Obama, Bush, Netanyahu and what it means to really be a strong leader
Reading comments in the Washington Post, I was struck by one that said that Boehner was offering the Congress a chance to hear a strong leader make a good speech.
This started me thinking about how - for a big segment of the US population - being a bully is mistaken for being strong -- and being strong is mistaken for being wise or acting in your country's interest. After mentally comparing Obama and Netanyahu -- I realized that Netanyahu had a lot in common with a more articulate George Bush.
It is easy to consider how the image and reputation of their country fared world wide under each of their leadership. President Bush started after 911 with the support and goodwill of most of the world - even Iran sent early condolences. He was cast as our leader in this time of trouble because of his position - not that going to NYC about a week later with a bull horn was exceptionally inspiring. Within 2 years, he had alienated nearly every friend we had and our image became tarnished by things like Abu Ghraib. (Even out of office, some of this persists as polls showed when teh Senate CIA report came out that Americans STILL suported some of this.)
Yet, to the right - he was our strong leader - answering that "no, he couldn't think of any mistakes he had made that he would change".
Obama, to be fair, was met by the rest of the world with gratitude that he was not Bush as soon as he was elected. The world is a very messy, troubled place, but he has tried to lead a serious foreign policy that emphasized working with the rest of the world and diplomacy first. (Yes, I know the laundry list of complaints of where he falls short on that, but there is a sea change from Bush.) The fact is that under his leadership, we are more respected in the world and the proof is not just polls, but things like his ability to get the response he did on his resolution in the UN.
Netanyahu has managed in his years to almost push a frustrated Europe to support both the UN resolutions on Palestinian statehood and the concept of the BDS "sanctions" on Israel. He was caught blatantly lying to blame others for not getting a cease fire in Gaza - at a point where he was explicitly angry with the US even trying to do so -- as he felt more punishment had to happen.
What struck me is that Netanyahu is Israel's more articulate GWB. He has not made his country safer or more prosperous. Not to mention, he has damaged the support that Israel has had. (Fortunately, the attachment to Israel in the western world is based in very strong emotion and will out live him as PM)
My question is - what in American culture equates being a bully with being strong - even when the results are more negative than positive.
