Amitai Etzioni Notes

Should Cool Obama Warm Up?

The political mavens who argue that President Obama has to be more expressive are barking up the wrong tree. The real question is if Obama has deep feelings (other than for his family) -- or is a cold fish. If his blood does not boil when Republicans and conservative Democrats, in the same breath, refuse to extend unemployment benefits but further cut taxes for business; when he finds out that mine owners and oil companies bribe regulators rather than protect the lives of their employees; if he cannot feel the pain unemployment still inflicts on us rather than deficits -- then he should not fake it and suddenly turn demonstrative.

President Reagan got it right when he responded to a suggestion by image maker Michael Deaver. Deaver urged the president take off the jacket of his suit, swing it over his soldiers, and walk into a press conference much more informally then he had up to that point. Reagan responded saying that "this is not me," that such moves would make him uncomfortable, and that voters would sense it -- even if they could not verbalize their unease.

Ditto for Obama. If he suddenly started shedding tears, say, for the hundred of miles of beaches that are about to be devastated, he will not gain support but lose one of the few things that he has going for him -- the people's sense that this is a man who has integrity. Cool but honest; restrained but thoughtful.

All this holds only if Obama's heart is as cold as he comes across. However, if deep in his chest there are buried some strong emotions, if he is holding back because he believes it is uncouth to voice one's feeling; if he keeps these feelings under the hood because he long ago learned not to fall prey to them -- then the time has come for some quick lessons by one of his many method-acting friends. Then he can learn to reach into his inner self and draw on these well-concealed emotions and air them. We (and he) would all be better for it.

In short, all those mavens -- from the Washington Post's David Broder to Maureen Dowd at the New York Times -- who insist that Obama should wear his feelings on his sleeves, must first find out: does he have any? I believe such emotions are to be found -- though the president has worked long and hard to convince us otherwise.

The NPT Test

Today the representatives of 188 nations (give or take a few) assembled in New York City to debate ways to revise the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The issue could not be more important. As President Obama's new Nuclear Posture Review declares, the greatest threats to global security are not the old Cold War adversaries but rogue states armed with nukes and terrorists with access to such bombs or the materials from which they can be made. Moreover, the NPT is severely challenged by Iran, which, the IAEA has repeatedly reported, is not living up to its obligations under the treaty. Other nations with nuclear ambitions are watching to see how the international community will react to Iran's violations, as they figure out their own military futures.

If one examines previous meetings of the NPT signatories, one does not find them very reassuring, to put it mildly. During the last meeting of this group -- which includes representatives of most nations of the world -- those present debated the agenda for two weeks, and then went home.

This time the meeting is viewed with special interest because President Obama is seeking to garner support from many nations that in the past were very critical of the U.S. and other nations that already have nukes for not living up to their commitment under the NPT, namely to give up their nukes. President Obama thus declared that indeed zero nukes is the goal, and showed that he means business by working out a treaty with Russia that would scale back the number deployed on the top of launchers. He also obtained a measure of new support from a recent meeting of 47 nations in Washington, to better secure the remaining nukes and blend down the materials from which they can be made.

How is one to assess the achievements of the NPT conference? I predict that much attention will be focused on the posturing of various nations (Iran is a member), criticisms of the members of the nuclear club (who still have enough nukes to kill most everyone three times over) and the nations that did not join the NPT (Pakistan, India, and Israel). Possibly some progress will be made in passing a resolution that urges the member nations to endorse the so-called "Additional Protocol," which widens the scope of IAEA inspections. However, the true test of the 2010 NPT conference lies elsewhere.

The NPT has one major, debilitating flaw. It has a loophole so large that aircraft carriers can sail through it unnoticed. The NPT allows a nation to build nuclear reactors using highly enriched uranium, which is weapons-grade material, as well as to build the facilities needed to enrich additional uranium to this level -- as long as the nation claims that these materials are to be used for peaceful purposes. The nation is then entitled to send a notice that it is quitting the treaty and three months later do so, taking with it all these facilities, and legally begin making bombs. A nation hence need not cheat, hide its bomb making from inspectors, or face criticism and possible UN sanctions. All it takes is basically a postcard.

Thus when one evaluates whether the NPT review conference is truly succeeding, or mainly dealing with atmospherics and debating points and possibly some secondary issue, ask whether this loophole is closed. My expectation? Do not hold your breath, lest you turn very blue.

J Street: In the Wrong Corner

Finally, there is a new Jewish lobby, said to be dedicated to the security of Israel, called J-Street. Sadly, from day one it defined Israel’s number one enemy as —another pro Israel lobby, another group of American Jews, namely, AIPAC. Jews have excelled in many areas, but in none have they done nearly as well as in hating each other and in generating factions and sub factions that fight one another, even when the enemy is at the gate. (There are already fights within J-Street).

Let Them Wear Scarves

Can you explain to me why thoughtful people, including several renowned public intellectuals, oppose the right of women to choose to wear headscarves--on campuses out of all places? The same people,  commentators, editors, and other talking heads who strongly hold that a woman has a right to do with her body whatever she pleases—third trimester abortions, abortions without notifying her husband, piercing everything that sticks out and a lot that does not—but not to cover her hair with a piece of cloth.

The Limits of Internationalism

In reaction to the busted unilateralism of the Bush Administration, internationalism is again in vogue. Watch out, lest you get what you are praying for. For a reminder of what the United Nations, the premier international body, is often like, see its recent treatment of hate speech.

Hillary: The Next Secretary of State

Rahm Emanuel, where are you when we need you? It is time for the elders of the Democratic Party, especially those not committed to either Clinton or Obama, to get off their duff (while staying on the fence) to figure out the best way to end the intra-Democratic contest. Even if Obama continues to garner a majority of the delegates, Clinton will be left with a substantial number of delegates committed to her. Such situations tend to lead to prolonged and bitter conflicts. As the Republicans are unifying around their candidate, it is time to float ideas to end the Democratic contest.

Change: A New Foreign Policy

Even if you listen to all the presidential debates, you will learn precious little about the kind of foreign policy the next president plans to follow. “Change” is on all lips. The fact that the foreign policies the Bush Administration followed are wrong-headed is commonly understood, even by many Republicans. However, what is going to replace these policies is barely discussed. We hear plenty about Iraq, some about Iran, a bit about restoring our reputation overseas and the merit of talking to our adversaries, but little about what we are gong to tell them.

Sickening Meds: Rather Depressing

In a series of previous postings (which start here), I bemoaned the fact that not one of the political candidates has picked up the issue raised by the fact that drug companies often hide data about side effects caused by medications they peddle, and do not report adverse reactions, even when these include fatalities. A new round of such sickening conduct is not as grievous, but is troubling enough. Where is the voice?

Supreme Court to throw another election?

Gloating about doing wrong is a higher degree of venality than just committing evil. Several Republican judges openly acknowledge that the Indiana law—and 23 others like it, enacted in other states—will hurt the Democrats, but nevertheless champion such laws. Judge Richard Posner, who wrote in the majority opinion upholding the Indiana law for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, affirmed that “no doubt most people who don’t have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates” and that “the new law injures the Democratic Party by compelling the party to devote resources to getting to the polls those of its supporters who would otherwise be discouraged by the new law from bothering to vote.”  Now the Republican-dominated Supreme Court seems inclined to follow suit —and rule that these laws are constitutional.