|
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.
Also, obviously those interested in law are going to be interested in government, and by extension, politics.
|
Replace lawyer with most any other occupation, and your justification still makes sense.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
So he put serious thought into it, so that makes it OK? I put serious thought into robbing the local convenience store. I'm sure the cops and judge will see my point of view.
Obama has payed lip service to reversing brain dead Bush policies, then forged ahead with brain dead policies of his own. He's just a more palatable Bush. There is no substance there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| 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? |
She worked for a private law firm for many years. And Mitt Romney is another one with a business background. His money management is actually how he became well known and is part of his appeal.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why is it so many lawyers become president? |
Because a lot of the become initially 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.
|
| senior wrote: |
| Replace lawyer with most any other occupation, and your justification still makes sense. |
What?? Huh? What are you talking about dude? That makes no sense. And what am I justifying?? I'm answering his question, not justifying anything.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 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. |
| senior wrote: |
So he put serious thought into it, so that makes it OK? I put serious thought into robbing the local convenience store. I'm sure the cops and judge will see my point of view.
Obama has payed lip service to reversing brain dead Bush policies, then forged ahead with brain dead policies of his own. He's just a more palatable Bush. There is no substance there. |
Ok, what of his foreign policies are brain dead- and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably the author of the article has no "in" whatsoever to anybody involved in foreign policy decision making at the White House, so he's taking out his frustrations by claiming the Obama administration is too "centralized". Remember there's no such thing as a journalist without an ax to grind.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| 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? |
She worked for a private law firm for many years. And Mitt Romney is another one with a business background. His money management is actually how he became well known and is part of his appeal. |
Lawyering falls into the category I defined as "unproductive" at the start of this conversation. Lawyers are necessary, but not especially productive.
| Quote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why is it so many lawyers become president? |
Because a lot of the become initially 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.
|
| senior wrote: |
| Replace lawyer with most any other occupation, and your justification still makes sense. |
What?? Huh? What are you talking about dude? That makes no sense. And what am I justifying?? I'm answering his question, not justifying anything. |
Haha, you're are justifying the reason that so many lawyers become politicians. What's so confusing about that?
| Quote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 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. |
| senior wrote: |
So he put serious thought into it, so that makes it OK? I put serious thought into robbing the local convenience store. I'm sure the cops and judge will see my point of view.
Obama has payed lip service to reversing brain dead Bush policies, then forged ahead with brain dead policies of his own. He's just a more palatable Bush. There is no substance there. |
Ok, what of his foreign policies are brain dead- and why? |
Throwing money down a hole on the other side of the world is about as brain dead as it gets.
Wasn't there some debacle with the Russians a couple of months back. Something to do with missiles in eastern Europe? I can't remember, it's all just a big side show. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Probably the author of the article has no "in" whatsoever to anybody involved in foreign policy decision making at the White House, so he's taking out his frustrations by claiming the Obama administration is too "centralized". Remember there's no such thing as a journalist without an ax to grind. |
Eh, the same could be said that any journalist who has an "in" has had their opinion bought in exchange for access. That's going to be a huge problem if Barack's foreign policy process is run the way its described here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Haha, you're are justifying the reason that so many lawyers become politicians. What's so confusing about that? |
No, I was GIVING a reason, not justifying it. Justifying it would be giving that reason then adding, "and therefore that makes them the most qualified" or something along those lines.
| Senior wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| 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. |
| senior wrote: |
So he put serious thought into it, so that makes it OK? I put serious thought into robbing the local convenience store. I'm sure the cops and judge will see my point of view.
Obama has payed lip service to reversing brain dead Bush policies, then forged ahead with brain dead policies of his own. He's just a more palatable Bush. There is no substance there. |
Ok, what of his foreign policies are brain dead- and why? |
Throwing money down a hole on the other side of the world is about as brain dead as it gets.
Wasn't there some debacle with the Russians a couple of months back. Something to do with missiles in eastern Europe? I can't remember, it's all just a big side show. |
No, there was no debacle. And they just signed a treaty over nuclear weapons, so I'd say things have turned out ok with Barrack and Russia.
And while I agree that pouring more resources into Afghanistan is a lost cause at least there is a timetable for that one. And we have been steadily drawing down in Iraq, and continue to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| And while I agree that pouring more resources into Afghanistan is a lost cause at least there is a timetable for that one. |
Huh? Timetable for what exactly? After all, Obama has tripled troops in
Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
