Addressing the Future

President Obama made two (or at least two) significant speeches last week, both to the United Nations.

On September 23, he spoke  about the climate crisis to the UN Climate Summit.  (Here's the video.  Here's the transcript.)

He began: "For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week -- terrorism, instability, inequality, disease-- there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate."


"So the climate is changing faster than our efforts to address it. The alarm bells keep ringing. Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them. We have to answer the call. We know what we have to do to avoid irreparable harm. We have to cut carbon pollution in our own countries to prevent the worst effects of climate change. We have to adapt to the impacts that, unfortunately, we can no longer avoid. And we have to work together as a global community to tackle this global threat before it is too late.

We cannot condemn our children, and their children, to a future that is beyond their capacity to repair. Not when we have the means -- the technological innovation and the scientific imagination -- to begin the work of repairing it right now.

As one of America’s governors has said, “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.”

After describing US efforts and successes in his administration, he challenged his audience: And today, I call on all countries to join us -– not next year, or the year after, but right now, because no nation can meet this global threat alone.

"Yes, this is hard. But there should be no question that the United States of America is stepping up to the plate. We recognize our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to combat it. We will do our part, and we will help developing nations do theirs. But we can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation –- developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass."

"For I believe, in the words of Dr. King, that there is such a thing as being too late. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate while we still can."

He ended his speech, which contained many specifics, by returning to the necessary perspective:

"This challenge demands our ambition. Our children deserve such ambition. And if we act now, if we can look beyond the swarm of current events and some of the economic challenges and political challenges involved, if we place the air that our children will breathe and the food that they will eat and the hopes and dreams of all posterity above our own short-term interests, we may not be too late for them.

While you and I may not live to see all the fruits of our labor, we can act to see that the century ahead is marked not by conflict, but by cooperation; not by human suffering, but by human progress; and that the world we leave to our children, and our children’s children, will be cleaner and healthier, and more prosperous and secure."

On September 25, President Obama addressed the General Assembly with a vision of the world and its future.  (Here's a summary with the video at the bottom.  Here's the transcript.)  This speech was widely praised (for example by Thomas Wright at the Brookings Institute who calls it a major turning point, and conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks, who calls it "one of the finest speeches of his presidency.")

After listing the positive change in the postwar era, President Obama called to account "the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world. We, collectively, have not invested adequately in the public health capacity of developing countries. Too often, we have failed to enforce international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so. And we have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe.

"Fellow delegates, we come together as united nations with a choice to make. We can renew the international system that has enabled so much progress, or we can allow ourselves to be pulled back by an undertow of instability. We can reaffirm our collective responsibility to confront global problems, or be swamped by more and more outbreaks of instability. And for America, the choice is clear: We choose hope over fear. We see the future not as something out of our control, but as something we can shape for the better through concerted and collective effort. We reject fatalism or cynicism when it comes to human affairs. We choose to work for the world as it should be, as our children deserve it to be."

He spoke of the specific challenges of the Ukraine, ISIL and Ebola, about Iran and spread of nuclear weapons, about eradicating poverty, returning to the climate crisis before returning in detail to terrorism.

"In other words, on issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes beyond our borders -- if we think globally and if we act cooperatively -- we can shape the course of this century, as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age."

He spoke of the threat of violent terrorism, acknowledged the breeding grounds of poverty, economic travail and hopelessness but repeated his comdemnation of ISIL and its savagery: "No God condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions. There can be no reasoning -- no negotiation -- with this brand of evil. The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death." 

He spoke not only of military force but of exposing, confronting and refuting hate-filled propaganda using the Internet as they do, and other efforts.

"It is one of the tasks of all great religions to accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world. No children are born hating, and no children -- anywhere -- should be educated to hate other people. There should be no more tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents because they’re Jewish, or because they're Christian, or because they're Muslim. It is time for a new compact among the civilized peoples of this world to eradicate war at its most fundamental source, and that is the corruption of young minds by violent ideology."

He continued with a sophisticated analysis and plan of action for confronting and ending intolerance.  He spoke of the heartless folly of sectarian violence, and the international and political responsibilities to encourage and build inclusive institutions.  "Cynics may argue that such an outcome can never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end -- whether one year from now or ten."

