Surveying the New Foundations

The President is playing well abroad. Couple that to his personal press offensive before leaving and the market's positive reaction to Geithner's public-private partnership and the Administration has had several positive weeks. It's a step in the right direction for an Administration that had been facing growing concern among its own supporters.

The G20 didn't accomplish much substantively, outside perhaps the IMF funding item. To my ear, the President' rhetoric is laying the groundwork for future difficulties. I don't think it strengthens our standing or that of the Presidency to so actively criticize the prior Administration. He gains little by emphasizing personal differences with Bush that are already well understood, and confuses people by inviting them to question which American commitments he'll adopt and which he'll discard. And he encourages everyone to wonder about the duration of his own commitments by emphasizing that policies change with Presidents. Anyone counting on US support must read through Obama to estimate which policies will garner American public support after him; anyone resisting him is invited to consider whether they can wait him out. Obama won and of course he wants to change direction, but he seems to have discounted the value of some kind of continuity down to zero.

While Obama has tried to deliver a balanced message addressing both American and European faults, it's unclear whether that will get through. It is fine to say that Europe is prone to a reflexive anti-Americanism, but he hasn't spent a lot of time there, so how would he know? Europeans may very easily discount this as intended for domestic consumption, as the President just admitted to a series of mistakes that in their view entirely justify their distaste.

His focus on US disarmament is, as Anne Applebaum puts it, "peculiar". By questioning our own arsenal, it invites Iranian and Korean arguments that their aspirations are no different than ours. The suggestion that we must lead by example makes us vulnerable to accusations that we aren't living up to our standard, though we can't entirely control our own compliance, as we must depend on Russian cooperation. It shifts the focus away from their violations of their own commitments and aggressive intentions. And it sets a poor example for future negotiations: our enemies have violated their own agreements and threatened their neighbors, and Obama's opening bid is a review of our behavior. This isn't going to discourage foreign challengers looking for a deal.

And a comparison of the President's remarks with his campaign positions doesn't bolster his reputation for thoughtfulness. He's walked back his commitments on Iraq withdrawal and recognizing the Armenian "genocide", saying things are different now that he is President. Very true, but does that admit his campaign promises didn't think ahead to the responsibilities to which he aspired? It's easy to say fine things, and harder to accomplish them.

The practical implications of all this will be long in coming. These are the foundations others will consider as they calculate their relationship with the US and its current President. The President seems to stake American objectives on the theory that clearing ourselves of any suggestion of fault with inspire others to do the same, to work with us and to amend their aggressive behaviors. There is very little in history to suggest that this sort of thing produces good results.