The Remaking of America
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times, 22/01/2009
At the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in January 2001, the Web site The Onion declared: “Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.”
That was supposed to be satire, but in retrospect it proved a shrewd analysis. One measure of the bleak trajectory of the last eight years is that today The Onion looks equally astute when it says of the latest transition: “Black man given nation’s worst job.”
That man is making an excellent start, and news Web sites all over the world capture the globe’s eagerness — even desperation — for American leadership.
“Let the remaking of America begin today,” declared The Guardian, in Britain. The Independent called Inauguration Day “a day for hope.”
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of “a truly great hour for America” that offered “a multitude of opportunities.” The Times of India welcomed “a new beginning.” In Northern Ireland, The Belfast Telegraph asked: “Can Obama save us all?”
A BBC poll in 17 nations found that on average 67 percent believed that President Obama would improve America’s relations with the rest of the world; just 5 percent thought the opposite (or maybe feared that if they seemed critical of George W. Bush, they would be waterboarded).
Two themes were particularly reassuring in Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address. One was his inclusiveness, his effort to tug people into his big tent, a huge contrast from Mr. Bush’s years of governing from an ideological pup tent.
President Obama’s inclusiveness started with his celebration of America as a patchwork of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.” If you know of any other sitting president who has dared to embrace atheists (Thomas Jefferson did, but not while in office), post the information on my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground).
Mr. Obama was also the first president to use the word “Muslim” in an Inaugural Address. In an oblique olive branch that I took to be directed toward Iran and Syria, he said: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
The second reassuring theme has to do with “hard power” and “soft power,” in the terminology of Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor. In the Bush-Cheney years, America sought to rely overwhelmingly on military “hard power,” and the result was setbacks around the world, from Iran’s accelerated nuclear program to North Korea’s processing of plutonium for a half-dozen nuclear weapons (compared with zero during the Clinton presidency).
As my colleague David Sanger documents in his superb new book, “The Inheritance”: “We pursued a path that has left us less admired by our allies, less feared by our enemies, and less capable of convincing the rest of the world that our economic and political model is worthy of emulation.”
Mr. Obama’s first attempt at soft power is the nifty new White House Web site, complete with a White House blog. In his Inaugural Address, Mr. Obama focused on soft power alongside hard power: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
Tempering qualities? Dick Cheney never wanted to temper anything, including his temper.
This mix of soft and hard power is what Professor Nye calls “smart power” — an update of Teddy Roosevelt’s notion of speaking softly and carrying a big stick — and it seems to be an emerging theme of the new administration. Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized it in her confirmation hearings.
Professor Nye said that Mr. Obama’s inaugural was a perfect example of smart power. “That’s not going to make our adversaries roll over, but it’ll help in terms of mainstream Muslims and it’ll help in terms of allies,” Mr. Nye said. “And it’ll give a very different tone to foreign policy.”
Now the world will be watching to see if Mr. Obama’s policy matches his rhetoric. The economy will be paramount, of course, but it will take months or years to judge results there.
In the meantime, there are two immediate litmus tests by which the world will begin to judge Mr. Obama at once. The first will be his handling of Guantánamo and torture — the architects of those Bush policies did more damage to America than anyone confined in Guantánamo — and it was reassuring that Mr. Obama promptly suspended action by military tribunals.
A second test is Middle East policy. The Bush policy of (mostly) disengagement and obliviousness to Palestinian suffering has made it harder to achieve a peace that is the best hope for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Mr. Obama’s calls Wednesday to Middle Eastern leaders were helpful, and he should immediately make clear that he wants Israel to halt the settlements and ease repressive restrictions on the West Bank.
These steps would reassure the world that its hopes for a new day in Washington just may be justified.
At the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency in January 2001, the Web site The Onion declared: “Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is over.”
That was supposed to be satire, but in retrospect it proved a shrewd analysis. One measure of the bleak trajectory of the last eight years is that today The Onion looks equally astute when it says of the latest transition: “Black man given nation’s worst job.”
That man is making an excellent start, and news Web sites all over the world capture the globe’s eagerness — even desperation — for American leadership.
“Let the remaking of America begin today,” declared The Guardian, in Britain. The Independent called Inauguration Day “a day for hope.”
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke of “a truly great hour for America” that offered “a multitude of opportunities.” The Times of India welcomed “a new beginning.” In Northern Ireland, The Belfast Telegraph asked: “Can Obama save us all?”
A BBC poll in 17 nations found that on average 67 percent believed that President Obama would improve America’s relations with the rest of the world; just 5 percent thought the opposite (or maybe feared that if they seemed critical of George W. Bush, they would be waterboarded).
Two themes were particularly reassuring in Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address. One was his inclusiveness, his effort to tug people into his big tent, a huge contrast from Mr. Bush’s years of governing from an ideological pup tent.
President Obama’s inclusiveness started with his celebration of America as a patchwork of “Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.” If you know of any other sitting president who has dared to embrace atheists (Thomas Jefferson did, but not while in office), post the information on my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground).
Mr. Obama was also the first president to use the word “Muslim” in an Inaugural Address. In an oblique olive branch that I took to be directed toward Iran and Syria, he said: “We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
The second reassuring theme has to do with “hard power” and “soft power,” in the terminology of Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor. In the Bush-Cheney years, America sought to rely overwhelmingly on military “hard power,” and the result was setbacks around the world, from Iran’s accelerated nuclear program to North Korea’s processing of plutonium for a half-dozen nuclear weapons (compared with zero during the Clinton presidency).
As my colleague David Sanger documents in his superb new book, “The Inheritance”: “We pursued a path that has left us less admired by our allies, less feared by our enemies, and less capable of convincing the rest of the world that our economic and political model is worthy of emulation.”
Mr. Obama’s first attempt at soft power is the nifty new White House Web site, complete with a White House blog. In his Inaugural Address, Mr. Obama focused on soft power alongside hard power: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”
Tempering qualities? Dick Cheney never wanted to temper anything, including his temper.
This mix of soft and hard power is what Professor Nye calls “smart power” — an update of Teddy Roosevelt’s notion of speaking softly and carrying a big stick — and it seems to be an emerging theme of the new administration. Hillary Rodham Clinton emphasized it in her confirmation hearings.
Professor Nye said that Mr. Obama’s inaugural was a perfect example of smart power. “That’s not going to make our adversaries roll over, but it’ll help in terms of mainstream Muslims and it’ll help in terms of allies,” Mr. Nye said. “And it’ll give a very different tone to foreign policy.”
Now the world will be watching to see if Mr. Obama’s policy matches his rhetoric. The economy will be paramount, of course, but it will take months or years to judge results there.
In the meantime, there are two immediate litmus tests by which the world will begin to judge Mr. Obama at once. The first will be his handling of Guantánamo and torture — the architects of those Bush policies did more damage to America than anyone confined in Guantánamo — and it was reassuring that Mr. Obama promptly suspended action by military tribunals.
A second test is Middle East policy. The Bush policy of (mostly) disengagement and obliviousness to Palestinian suffering has made it harder to achieve a peace that is the best hope for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Mr. Obama’s calls Wednesday to Middle Eastern leaders were helpful, and he should immediately make clear that he wants Israel to halt the settlements and ease repressive restrictions on the West Bank.
These steps would reassure the world that its hopes for a new day in Washington just may be justified.