He spoke directly to the young in the Middle East, beginning with a sincere and accurate appeal to the best of their history: "You come from a great tradition that stands for education, not ignorance; innovation, not destruction; the dignity of life, not murder. Those who call you away from this path are betraying this tradition, not defending it."

He gave examples of successful collaborations in creating inclusive institutions in the Middle East.  He was blunt is saying that the present situation with Israel and Palestine is not sustainable.

 He admitted (much to the chagrin of Fox News) that America itself is not perfect.
"But we welcome the scrutiny of the world -- because what you see in America is a country that has steadily worked to address our problems, to make our union more perfect, to bridge the divides that existed at the founding of this nation. America is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or even a decade ago. Because we fight for our ideals, and we are willing to criticize ourselves when we fall short."

He closed again with his sights on the future, and on the changing attitudes of young people.  "Around the world, young people are moving forward hungry for a better world. Around the world, in small places, they're overcoming hatred and bigotry and sectarianism. And they're learning to respect each other, despite differences."

"The people of the world now look to us, here, to be as decent, and as dignified, and as courageous as they are trying to be in their daily lives. And at this crossroads, I can promise you that the United States of America will not be distracted or deterred from what must be done. We are heirs to a proud legacy of freedom, and we’re prepared to do what is necessary to secure that legacy for generations to come. I ask that you join us in this common mission, for today’s children and tomorrow’s."

Shaping Things to Come

With several appointments and nominations recently, President Obama is saying--among other things--didn't you notice?  I was reelected.  The people he's hiring seem more than ever the people he really wants to be hiring, with hopes that they will move things forward, even beyond his term.

Today's big appointment was Susan Rice as National Security Advisor, an appointment I advised that he make back immediately after John Kerry was appointed Secretary of State and she was still  being shamefully slammed by opportunistic GOPer bigmouths. 

Also today, President Obama appointed Samantha Powers to take Rice's old job of UN Ambassador.  From the first interview I saw with her as an author years ago, I knew Powers was impressive: smart, incisive, morally impassioned.  She's also young and attractive with a powerful charisma.  Because of the public demands, Susan Rice would not make a great Secretary of State because she can't really smile.  Samantha Powers doesn't have quite the wattage of President Obama's smile, but she can turn it on.  (She didn't look too comfortable trying to negotiate the Rose Garden steps in heels, however. She's going to have to get used to those kinds of shoes as Ambassador.)  She'll be a real if different kind of presence at the UN, where the climate crisis is taken seriously as a global security issue.

These are great second term appointments: of younger people with the potential of taking on major responsibilities, who got a lot of experience in the first term and are now ready to take on those top jobs. 

President Obama's apparent choice for the next FBI director is legendary in Washington--though he served in the Bush administration, he blew the whistle on some of Cheney' shady dealings and appointed the special prosecutor who followed the trail of the outing of Valerie Plame into Cheney's office.  Obama's appointment of CIA director may be the sleeper of them all, if he can deal with the leftover problems from the Bush era: the CIA involvement in drones and its problems with the State Department (it may well turn out that part of the protection problems involved in the tragic events in Benghazi were  to the consulate being only formally a State Department post but actually a CIA station.)  Maybe even Guantanamo, although the barriers to solution there are largely GOPers in Congress.

President Obama also nominated three judges to the DC Court of Appeals, two women and the black judge who as a public defender, successfully attacked "driving while black" racial profiling.  The President did so without mincing words.
  
“My judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor,” Obama said. “What’s happening now is unprecedented. For the good of the American people, it has to stop. Too much of the people’s business is at stake. Our legal framework depends on timely confirmations of judicial nominees....“This is not about principled opposition; this is about political obstruction.”

The president fired back against Republican accusations that he is trying to revive President Roosevelt’s “court packing” plan to add additional seats to the court to gain support for his political agenda.  “We’re not adding seats here. We’re trying to fill seats that are already existing,” Obama said. “I didn’t just wake up one day and say, ‘Let’s add three seats to the District Court of Appeals.’ These are open seats. And the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats. What I’m doing today is my job. I need the Senate to do its job.”

“Republican senators are now pushing a proposal to reduce the number of judges on this independent federal court also makes no sense. When a Republican was president, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense. Now that a Democrat is president, it apparently doesn’t. Eight is suddenly enough,” he said to laughter. “People are laughing because it’s obviously a blatant political move.”

