|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: Obama's Foreign Prerogative |
 |
|
US Foreign Policy: Waiting on a Sun King
| Quote: |
For better or for worse, Washington has grown used to the fact that Barack Obama runs the most centralised � or �White House-centric� � administration since Richard Nixon. When Nixon wanted foreign policy advice, everyone knew where he got it from: Henry Kissinger, variously his national security adviser and secretary of state.
In contrast, Mr Obama has no big foreign policy strategist . . . "This president wants all the trains routed through the Oval Office.�
Mr Obama has built a machine in which all roads lead to and from him. On the minus side, that means a lot of lower-level meetings without decisions. It also means neglecting issues that cannot be squeezed into his diary, such as trade policy, which continues to drift; or relations with India, which are unnecessarily tense.
�At the end of each meeting, the president summarises what everyone has said and the arguments each has made with a real lawyer�s clarity,� says a participant to the NSC principals meeting, which includes Mr Gates and Mrs Clinton. �When the president finally makes a decision, it is with the full facts and usually shows a high calibre of judgment.�
When Mr Obama makes a decision, that is. |
It is true that Obama's foreign policy is rather good for a newbie President. But this is the first time I've heard such a comparison to Nixon. Apparently, Obama is too deliberative and his decision-making too centralized. But is that such a bad thing in foreign policy?
Edit: Edited title from Obama the Sun King to Obama's Foreign Prerogative to reflect the thread's general consensus approval of Obama's deliberative and centralized decision-making in foreign policy.
Last edited by The Happy Warrior on Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Pink
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your post got me thinking about an unrelated issue:
Why is it so many lawyers become president? (Or in Canada Prime Minister?)
If society hates lawyers, what does that say about the fact we elect them to lead us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Politicians rarely have experience in the productive sectors of the economy.
They are predominantly drawn form the ranks of tenured professors in non-science subjects (excluding economics strangely enough), lawyers, career public servants. People from the other (productive) half of the economy, for what ever reason, are far more reluctant to throw their hats in the ring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Politicians rarely have experience in the productive sectors of the economy.
People from the other (productive) half of the economy, for what ever reason, are far more reluctant to throw their hats in the ring. |
Oh, hell, no. This thread isn't going to be de-railed and turn into another libertarian-liberal economic piss-fest.
I won't have it.
Obama's foreign policy, people. Let's stick to it. There's a lot here. Relations with India, for one. Why are they so bad? I have no idea. Surely someone here does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
Politicians rarely have experience in the productive sectors of the economy.
People from the other (productive) half of the economy, for what ever reason, are far more reluctant to throw their hats in the ring. |
Oh, hell, no. This thread isn't going to be de-railed and turn into another libertarian-liberal economic piss-fest.
I won't have it.
Obama's foreign policy, people. Let's stick to it. There's a lot here. Relations with India, for one. Why are they so bad? I have no idea. Surely someone here does. |
Obama is a puppet of the global elite. He reads from a teleprompter. Trying to figure out US foreign policy by analyzing the personality or credentials of a president who takes orders from above is pointless. Obama is not in charge, the people who run the Fed and Wall Street are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:12 am Post subject: Re: Obama the Sun King |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Apparently, Obama is too deliberative and his decision-making too centralized. But is that such a bad thing in foreign policy? |
It is probably a good thing. Obama seems like a contemplative, middle of the road guy. American police needs a radical reversal.
You're right that relations with India are solid (at least according to The Economist from a week or two back). Relations with China are not as solid as they were when Bush left office. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Politicians rarely have experience in the productive sectors of the economy.
They are predominantly drawn form the ranks of tenured professors in non-science subjects (excluding economics strangely enough), lawyers, career public servants. People from the other (productive) half of the economy, for what ever reason, are far more reluctant to throw their hats in the ring. |
Yeah, Michael Bloomberg- what's his background again?
| Quote: |
| Why is it so many lawyers become president? |
Because a lot of the become initally known through their legal work. Prime example: Rudy Giullani.
Also, obviously those interested in law are going to be interested in government, and by extension, politics.
In regards to the OP, I'm not too concerned. US foreign policy in the 15 months hasn't been so bad. I think it wasn't wise to become further involved in Afghanistan but I do think Obama put serious thought into it, and it wasn't nearly as rash or dumb as many of Bush's policies were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| �At the end of each meeting, the president summarises what everyone has said and the arguments each has made with a real lawyer�s clarity,� |
He's real smart. We knew that. This is such a nonstory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
Politicians rarely have experience in the productive sectors of the economy.
They are predominantly drawn form the ranks of tenured professors in non-science subjects (excluding economics strangely enough), lawyers, career public servants. People from the other (productive) half of the economy, for what ever reason, are far more reluctant to throw their hats in the ring. |
Yeah, Michael Bloomberg- what's his background again? |
Oh, one guy. You win. What is Hillary Clinton's background? How many businesses has she worked for?
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Why is it so many lawyers become president? |
Because a lot of the become initally known through their legal work. Prime example: Rudy Giullani. | | | |
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
