 "Photo: ERIC DRAPER / THE WHITE HOUSE")
People have speculated that President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize just because he isn’t George W. Bush.
To quote Michael Grunward from Time Magazine, “There will, of course, be some bogus cover story about Obama’s vision for nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace and climate change, but the anti-Bush message couldn’t have been clearer if the Nobel had gone to Keith Olbermann.”
With that in mind, Obama’s foreign policy initiatives may seem to differ from those of his predecessor, who was often known for swinging the “stick” of diplomacy in all directions. However, I would argue that Obama’s policies are more Bush-like than we suspect, and that he employs similar rhetoric.
“I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King. But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world.”
This may sound like Bush, who referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil.” As it turns out, the quote is actually from Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
The similarities in rhetoric are notable, but unsurprising. We can note American idealism throughout history, from Ronald Reagan calling the USSR an “evil empire” to Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic League of Nations.
What is intriguing, however, is Obama’s denouncement of the war in Iraq even though he approved a new surge of troops in Afghanistan. Some have also criticized him for having a softer hand in diplomacy than Bush, primarily regarding the U.S.-China relationship.
More important are some general ideas at play here: how to discover a better strategy for presidents and U.S. officials in foreign affairs, and whether the U.S. should emphasize the hard-line or if gentler diplomacy is more appropriate.
As citizens of the United States and as college students, we should be concerned not only about what political party we align ourselves with, but also the benefits and costs of how we appear to other nations. Should we approach foreign affairs with an incredibly luscious carrot? Or beat the evils of the world with an oversized stick?
Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment
You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now