliver this message.There was moral and strategic purpose to giving that speech at that time and at that place. West Berliners knew they would likely be the first to be conquered in any confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. JFK was telling the people of West Berlin that was definitely not going to happen on his watch.
Kennedy was the last great "cold warrior" democrat during a time when politics really did end at our border's edge. So close to WWII in historical time and so close to nuclear war in "real time", Americans of both parties understood the seriousness of the Soviet threat. Unfortunately, by the time Ronald Reagan took office moral relativism had become a dominant theme in American politics. This was a belief that existed on both the left and the right, although from different perspectives. The "left's" perspective always had an "America as the problem" angle, while the "right" was happy living in an amoral world of "realpolitik".
Ronald Reagan actually believed that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire . When he gave his June 8, 1982 "evil empire" speech in the House of Commons he was viciously attacked for years. There were so many "moral relativist" comments about this speech that it is amazing he had the courage to withstand it. A candidate today would immediately back off and say "I meant figuratively, you know, like in Star Wars" or, "what I meant is that while some people see Soviet dictatorship as so called "evil", I believe we need to communicate with them and let them know we are not in agreement with their position".
Good thing Reagan was an 'amiable dunce'. Some of the criticisms of Reagan demonstrate how morally bankrupt and smug his opponents really were. A few of the most obnoxious include:
New Republic Editorial---“The speech left friends and foes around the world with the impression that the President of the United States was contemplating holy war.”
Richard Cohen of the WashingtonPost--“There are reasons aplenty to be opposed to the (nuclear) freeze--policy reasons, logical reasons, intellectual reasons--without aligning it to the ‘struggle between right and wrong, good and evil.’
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times--"Reagan used “sectarian religiosity to sell a political program”…the “evil empire” speech was “primitive”…“a mirror image of crude Soviet rhetoric”… “What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology?”
We cannot have any of that good and evil stuff. We will end up being led by guys like Puppet Bush and Darth Cheney. (One would have thought "good and evil" would have gotten a second look after Reagan's success). The irony of the Tear Down this Wall speech, given on the 750th year anniversary of Berlin, is that it was delivered when many were protesting our policies. Reagan insisted on maintaining short range American nuclear missile capability. He was also unwilling to permit the Gorbachev "glasnost" period to blind us to the continued tyranny of the Soviet Union.
It still gives me the chills when listening to this speech. Half way through the speech he rhetorically wonders out loud if the Soviets are really serious about improving relations with the West, as "glasnost" implied. Then, as if answering his own question, he said there was one way the Soviets could demonstrate a true change in intent. "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,if you seek liberalization then Come to This Gate. Mr Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
And Obama wanted to rock out at the Brandenburg Gate? Are you surprised Ms Merkel unceremoniously turned this ridiculous request down? Obama does not even know she saved him from himself.
Just as Reagan advisers wanted him to take out the "evil empire" phrase in his House of Commons speech, they also wanted him to take out his "tear down this wall" admonition in his Brandenburg Gate speech. Colin Powell was notable in his disagreement (he was deputy national security adviser at the time). Even though Reagan and Gorbachev had developed a reasonable relationship, he was not going to let niceties get in the way of what he felt was in the best and moral interest of the US and the world.
When we look back, it is tempting and arrogant to believe we all could see the end of the Soviet Union as a fait accompli. It was not. Reagan chose the 750th anniversary of Berlin, still physically in the midst of East Germany, to literally demand that Gorbachev stop with the "glasnost" conceit and end the military "iron curtain" stranglehold on East Europe. East German border guards still had "shoot to kill" orders for anyone trying to defect.
Of course, this was not "evil". As Cohen of the Washington Post might have said "shooting to kill might be wrong for policy, logical, and intellectual reasons, but surely it is not an example of a struggle between "right or wrong" or "good or evil"". Do you think I "hyperbolize"? Cohen is still fighting Reagan. Wish Upon A Pump
In an article praising Carter's energy policy he notes that Reagan succeeded Carter wearing "only a smile". He also tells us that "Reaganism...has outlived its very short usefulness and ought to be junked". I was unaware he ever thought it useful. He says if we had only listened to Carter we would not have the energy problems we have today. Hmm. This gives me hope. Since he wrote that article in early July oil has dropped $23. I am hopeful he will prove as prescient in energy forecasts as he did in geopolitics. Perhaps a "junked" Reaganism will yet again save us, this time from an absurd energy mess we aggressively put ourselves in.
Kennedy and Reagan spoke in Berlin at very unique and critical moments in history. These were men who took controversial, moral and courageous positions. Reagan in particular was viewed cynically and suspiciously even by members of his own staff. These speeches were aimed at the Soviet Union and were designed to deliver a hard message. There was a reason they chose Berlin to make their stand. Berlin was more than an historical symbol. It was living proof of tyranny and their's was the one city whose "wall" was the material representation of the tyrannical "iron curtain".
Obama explicitly sought out Berlin to make his international debut precisely because Kennedy and Reagan spoke there. He wanted to link himself in time to these great moments and the 2 most revered presidents of the last 60 years. But why? Other than preening and thinking he can sell his own greatness, there is no other reason. Angela Merkel was not going to permit "electioneering" cheapen the memory of two of the great moments in recent German history. The fact that Obama thought he could, tells us more about him than he should wish it did. But his ego has been so inflated by a somnolent US media he definitely does not notice.
Comments