Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., has compared President Obama to Richard Nixon. This statement is an outrageous insult.
To President Nixon.
Alexander compared Obama to Nixon because Obama is targeting media that are unfriendly to him and is thought to be making an enemies list. The similarities, however, end here. Nixon was a far more capable president, and he would not have made the myriad public relations and other gaffes that Obama already has committed.
When it comes to making policy, Nixon is better than Obama. Upon taking office, Nixon already had strategies to solve many of the country’s foreign policy problems. He implemented these strategies to improve relations with China and the Soviet Union. Even though the country was in a position of weakness because of the Vietnam War, Nixon actually turned the situation to his advantage. He appeared strong and decisive.
Obama, on the other hand, has appeared weak when conducting foreign policy. He has had trouble making a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, and he has made his wavering public. Nixon never would have allowed such weakness to be projected to the rest of the world. Nixon stood up for America and praised the country’s greatness. Obama goes abroad and apologizes for the United States.
On domestic policy, Nixon actually achieved far-reaching environmental policies and got the economy turned around in his first term. Obama has yet to grasp the economic situation or articulate an economic policy that makes sense. Instead of letting the economy recover, Obama is still trying to pursue health-care legislation that only will drive up the deficit and weigh down job-creating businesses.
In public relations, Obama ran a great presidential campaign. Nixon ran three, and he won two of them. Once in office, though, Nixon has the upper hand in getting his message out. Obama overdoes it. He seemingly appears on every show, and is on television all of the time. People are tuning him out.
Nixon, on the other hand, realized that it is best to speak only when you have something to say. The most dramatic example was Nixon’s summit with the Chinese. He did not reveal his plans for a summit with China until this breakthrough had been achieved. As a result, Nixon received decisive momentum in the polls. The summit announcement would not have had the same impact if Nixon went on television every night and gabbed about it.
Getting to the substance of the current debate, Nixon and his administration, like Obama, did attack unfriendly media outlets. But Nixon’s attacks at least made sense. The mood in the country when Nixon was in office was hostile, and he felt that most of the media were against him. When he would make a speech, a news commentator would immediately criticize him. Nixon’s wariness of the media also was fed by the fact that he felt the media overwhelmingly favored John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential election.
Criticizing the media made sense to Nixon. There were far fewer media outlets then, and people trusted the media more. Nixon had to point out that there was another side to the stories being written and broadcast.
Now, however, there are many media outlets, most of which are friendly to Obama. Obama’s own officials even acknowledge that most media run favorable stories about the president. Yet Obama is going after the one media outlet, Fox News, that is criticizing him consistently.
The Obama administration may have a point that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck are not going to report favorably on the president. But who cares? These shows are opinion shows, and the opinion of the hosts is that Obama’s policies are harming America. The opinions of Hannity and Beck are legitimate. Not only that, many other shows favorable to Obama exist. It is not like people do not understand Obama’s point of view. They just do not agree with him on health-care reform.
When Nixon attacked the media, he was facing a near monopoly that was highly skeptical of him. When Obama has attacked the media, the monopoly no longer exists, although many powerful voices in the media appear to support him. Attacking the one outlet that is tough on Obama looks like weakness.
In surveying Nixon’s accomplishments, without taking into account Watergate, Nixon clearly was better than Obama. He better understood how the government works and how his policies would affect the country. Obama may be Nixon’s equal in campaigning, but when it comes to running the country, Nixon has the decisive edge.
—
For more on President Nixon, check out “Balancing Act: How Nixon Went to China and Remained a Conservative,” on amazon.com.
October 22, 2009
OUR VIEW: NO COMPARISON BETWEEN NIXON-OBAMA
October 15, 2009
OUR VIEW: WHAT A JOKE!
The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama appears purely political. Obama has made speeches about peace, but he has yet to achieve concrete results. Under the logic used by the Nobel committee, many U.S. presidents could have received the prize, although few actually have.
The American public should receive the news of this award with at least a little skepticism. Because Obama has yet to achieve any lasting peace in any of the areas that were troubled when he took office, the move to give him the award likely is an endorsement of his rhetoric about peace, which is far more dovish than anything President Bush used.
Obama’s rhetoric, however, has contained passages blaming America and apologizing for America on the world stage. Obama has said this country is arrogant, and he has extensively detailed America’s faults. This type of language might be appealing to liberal Europeans, such as the people on the Nobel committee, but in the long run, America only will be able to effect positive change if its president discusses the country’s powerful virtues such as support of democracy and freedom.
So far, Obama’s policy of attempting to be nice to Iran and North Korea does not seem to actually have deterred these countries from abandoning their nuclear weapons programs. His conciliatory attitude toward Russia, which included taking the missile defense shield from Poland, may not yield any results either. Many of these rogue countries respect only a strong American foreign policy, and backing down will not help these situations.
Additionally, his policy toward the war in Afghanistan has been confusing when a clear strategy has been necessary.
An American president who truly did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize was President Theodore Roosevelt. He brokered an end to the Russo-Japanese War without firing a shot. In general, Roosevelt’s foreign policy consisted of projecting American strength, and the world largely was peaceful when he was in office.
