And so we, too, must act on behalf of justice. We, too, must act on behalf of peace. There are too many people who happily embrace Madiba’s legacy of racial reconciliation, but passionately resist even modest reforms that would challenge chronic poverty and growing inequality. There are too many leaders who claim solidarity with Madiba’s struggle for freedom, but do not tolerate dissent from their own people. And there are too many of us on the sidelines, comfortable in complacency or cynicism when our voices must be heard.It was an eloquent reminder that the way to identify with the struggle is to act in accordance with it. But despite the speech, the eyes of many fell on a handshake between President Obama and Cuba's Raul Castro. And then roooolllllled.
Because we can expect the freakout from people on the right anymore. It's predictable enough to seem more like a nervous tic than an insight. The simple explanation that a handshake is a polite formality that promises nothing and is more civilized than starting drama at a funeral just doesn't signify with these folks, regardless of how, historically, a handshake is sometimes just a handshake.
Honestly, anyone who blows up the handshake drama has to be put on some kind of pundit probation. But special mention has to go to Sen. John McCain, who not only knocked the handshake, but worked in a Chamberlain-Hitler reference. How does that even work?
Can we get new material, here? I feel like I keep seeing the same act and the laughs aren't really fresh anymore.
4 comments:
Howdy Vixen,
I hope Christmas shopping is not driving you crazy.
The president is a puzzle. A mystery wrapped in an enigma.
He bows to the king of Saudi Arabia, he bows to the emperor of Japan (and others -- I can't keep up with it). He sends the bust of Winston Churchill back to Queen Elizabeth, and now he decides to alienate the entire complement of Cuban-American voters.
Is he making a "statement"? Is he simply careless? Is he incompetent? Is his staff completely incompetent? A very conspicuous display over a long period of time.
Naturally some of my friends suspect something sinister. I don't. I think he's simply a well-intentioned man in over his head.
Another thing that puzzles me is that people do not seem to understand that American politics is like a see-saw.
You push hard enough on one side and the other side goes up. You act too forcefully, and the other side is energized and hardens its positions.
At lease on the internet people do not seem to grasp the reality that you don't win votes by making people mad at you.
Will we all survive Christmas? This is another puzzle.
--Formerly Amherst
Interesting: "In over his head". The various polite greetings towards different foreign dignitaries, with whom we may or may not agree, aside, since they actually more like etiquette, is there a broad stroke of foreign policy that has you concerned?
Barack Obama is done winning votes. Some people are determined to be aghast at whatever he does regardless. I am hopeful that the world is not ending before New Years.
Vixen, I agree with you that Sen. McCain's comments were over the top.
At the same time, I'm mindful of the fact that we do not have a king in the US. As a consequence, the President acts as our 'sovereign', and traditionally the relationship he displays in his position as head of state reflects America's relations to other countries.
In his greeting he displays the nuances of favoritism, friendship, or disapproval.
By his behavior he represents the continuity of US foreign policy through any number of administrations. It is not in our interest for other countries to see us as wishy-washy on important matters of state.
At the same time, I fully realize that it is completely within presidential prerogative to change those relationships and alter that continuity. Obviously, Mr. Obama wishes to exercise that prerogative.
Of course you are entirely correct that the president does not need new voters.
I was thinking about coattails. Obviously, Democrats will be running for election after this president retires, and the legacy he leaves will be very influential. As a consequence, alienating potential voters can have long-range effects.
-- Formerly Amherst
Hmm. I don't think much about Obama's coattails vis a vis 2016 much (probably because I take my election cycles one at a time, and am just now getting my 2014 legs under me!). But also, I have a suspicion that voters (US voters, anyway) prioritize domestic policy over foreign policy in general. I wouldn't have given much for Reagan's foreign policy cred after Iran-Contra, but it did Bush 41 no harm. I would have though Bush 41 had a good wind behind him on foreign policy regarding the first Gulf War and the general benefit of commmunism happening to collapse while he was in office--but I think economic issues tended to override in those cases. Some left conspiracy theorists might tend to atribute the Iran hostage debacle (and possible GOP shenanigans) with Carter's 1980 loss; I tend to think it had more to do with the energy crisis and his having not much more success than Ford at "whipping inflation".
But in terms of the appearance of favoritism with respects to Obama's behavior, I can't help chime in that bowing to the emperor of Japan is mere manners--see Japan: bowing as a form of greeting. It would be incompetent if he massaged his shoulders, uninvited, let's say.
I'd also hesitate to treat Cuban-Americans as a monolith, or necessarily assume that a younger generation of Cuban American voters have the same reaction as the first or even some second generation voters. As it is, the existing policy of embargoes hasn't really ousted the Castros--at this point, age might. I don't think a handshake is so much.
Post a Comment