When thinking about what defines the Obama doctrine, we might be tempted to say it encompasses blaming America first or apologizing to the world for an unjust America. It would be accurate to observe that Mr. Obama has done both, but those events merely undergird Obama's larger ideological goal.
"Mr. Obama is systematically diminishing the United States, effecting its transformation from what was once called 'the world's only superpower' to a nation subordinated to the demands of international consensus, organizations, 'peer competitors' and even rogue states." So writes Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. in his piece "The Obama doctrine."
Gaffney is correct in concluding that President Obama's foreign policy doctrine is essentially the weakening of America in order to strengthen global governance. Of course, the left wouldn't word it quite that way. Those on the left say that they wish to bring all nations to equal standing, which means lifting others up, not tearing America down.
But in practice, it doesn't work out that way. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," says Obama. It's clear that the rest of the world will not be brought up to U.S. standards; on the contrary, the standards of the U.S. must diminish.
We must recognize that Obama's domestic policies overlap with his global ideology. In Obama's world, the pie is not growing, and everyone should have the same-sized slice. Spreading the wealth around via excessive taxation, unfortunately for those hoping in hope, will lead to a lack of production and prosperity. It will not create equal slices, but instead shrink the American pie.
Mr. Obama needs a weak America to facilitate his view of global multiculturalism. No country is better than any other. So-called evil regimes are really dispossessed nations that need to be understood and brought to the table. Once at the table, we will see that our mutual interests make self-interests innocuous. Old views of American exceptionalism are simply worn out.
The President is a creature of postmodern, post-Christian thinking. He is a new kind of leftist. Barack Hussein Obama is essentially a global Marxist. On a global scale, the proletariat consists of the poor nations of the world that have been oppressed by powerful, greedy, self-interested countries. The United States is the prime example of the global bourgeoisie. The evil, capitalistic country, still high on religious opium, represents all that is wrong with the world.
That's why Obama wouldn't wear a U.S. flag pin on his lapel until forced to do so by political pressure. If disdaining your own country makes you a patriot, then Obama is one of the greatest patriots in American history. That great postmodern patriot has arrived to usher in a new era of smart policy. Forget about all the tradition that made America the greatest experiment in human liberty and prosperity the world has ever seen. Mr. Obama was photographed during the 2008 campaign carrying the book, "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria. A guy running to be president of the country that saved Europe and the world from Nazism and communism and provided stability ever since was reading about a post-American world. In a recent Newsweek article, "Obama's Big Gamble," Fareed Zakaria analyzes Obama's debut speech at the recent United Nations meeting.
Before answering his rhetorical question in the affirmative as to whether it's worth it to take the United Nations seriously, Zakaria apparently wonders whether conservatives should be taken seriously. Zakaria notes:
"[F]or Rush Limbaugh, Obama's [U.N.] speech was 'basically a coup against America.' At the National Review's Web site, a debate broke out -- an entirely serious debate among serious people -- as to whether the speech proved that Obama actually wanted the world's tyrants to win. ... This is the discourse of American conservatism: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler."
Apparently, the discourse of American liberalism is the oversimplifying of conservative positions.
In his Newsweek piece, Zakaria praises Obama's call for nonproliferation -- which makes one wonder whether either man should be taken seriously at any level. Talk about a worn out policy position of the past. The tired doctrine of nuclear nonproliferation was relevant during the Cold War, when only a few countries had access to nuclear weaponry.
If ever a naïve, simplistic, and downright dangerous foreign policy position existed in the 21st century, here it is. Let's non-proliferate and forget about missile defense and trust Russia, China, and an assortment of rogue nations like North Korea and Iran to "do the right thing."
The timing could turn out perfectly for, say, China. Maybe when the People's Republic calls the U.S. on its debt, the U.S. will be completely helpless (economically and militarily) because of Obama's "smart policy."
Since Obama is fond of slogans like "change you can believe in," he might use this slogan for the Obama doctrine: "Leading my post-Christian, postmodern country into the new era of the post-American world."