Obama said his three nominees were uniquely qualified for the positions. ”These three individuals are highly qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit. They have broad bipartisan support from across the legal community. The nonpartisan American Bar Association has given them, each of them its highest rating. These are no slouches,” he said. “These are no hacks. These are incredibly accomplished lawyers, by all accounts."

The poli-sci types I check in with periodically (less and less actually) are especially interested because Harry Reid is signaling the possibility that changing the rules on filibuster might really be result of continued obstruction on judicial appointments.

The next appointment to make news is likely to be New Jersey Governor Christie's appointment to fill a Senate seat until the special election he opportunistically called for October.  The seat is vacant due to the death of Dem Senator Frank Lautenberg, who was a leader in one of the few successful social revolutions of our time: ending public smoking in America.  He also was a leader for gun regulation.

The most sensible appointment R Gov Christie could make is former NJ Governor Christine Todd Whitman.  She's R in the old sense, and is probably the best that Dems could expect for a Dem seat.  If she'd take a temp job like this--it might hinge on how much she cares about bills that are likely to come up in the next months, like immigration, and how badly she wants to stick it to the new Rs who have dissed her the way they diss everybody: savagely.

Weekend Update: Power

There was alot of noodling, posturing and general bullshit on the TV machine and in the newspapers on Sunday about President Obama's foreign policy.  But largely ignored were two instances of how power really works.

Last week President Obama said in an interview that Egypt isn't necessarily an ally, but not an enemy either--a new government, democratically elected, finding its way.  Gaffe! Right?  And the stories circulated that President Obama had refused to meet with Israeli PM  Netanyahu.  Big mistake!  Right? So naive...

Well, the media may not have gotten the message in both instances, but the intended receiver did.  Egypt's new president learned that in order to keep American foreign aid coming he was going to have to do it the old fashioned way--earn it.  The very least an "ally" or even a neutral nation must do for another is protect their Embassy from violence.  Egypt got the messsage.

As for Netanyahu, he was all but campaigning for Romney. He welcomes him to Israel.  Suddenly there's no time in the President's schedule for a meeting in New York.  And suddenly, Netanyahu is in danger of alienating the guy who is President now and is ahead in the polls to stay President.  He's going to have to do some earning as well.  So N went on two Sunday blatherfests to declare that he wants to get out of this interfering in American elections but people keep trying to pull him back in,  and he's confident that President Obama supports Israel's security interests just as much as Mitt.  Message received. 

The projection of power requiring no bluster, posturing or starting a war.     



On Saturday, there were fewer and less violent demonstrations in the Middle East.  But Libyan officials also consider an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group as responsible for the Benghazi murders.  Whether the video protest was a pretext or a coincidence--with the 9-11 anniversary more of a factor--remains to be determined.

Another attack that was initially reported as related to the protests also probably was not--the terrorist attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan that killed two U.S. Marines, and seemed intended to target England's Prince Harry, beginning his rotation at that base.

Also, the man who probably made that video was questioned by police, because he's on parole.

In political news, a Philadelphia Inquirer poll showed President Obama has an 11 point lead in Pennsylvania, at 50-39.  This was the second straight month that he was at 50% or over.  His favorability went up slightly while Romney's tumbled.  Obama wins all demographic groups, including whites and men.

But there is a catch--the President's big lead comes "overwhelmingly" from the Philadelphia area, which is precisely where the voter suppression ID law is likely to have the most effect.  The poll found a lot of awareness of the law (80%) and some 5% who thought it might make voting more difficult for them.  But observers say that people aren't aware of how stringent the ID requirement is, and so may not know they are ineligible until they are denied the right to vote on election day.

Several articles noted that in most polls President Obama has at least pulled even with Romney in best able to handle the economy.  The New York Times noted that after GOPer misinformation seemed to muddy the waters after their convention, Obama and the Dems are back winning on Medicare.

The San Francisco Chronicle is among the consensus that President Obama has a substantial electoral college lead, and that Romney needs a clear win (and a clear debacle for President Obama) in the first debate to have any chance.  After that (others say) even his flow of money might stop.

