Israpundit
On Israel, health care, and many other issues, Obama’s opposition has its work cut out for it.
BY William Kristol, Weekly Standard
[..]
And, of course, the stunning turn against Israel.
Why the exploitation of a minor disagreement with the Israeli government to justify a turn against Israel? President Obama cares about being popular—in America, certainly, but in the world as well. And not just because popularity in the world can help the United States achieve its foreign policy aims. But because, as James Ceaser argued in these pages in January, Obama aspires to be a leader of humanity, not merely a president of a single country.
And there’s no better way to be a leader of humanity than to show disapproval of the Jewish state. Sure, Obama’s turn against Israel will make it less likely that Palestinians will negotiate seriously with her. Sure, it will embolden radical Arabs and Muslims against those who would like their nations to take a different, more responsible, course. Sure, it’s a distraction from the real challenge of Iran. But the turn against Israel is ultimately a key part of what Obamaism is all about. That’s why there’s been so little attempt by the administration to reassure friends of Israel that Obama has been acting more in sorrow than in anger. Obama’s proud of his anger at the stiff-necked Jewish state. It puts him in sync with the rest of the world.
So, for the next three years, at home and abroad, we, the loyal opposition, have our work cut out for us. The Obama administration is unlikely to embrace the lessons Elliott Abrams spells out in this issue (“The Future of an Illusion”). But Congress and public opinion can push Middle East policy in a better direction and mitigate the damage Obama can do. Congress can also begin to undo the damage Obamacare threatens to cause. And then, in 2012, we can nominate a candidate who campaigns on a platform of solvency and liberty at home, and seriousness and greatness abroad.
This Republican nominee will need to appeal to the best traditions of both parties. In his 1980 acceptance speech, Ronald Reagan went out of his way to quote a couple of sentences from Franklin Roosevelt’s 1932 remarks accepting the Democratic nomination for president.
Similarly, Reagan’s heir can also quote from FDR’s 1932 convention speech:
- I congratulate this convention for having had the courage fearlessly to write into its declaration of principles what an overwhelming majority here assembled really thinks. .??.??. This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal. And I am confident that the United States of America wants repeal.
(FDR was speaking about Prohibition; the GOP nominee will be speaking about Obamacare.)
As for foreign policy, the 2012 GOP nominee can quote John Kennedy in 1960:
- Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons. .??.??. Friends have slipped into neutrality—and neutrals into hostility. .??.??. Courage .??.??. is our need today—leadership, not salesmanship. .??.??. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves. .??.??. That is the choice our nation must make—a choice .??.??. between national greatness and national decline.
FDR in 1932, JFK in 1960, Reagan in 1980—all appealed to the virtue of courage. It will take courage to persevere over the next two and a half years to check Obama as president and then to defeat him. But the prize is worth the effort.
—William Kristol