We hope that Obama’s foreign policy succeeds. An American victory in Afghanistan is essential to the War on Terror. No one wants to see an Iran with nuclear weapons, or a more belligerent North Korea. Russian influence should be reigned in. But Obama’s foreign policy has not achieved these aims yet. The Nobel Peace Prize appears to have been awarded based on dovish rhetoric. Results, however, are more important.
October 1, 2009
OUR VIEW: WE NEED BUSH BACK!
The last week has seen Iran take center stage in world diplomacy, as President Obama has revealed that the United States knows the location of a facility in Iran that is being used to develop nuclear technology. The possible nuclear capabilities of Iran are what make this country so dangerous. Iran, which has a reputation as a state sponsor of terrorism and whose leader has called for the destruction of Israel, may be close to possessing nuclear weapons.
Obama wants to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and hopefully he will be successful. However, his method for achieving this goal is negotiations, which may not be enough. The one option missing is a credible threat of force, and this threat has not been present since President Bush left office.
Bush has been roundly criticized from many quarters for his aggressive foreign policy. Critics say he took on too much in going into Iraq and did not concentrate enough on Afghanistan. But Bush had the resolve to change and implement a successful strategy in Iraq during the troop surge. Bush made this move despite its unpopularity at the time.
In dealing with Iran, Bush did not take military action. But given his willingness to go after regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian leaders had to suspect that Bush would be willing to confront them as well.
The recent democratic uprising in Iran provides insight into the differences between Bush and Obama. When protesters took to the streets and denounced the re-election of Iran’s hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Obama seemed reluctant to come to their defense. Although it cannot be stated with certainty, Bush likely would have issued a strong statement of support. Such an uprising is the best chance for positive change in Iran, and Bush would not have backed down from supporting it.
Obama’s policy with Iran has been one of engagement. But if talks are all that Obama seeks, then Iran has no incentive to give up its nuclear program. Iran wants a nuclear weapon, and if no pressure is applied, it will not give up its ambitions.
If Bush were still president, military action against Iran may not have occurred. It may not even be a wise course of action. But with President Bush, the military option would always have seemed plausible, and may actually have made Iran more likely to negotiate seriously on abandoning its weapons program.
Obama seems to be banking on the good will he can create through negotiations. In the best case scenario, Obama seems to be hoping that Russia will come to his aid, particularly after he recently abandoned a missile defense shield in Poland, which was an irritant to the Russian leadership. Russia is an ally of Iran and could exert pressure to deter Iran from any nuclear program. But if no deal has been made, or the deal has been made and is not honored, then Obama is left counting on the good will of Iran, which is not likely to lead to an abandonment of its nuclear program.
Hopefully, Obama’s plan of negotiation will work. Iran with nuclear weapons is not a good scenario. But Bush’s diplomacy seems like it would have been far more likely to deter Iran. Although the rest of the world often denounced Bush, he was respected and backed up what he said he would do. Obama is trying an approach based more on diplomacy. Hopefully, he will be successful.
September 10, 2009
OUR VIEW: OBAMA’S COSTLY PLAN
President Obama did a fairly good job in his nationwide speech of outlining the problems that people have with the health-care system. Unfortunately, the speech contained no real solutions. The solutions that Obama did offer were not believable.
Two areas emerged from the speech that show Obama did not coordinate the problems he condemned and the solutions that he proposed. These areas are covering the uninsured and the cost of paying for the plan.
When discussing the expansion of coverage, one problem that Obama outlined was that people with serious conditions often cannot receive coverage. Most people probably would agree that people who need health insurance because of serious conditions should receive it. Obama’s solution is to force insurance companies to insure these people.
However, Obama also said insurance premiums are too high. Everyone can agree on that. Most people do not like paying insurance premiums. But how can insurance premiums be lowered if insurance companies are forced to insure patients who have a higher risk and need more medical care?
Common sense dictates that if insurance companies are paying for costlier medical care, they will have to raise premiums. Thus, the problem of higher premiums would not be solved.
The only possible solutions are that government will end up reimbursing insurance companies for these patients, or perhaps reimbursement rates for doctors will be cut. But if the government is putting more money into the health insurance system, people will have to pay higher taxes. Regardless of whether premiums or taxes are raised, people will pay more money. If reimbursement rates for doctors are cut, the number of practicing doctors likely will decline. The health-care system would not be improved. Thus, Obama’s solutions to rising premiums and restrictions on coverage cannot work when they are added together.
Obama’s solution to deal with the cost of reforming the health-care system is not convincing either. He claims that fraud and abuse in programs such as Medicare and Medicaid can be cut. But if fighting fraud and abuse were easy, this money already would have been saved. Fraud and abuse actually is difficult to detect, and as government involvement in the health-care system increases, fraud and abuse are likely to increase as well. The potential to save money by cutting back on fraud and abuse probably is miniscule.
In short, Obama’s health-care speech was just another campaign tactic. The specifics were not really specifics. Instead, they were a jumble of clearly enunciated problems coupled with vague and contradictory solutions.
Obama gives the feeling that he does not really care how a health-care measure would work, only that a bill passes that he can call health-care reform. The American people must demand more. If a health-care bill is passed, it must actually work, and it must actually improve the situation.
