- MUST READS
- PRODUCTS
- RESOURCES
- MULTIMEDIA
- ENFACTLOPEDIA
- FSM AUTHORS
- ABOUT US
- CONTACT US
- FSM BLOG
- DONATE
- PRESS COVERAGE
SEARCH FSM
2008 Campaign
Family Security Matters does not stand behind or endorse any candidate for president (or any other public office). However, as the President is also Commander-in-Chief and is responsible for setting national security policy, we will be publishing a variety of articles on both the Republican and Democrat candidates for President during this election year. As always, the opinions of our Contributing Editors are their own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Family Security Matters.
- IN THIS SECTION
July 31, 2008
Exclusive: Obama's Berlin Speech Fails the Presidential Test
The cardinal rule of presidential speechmaking is knowing the audiences you’re talking to – all of them.
Sen. Obama failed the test in Berlin.
As a former speechwriter for several presidents, cabinet officers and members of Congress, I can attest to the great care given to crafting speeches dealing with national security issues, lest they be misinterpreted by any of the several audiences listening.
When President Kennedy told the people of Berlin in 1963 “Ich bin ein Berliner,” he wasn’t just giving heart to the beleaguered people of Berlin. He was also signaling to the East German government and their Soviet masters that the West would never abandon Germany. He was also preparing Americans back home – of both parties – that we were committed to a European military presence for the duration of the Cold War.
When Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987 and said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”, he was telling the Soviet Union that America would no longer accept the status quo in Europe - our goal was to end and win the Cold War on our terms. But Reagan was also notifying Americans back home who may have grown weary of our military commitment to Europe that we were not withdrawing. He was making clear to our European allies that, while they might be lulled into thinking that a divided Europe was acceptable, Reagan did not. And he was signaling to the nascent reform movement in Poland and elsewhere that the United States would stand with them.
Neither JFK nor Reagan had the audacity to deliver these messages during hard fought American campaigns. They did so only after they were secure in office, and were confident the bold steps their speeches implied could be reinforced by deeds. Their words were not idle threats or empty promises.
Sen. Obama’s mistake in Berlin was to assume the only audiences for his words were the people sitting in front of him and his most Left-wing Democrat supporters. He gave them a speech they adored, because it sounded just like one an articulate and impassioned European socialist would make, only more eloquent and more artfully delivered. Berliners loved it. But Berliners don’t vote in American elections.
What are undecided voters back home to think with a line like:
“I know my country has not perfected itself….We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.” Americans have bled and died to keep Europeans free in two World Wars. We’ve spent our treasure to maintain that freedom throughout the Cold War. Do they really want an American leader to go to Europe, especially to Germany and, hat-in-hand, implore their forgiveness?
What about audiences around the world? How do they interpret, “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand”? Are the poorer nations of the world to understand that a President Obama would have Americans give up their hard earned wealth and share equally with them? That sounds suspiciously like socialism, if not communism – which is exactly what Americans fought the Cold War to defeat. If so, isn’t Sen. Obama offering the poor nations of the world a vision which Americans will not support?
He also pledged that “the walls between ….natives and immigrants.... are the walls we must tear down.” What are the implications for illegal American immigrants? Is Sen. Obama signaling a blanket amnesty and equal access to all assistance programs to all immigrants, legal or otherwise? Immigration is considered a hot button issue throughout the United States and our failure to enact immigration legislation indicative of our lack of consensus. Does Sen. Obama have the right to call for a new immigration policy without first lining up American support?
Sen. Obama called for the “The walls between religions [to] come down.” How are Muslim extremists to interpret this statement? It sounds rather like what they’re calling for too, but under their vision we all convert to Islam, live under Shar’ia law and the Caliphate.
Maybe there is a reason American politics are supposed to stop at the water’s edge – not just the obvious one that we should speak with one voice abroad, so foreign leaders can’t exploit the differences between our leaders, and play them off against each other.
Maybe because what looks like a few good photo ops of a candidate looking presidential, or portraying himself as a leader foreigners can believe in and take seriously, doesn’t always play that well back at home. There is a certain point where the Obama Air Force One look-alike plane, or the Obama Seal of the United States, or the Obama traveling press corps that is larger than the one Nixon took to China, or the Obama commitment to unite all nations into One World, are things Americans find a little presumptuous – especially because they haven’t had a chance to actually vote for Obama.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor KT McFarland is a former top Pentagon official in the Reagan Administration and a frequent commentator on national security issues and foreign affairs. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org
| Print This E-mail This |
|