Friday

As the four Americans killed in Libya came home (see post below), violence spread across the Middle East.  But in most places, it did not involve many people.

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating the Benghazi attack, and their working theory is that it was an organized terrorist attack, possibly by an al Qaeda affiliated group.

Eugene Robinson's column is the latest to go after Romney for his role in this crisis, adding to the other charges this one: ignorance."...I guess this whole performance says a lot about what kind of man Romney is. The most charitable explanation is that he’s in a panic over polls that show Obama opening a lead. If this is not the case, then Romney’s ignorance of foreign policy is more profound — and potentially dangerous — than anyone could have suspected."

It's long been my contention that ignorance is a core value of the Rabid Right.

But Andrew Sullivan argued for the importance of temperament, and what this week says about the President and the GOPer candidate:

"But when I think of the characteristics I want in a president in turbulent times, this capacity for calm and poise comes pretty high on the list. And that's why I think this past week was almost as damaging to Romney as the week before. He over-reacted in a petty, political way to a sudden, murky series of events that demanded restraint and calm and fact-gathering. Then he doubled down on his attempt to politicize it. This was talk-radio performance, not presidential behavior."

On MSNBC, veteran journalist and editorial director Cynthia Tucker commented that "Governor Romney has put his conscience--if he has one--in a blind trust."

NYT/CBS likely voter poll shows President Obama up by 3 points.  But as TPM points out, this is their first likely voter model--in comparison to their last registered voter poll, President Obama has increased his lead by 8 points.

The GOP war on voting rights suffered a significant if unheralded defeat.  A court has stopped the Iowa GOPer secretary of state declaring a "state of emergency" so he can suddenly purge voter rolls.  One of the judge's reasons was that given the lack of evidence of in-person voter fraud and the likelihood that legitimate voters would be denied their rights without recourse in time to vote in this election, the likely harm clearly outweighs the possible good.  It's a decision that the PA Supreme Court might note and heed.

Finally, a tribute to the two-way conversations that can occur on the Internet, admidst the mostly toxic comment systems.  In both cases, the sites themselves pulled these comments from the mailbag and published them.

From TPM

From a Foreign Service Officer …

It’s probably not a surprise. But can I just say that if Mitt Romney wins in November, he is going to have a very chilly reception from his employees every time he goes abroad? I don’t think I can quite state the rage we’re all feeling towards him. 

From The Dish:

A reader writes:

Your quoting of two then-future presidents regarding the Iran hostage crisis got me thinking even more about the horrific events of the past couple days. Candidates Reagan and Bush were responding to an event that Jimmy Carter had an actual hand in deciding. Carter was the one who made the call to attempt to rescue the hostages. By doing so Carter is accountable for what happened. And yet Reagan and Bush stood firmly behind their president and did not criticize the decision that he made.

Fast forward to 2012. The Republican presidential candidate chooses to attack the Obama administration for a statement that upon reflection looks like a balanced respectful approach to a situation that President Obama had nothing at all to do with.

The reader goes on to comment on the transformation of "my father's Republican Party" and concludes: "Mitt Romney and those who classlessly have been backing his attack are not only not fit to be leaders of this nation, they are not fit to maintain any public soapbox at all."    

Coming Home

The four Americans killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya returned to the U.S. on Thursday. President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke.

These four men died in service to their country, to the new democracy that the U.S. helped to establish, and in service to each other.  They were not there to hurt or kill anybody.  Ambassador Stevens in particular faced danger every day, unarmed, to do difficult work in which he deeply believed.  His courage, their courage, is cause for humble admiration.  May they rest in peace.

On another note, but a related one: I was not the only one to notice the moment when Secretary Clinton takes President Obama's hand.  Four years ago such a moment would be unthinkable.  The relationship they have built since then is a testament, an example, and a cause for hope.  As are the sacrifices of these four men.  Maybe we'll make this experiment of humanity work after all, or at least some of us will acquit ourselves honorably and well.    

Libya, America and the Painful Change

I'm usually a day behind on posting stuff I liked from the Rachel Maddow program, because that's when the transcripts are available. In this case and the next one, I'm able to quote from Monday's transcripts on themes that she continued Tuesday. This first one is on President Obama and Libya.

