Writing for the British Independent, Adrian Hamilton is making the case for the election of Barack Obama as the man best suited to continue Bush’s foreign policy because, when all said and done, Bush won the Foreign policy debate in Europe and Asia as well as in America.

 

Not a tear was shed, nor a cheer raised. Not even the protesters have bothered to turn out as President Bush has wound his way around Europe on the final visit of his two-term occupancy of the White House. Instead, he has come almost like an anonymous diplomat to hold talks in private, say a few words to the cameras and –unless the UK has something very unexpected up its sleeve this weekend – to depart almost unrecognized, and certainly unacclaimed.

But why the eery quiet?

Hamilton starts by decrying the obvious explanation as “fanciful” but ends by admitting it’s veracity:

There’s a fanciful version of this event, spun by the commentators in Washington and followed even by some here, which says the very anonymity of Bush’s visit is a tribute to the success of the relationship he has now developed with Europe. Where in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, relations were fraught and loud, now Bush and Europe are pretty comfortable with each other. The EU’s three main leaders – Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy – are all positively pro-American. Even Iran does not divide them.And yet – and this is the equally fascinating point – when it comes to the actual policies that might replace those of Bush, there is no great debate inside the US or outside.

How come? Is it possible that reality bites? Is it possible that as imperfect as American leadership may be, it is the best of those available. Well, yes, Hamilton admits:

. . . it should also be pointed out that neither the Middle East, nor Europe nor Asia have defined a post-Bush future for themselves either. If the world still yearns for some form of American leadership, while resenting it when offered, it is because, looking at the leadership of Europe, Israel and the Arab world, or China or India, there simply are no statesmen who could offer alternatives.

I had to read that list over and over. He is not serious? He could not expect a leader of little Israel to take the role inevitably played by an American president? He must have really bought into the “Zionists” “AIPAC” conspiracy theories big time.

But let’s look at the rest of his list. Europe’s failed negotiations with Iran demonstrated it’s impotence as global leader. The Arab world is engaged in it’s second Cold War. This one is between Iran and Saudi led coalitions. China is eager to delay any responsibility for the global order and India has it’s handful trying to keep it’s economic take off from being aborted by a two prong terrorist campaign waged against it, one by Islamists and the other by Maoists.

In other words, he argues, America is destined to continue acting the role of a responsible parent and it is better for the children to have him satisfied with himself and in a good mood.

Washington after Bush is not going to come up with a whole new set of foreign policies. It’s almost certainly had it with grand visions. Bush has seen to that. But what it could do, and what its allies and competitors should dearly wish for, is to have a president that can restore some faith in itself. An America whose people start to feel better about themselves is better for us all.There is only one candidate who can do that and it isn’t John McCain, for all that he could work perfectly well with the foreign offices around the globe.

Yes, Hamilton agrees, McCain would be a perfectly adequate parent, but Obama would be the “feel good” one. He fails to mention, of course, that “feel good” parents are notoriously poor disciplinarians and keeping a modicum of order with the least amount of overt force is the primary role of a good parent. But, then, Hamilton is desperately trying not to focus of the very real price the world (as well as America) is bound to pay for the folly of entrusting it’s future to an untested novice named Barack Obama. Do not worry, he is young and malleable. His advisers will make sure he will be a good boy and follow in Bush’s footsteps.

Hamilton is not the only one making that argument. It is one whispered loudly throughout the international corridors of power. It has been whispered in the past and had been always proven wrong and dangerous. German conservatives whispered it about Hitler. Iranian Communist about Khomeini and reformists about Ahmadinejad. Russian sophisticates about Putin and the list can go on and on.

There is a difference between electing McCain and Obama and it is not only their skin color. To get elected Obama may talk a Bush light talk, but once he is in charge he will walk the leftist/Islamist desired appeasement walk. His supporters understand as much but are doing their best to make sure the rest of us forget.

For more on my History News Network blog, click here

Have PoliticalMavens.com delivered to your inbox in a daily digest by clicking here