Though you probably figured it out already, I cast my presidential vote for Barack Obama. I didn’t get too caught up in the hype, but was mainly voting for a.) a change in the demeanor of politics in general (a man who doesn’t answer debate questions with soundbites wins? Whoda thunk it?) and b.) a “change” in our nation’s approach to foreign policy.

Well, it looks like I can chalk that second one up to buyer’s remorse.

Don’t get me wrong: I think Obama’s temperament and (seeming) interest in reasoned discourse instead of steadfast ideology is going to serve us much better than McCain’s hard-nosed, “We must always WIN” attitude. But based on Obama’s newly named foreign policy team, I think that (where foreign policy is concerned) we were sold a decidedly false bill of goods. Consider:

Robert Gates, current secretary of defense, who will stick around, despite his earlier saying that he probably wouldn’t.

From the New York Times:

Mr. Obama’s best political cover may come from Mr. Gates, the former Central Intelligence Agency director and veteran of the cold war, who just months ago said it was “hard to imagine any circumstance” in which he would stay in his post at the Pentagon. Now he will do exactly that.

A year ago, to studied silence from the Bush White House, Mr. Gates began giving a series of speeches about the limits of military power in wars in which no military victory is possible. He made popular the statistic, quoted by Mr. Obama, that the United States has more members of military marching bands than foreign service officers.

He also denounced “the gutting of America’s ability to engage, assist and communicate with other parts of the world — the ‘soft power’ which had been so important throughout the cold war.”

Sounds nice, right? But consider this observation from the Huffington Post:

“Secretary Gates is a great choice,” said (Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham), who was reminded that he had once said he feared the day that Barack Obama became commander-in-chief.

Hmmm… Anyway, next is Gen. Jim Jones, a former NATO commander and soon-to-be national security adviser. Graham goes on: 

“Jim Jones, known him for a long time, former NATO commander. He opposed the surge early on, but he’s a four-star general with a lot of national security knowledge.”

McCain’s best friend Graham? A very partisan Republican? Gushing about Obama’s foreign policy picks? Something’s not right… But of course, there’s still the real elephant — or jackass? — in the room, Secretary-of-State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton? The woman who made an ad suggesting she was the only one fit to answer the phone at 3 a.m.? Who said something to the effect of “McCain’s ready, I’m ready, Barack… I dunno”? Whose judgment Obama repeatedly called into question where the Senate’s vote on the Iraq war is concerned? I don’t find myself agreeing too often with avowed atheist and Islamophobe Christopher Hitchens, but his recent Slate column contains a lot of truth:

In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. [bold mine-R]

And I would be remiss if I didn’t point your attention to The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, (spinning off of a post by Philip Klein in The American Spectator, which is also worth reading):

So one of two things happened. Either Clinton has embraced Obama’s vision for fundamental change, or Obama has succumbed to “conventional Washington thinking.” —Philip Klein

Not to be a broken record, but of course it is the latter. Well, except that he didn’t “succumb”–he embraces the conventional thinking, just as he does wherever he goes. As his political universe has changed and expanded, the conventional thinking he has had to embrace changed as well. This is what his friends and admirers call pragmatism, and it is a function of the temperament that Obamacons invoke when pressed to explain their support. This has been reasonably clear for at least the past several months. When running against conventional Washington thinking suited him as an outsider and challenger candidate, he did that. Now that he is firmly ensconced in Washington, conventional Washington thinking will be all right. This isn’t an accusation or even that much of a complaint–I have given up complaining about Obama’s conventional ways. At this point, it is merely a description. As I said immediately after his election:

If you have a high opinion of the Washington establishment and bipartisan consensus politics, Obama’s election should come as a relief. If you believe, as I do, that most of our policy failures stretching back beyond the last eight years are the product of a failed establishment and a bankrupt consensus, an Obama administration represents the perpetuation of a system that is fundamentally broken.

Most people in the broad “middle” seem to be relieved by Obama’s moves in the last few weeks, so I have to conclude that they don’t have much of a problem with conventional Washington thinking, either. The majority is not just getting the government they deserve, but apparently it is also the government they want. When it fails them, as it is going to do, I don’t want to hear them complaining about the problems of the status quo. [bold mine-R]

Well, well… the lustre of “Obama for Change!” was bound to wear off — it seems that it’s wearing off sooner rather than later. But if you’d like to relive the glory days of the campaign, when everything seemed possible, fear not! As I found out from an Obama campaign email (yes, campaign … One would think that a billion dollars later they could quit sending these things out to every American who ever visited their website), you can, with your own personal sterling silver Obama keychain! (To drive, presumably, your new GM Bailout Coupe right off the lot.)

Tags: Barack Obama, Christopher Hitchens, consensus, Daniel Larison, Hillary Clinton, Jim Jones, Robert Gates, team of rivals

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 2.46 pm and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.