She began Monday's program by quoting presidents and presidential candidates talking about how they want a limited, humble U.S. foreign policy. Candidate Obama said similar things, and was more specific about wanting to change the image (and reality) of the U.S. throwing its military weight around to control Muslim countries, especially when they've got oil. So when President Obama committed the U.S. military to air action in Libya, it was only after the UN Security Council in effect requested it, U.S. European allies demanded it, and the Arab League approved it. He did not make a grand announcement from the Oval Office, Maddow said, to signal that this is an international and not a U.S. action. He emphasized the U.S. lead role was temporary, and the goals of the operation were precisely what the UN resolution requested, regardless of further U.S. policy goals. He emphasized that no U.S. ground troops will invade. Maddow:

"This is what President Obama promised as a candidate he would do. It is frankly what most presidential candidates have promised as candidates they would do. But the fact that he‘s actually doing it as president is freaking out all corridors of the political world that really kind of liked the interventionist, chest-thumping, triumphalist stuff.

I mean, think about the big picture and what the presidential candidates in 2008 campaigned on and the legacy of George W. Bush. Do you want the narrative of America‘s role in the world to be America leads Western aggression against Arab countries or don‘t you want that? Do you want that continue to be the master narrative about America‘s role in the world, or do you want the narrative to be something different?

President Obama wants the narrative to be something different. He very clearly did not want there to be another American military action in the Arab world. He is very open about his reluctance. He wants everybody to know how reluctant he was.

The White House keeps broadcasting that. Why are they doing that? Because they want the narrative to change. And everything about the character of the intervention shows Mr. Obama‘s reluctance here.

The U.S. commander in the region reporting today U.S. air missions over Libya decreased dramatically today. He says the overwhelming number of missions were flown by non-U.S. pilots. U.S. officials again are going out of their way to point that out."

Maddow is not alone in seeing it this way, but in the media and among foreign policy and military cable-ready mouths, she is in a decided minority. Yet I also believe that time will prove her correct--both about President Obama's actions concerning Libya, and about the reaction to it: including the utterly shameful politically motivated response of GOPer hypocrites and liars, and the "experts" whose thinking is very limited. (Others whose criticism is actually based on applicable principle are subject to analysis of their position rather than the pity and scorn due the former.)

Those who say that if the G/K/Qadaffis aren't deposed or killed this week, President Obama can't walk away from more military action--that he's started a war--are going to turn out to be wrong. And they are going to freak out even more than they're freaking out now. It's going to be painful for everybody, but if President Obama succeeds in this, and he still gets re-elected, it may change America's role in the world for awhile, and for the better.

The Swarm

For what it's worth, which is next to nothing, I am adopting a wait and see attitude about military action in Libya. But I continue to be alarmed by the apparent inability of American media to report accurately.

I watched and listened to President Obama's press conference in Chile. What he said seemed very clear to me: in support of the "international community" (western allies plus Arab states), the U.S. is using its unique military capabilities to enforce the UN resolution's mandate, to protect those Libyan people who were threatened for opposing Kaddafi or Qadaffi or Gdaffi or whatever whatever media outlets choose to call him. Apart from that, U.S. policy is that this dictator should go. The U.S. for weeks has been organizing diplomatic and financial means to make it harder and harder for him to stay in power.

Military to prevent his military from slaughtering rebels and protestors and everybody else. Diplomacy and other non-military means to make it harder and harder for him to remain. What is so hard to understand? Obviously this military action also erodes Kaddafi's power. And making it harder for him to pay for weapons and mercenaries also makes it harder for him to defy the no-fly zone and attack the rebels. So they are related. But pursuing these two purposes by different means is not contradictory, it is not even unclear. Military action has probably already saved Benghazi from an even larger and more savage attack than began to happen the other night, when government gunmen rode down the streets shooting indiscriminately into residences. Now there is time for Libyians to evaluate what they want to do about Q/K/Gadaffi, and for him to evaluate his options.

What's so hard to understand about this? I understand it, the guy from Human Rights Watch I just saw understands it. American media seems congenitally hysterical, listening to each other more than anyone else. If they seemed capable of accurate reporting, I might have more confidence in this country coping with anything serious.

There are a lot of moral and political issues involved in all this, and the situation is fluid, chancy and rife with risk. But let's at least get President Obama's stated intentions straight.