By Michael Barone
Friday, March 07, 2014
Solipsism. It's a fancy word that means that the self is
the only existing reality and that the external world, including other people,
are representations of one's own self and can have no independent existence. A
person who follows this philosophy may believe that others see the world as he
does and will behave as he would.
It's a quality often found in narcissists, people who
greatly admire themselves -- such as a presidential candidate confident that he
is a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, knows more about policy than
his policy directors and is a better political director than his political
director.
If that sounds familiar, it's a paraphrase of what
President Obama told top political aide Patrick Gaspard in 2008, according to
the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.
More recently, Obama's narcissism has been painfully
apparent as the United States suffers one reversal after another in world
affairs. But it has been apparent ever since he started running for president
in 2007.
Candidate Obama campaigned not just as a critic of the
policies of the opposing party's president, as many candidates do, but he
portrayed himself repeatedly as someone who, because he "looks
different" from other presidents, would make America beloved and cherished
in the world.
Plenty of solipsism here. Obama's status as the possible
-- and then actual -- first black president was surely an electoral asset. Most
Americans believed and believe that, given the nation's history, the election
of a black president would be a good thing, at least in the abstract.
But that history has less resonance beyond America's
borders. Obama must have been surprised to find, on his trip to his father's
native Africa, that he was less popular there than George W. Bush, thanks to
Bush's program to combat AIDS.
Obama was also mistaken in thinking that his election and
the departure of the cowboy bully Bush would make the United States popular
again among the world's leaders and peoples -- though it had that effect in the
faculty lounges and university neighborhoods Obama had chosen to inhabit.
In the wider world, the United States, as the largest and
mightiest power, is bound to be resented and blamed for every unwelcome
development. American presidents for more than a century have been
characterized as crude and bumptious by foreign elites.
Moreover, as Robert Gates argued persuasively in his 1996
and 2014 memoirs, there is more continuity in American foreign policy than
domestic campaign rhetoric suggests. From Guantanamo to Afghanistan, Obama found
himself obliged more to carry on than to repudiate Bush's policies.
Where he has clearly changed course, he has done so
solipsistically. A reset with Russia was possible, he reasoned, because
Vladimir Putin, insulted by Bush's mulishness, was ready to cooperate with a
president in mutually advantageous win-win agreements.
So in the past week, Obama has insisted that Putin's
invasion of Ukraine's Crimea was not in his own interest. No doubt most in the
faculty lounge would see it that way. But Putin clearly doesn't. As the
military say, the enemy has a vote.
And in his astonishing interview last week with
Bloomberg's Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama declared that Palestinian leader Mahmoud
Abbas was ready to accept peace with Israel. Again, that's what Obama and the
faculty lounge would do. But Abbas has turned down one generous peace deal and
has never said he would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
Obama's assumption that other leaders share his views has
its limits. It does not always apply to those who have been allies and friends
of the United States.
In the Goldberg interview, he lashed Israel, and by
implication Benjamin Netanyahu, for "aggressive settlement
construction" in the West Bank. The implication is that only Israel is
blocking a peace agreement. But it was Abbas who has rejected John Kerry's
framework.
Obama's solipsistic narcissism extends even to the
mullahs of Iran. This goes back again to the 2008 campaign: The problem was
Bush's refusal to negotiate. Speak emolliently, send greetings on Muslim
holidays and ignore the Green Movement protesters, and Iranian leaders would
see that it is in their interest to halt their nuclear weapons program.
Most Americans, conservative as well as liberal, would be
delighted if Putin, the Palestinians and Ayatollah Khamenei believed and
behaved as we would. They would be pleased to see an enlightened American
leader bridge rhetorical differences and reach accommodations that left all
sides content and at peace.
That, unhappily, is not the world we live in. Being on
the lookout for common ground is sensible. Assuming common ground when none
exists is foolish. And often has bad consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment