Change Because Obama is Saying It

By BJ Bjornson

One of the big stories today is the speech Obama gave in Cairo. The reactions in the US are mostly predictable, with the majority of people quite impressed and some right wing nuts snatching tiny quotes out of context to scream about appeasement, apologies, weakness, anti-Americanism, and how just giving the speech is doing Iran�s diplomacy for them.

Michael Crowley, however, notes that much of the rhetoric Obama employed in his speech is hardly new or unfamiliar.

But in fact, much of Obama's speech had a different sort of familiar ring. Most of his main arguments have been made before--not just by Obama himself, but by his predecessor. "Today I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East," George W. Bush said at the United Nations on September 16, 2006. Like Obama, Bush explained that the United States is not at war with Islam. Like Obama, Bush said that America respects the history and traditions of the Muslim world. Like Obama, Bush deplored the September 11 attacks and vowed to fight the tiny minority of Islamic extremists. Bush also assured his audience that "freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed. It must be chosen;" Obama said that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." Bush lamented the "daily humiliation of occupation" suffered by the Palestinians; Obama said the Palestinians "endure the daily humiliations... that come with occupation." Bush assured Iran that he did not oppose their use of peaceful nuclear power; so did Obama.

He then asks why Bush�s speech was forgettable while Obama�s seems likely to resonate for some time, and gives a partial if woefully incomplete answer; that Obama speaks at a higher intellectual and rhetorical level and has a reputation for honesty and decency, but that the main reason is Obama being black with Muslim roots.  Only passing reference to the fact he doesn�t have that pesky foreign invasion of W�s on his resume.

I rather think that last, and much of what preceded and progressed from it, are why Bush�s speech was forgettable.  In Bush�s case, his actions had long since made clear that such platitudes were, �just words�.  �Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed�, but we�ll do our damnedest to impose democracy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Lamenting the �daily humiliation of occupation� of the Palestinians, while apparently entering secret agreements with the Israelis to expand their settlements.  Professing support for democracy, but tossing it aside as soon as its results aren�t to their liking.  The hypocrisy destroyed any resonance the words may have otherwise had.

It wasn�t always like that.  In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I remember being impressed by what Bush was saying, much as Obama�s words impress now.  Had Bush actually meant any of it, Obama would have a far less damaged American image to repair.

Obama�s reputation for honesty that Crowley mentioned is due in part to the fact that Obama is, for a politician, relatively honest.  For the most part, what he said in his speech is stuff he�s actually trying to do.  He is trying to close Guantanamo Bay down, (even if maintaining the �indefinite detention� part), stop torture, (even if not working too hard to hold anyone accountable for it), and even seems to have the utter gall to actually mean it when he says Israel should really freeze settlement building.

Is it enough?  Debatable.  However, it does at least hold the plausible promise of progress, and that is something I can appreciate.