Who knew? Jimmy Carter And George Bush Have Exactly The Same Foreign Policy!

[TomCADem]

Jimmy Carter is often derided by Republicans as a pollyanish dove whose foreign policy failures were attributed to his pacifism, and whose Nobel Peace prize is ridiculed by neocons. George W. Bush is attacked by Democrats as a shoot first neocon who initiated two wars without any clear exit strategy resulting in the deaths of thousands of American troops.

Yet, today, I saw two magazines stories that compared President Obama with both. One magazine had a story unfavorably comparing President Obama with President Carter. Another, story insisted that President Obama's foreign policy was identical to Bush.

Is this another example of the corporate media trying to work the left (comparisons to Bush) and right (comparisons to Carter) against a Democratic President? Or, is the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and George Bush identical?

Do a google search, and you can easily fight articles comparing President Obama with two unpopular Presidents whose foreign policy views would appear to occupy opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

For example, here is a story that President Obama being the second coming of George Bush on foreign policy:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1950827,00.html

Why Obama Defaulted to Bush Foreign Policy Positions

After a year with President Barack Obama at the helm of U.S. foreign policy, an observer could be forgiven for concluding that the presidency is more like taking over the controls of a train than getting behind the wheel of a car. That's because you can't steer a train; you can only determine its speed. So far, the menu of foreign policy challenges, and the Administration's response to each, is remarkably similar at the close of 2009 to what it was at the close of 2008.

Obama's promises of outreach to adversaries and consultation and coordination with allies certainly cleared away some of the negative atmospherics left by the Bush Administration. However, his substantial policy positions have proven to be remarkably similar to those of the second-term, chastened-by-reality George W. Bush. Indeed, anti-war Democrats groaned when the President, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, referred to "evil in the world" and hailed America's willingness to use force abroad over the past six decades as an essential component of global security. The neoconservatives cheered.

The reality is far more complex than that snapshot, of course, but a survey of Obama's handling of the main strategic challenges appears to affirm the old Cold War dictum that domestic political partisanship ends at the water's edge.

And here is a story about President Obama being the second coming of Jimmy Carter:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/the_carter_syndrome

The Carter Syndrome

Neither a cold-blooded realist nor a bleeding-heart idealist, Barack Obama has a split personality when it comes to foreign policy. So do most U.S. presidents, of course, and the ideas that inspire this one have a long history at the core of the American political tradition. In the past, such ideas have served the country well. But the conflicting impulses influencing how this young leader thinks about the world threaten to tear his presidency apart -- and, in the worst scenario, turn him into a new Jimmy Carter.

My take is that President Obama is probably very different from both, but don't tell that to the spin doctors of the corporate media.

[depakid]

1. Obama is a delegator to the extreme, whereas Carter was a micromanager

Two very different styles, in two very different contexts.

[TomCADem]

2. The NY Times and WaPo Stories On Afgan Review Suggest Middle Ground

I agree that President Obama is not helping pick bombing targets and such, but the stories regarding the Afgan strategy review show that President Obama is pretty involved in big picture issues. He certainly is not President Bush, who appeared to delegate the big pictures issues to his subordinates, and contented himself with an understanding at the soundbite level. (Remember the infamous hot mike at G-8 meeting with Tony Blair?).

I think President Obama pretty clearly sets the strategy and vision. However, I see uneveness among his subordinates in implementing that strategy. Some are better than others. I think this is why you are starting to see shifts like Paul Volcker starting to ride herd on financial regulation.

Finally, as noted in the OP, I think the stories illustrate how useless mainstream media analysis is. Indeed, I would suggest that the corporate media is purposely trying to alienate both liberals and conservatives from President Obama. By comparing President Obama to Bush, the media alienates the left from President Obama, and romanticizes Bush. By comparing President Obama to Carter, the media alienates conservatives and independents from President Obama, and distorts the record of both men.

The bottom line is that President Obama can't be the second coming of both Bush and Carter. They are mutually exclusive.

[insanity]

3. A major similarity between Bush and Carter was

that neither of them had an effective foreign policy. Carter was too much of a good guy to do the Cold War, even during detente. Bush was too much of an evil asshole and an idiot to have a good foreign policy.

[TomCADem]

5. Maybe, But Carter and Bush Both Seem To Occupy Opposite Ends Of The Ideological Spectrum

Jimmy Carter won the nobel peace price while I would not hold my breath for Bush. Carter was accused of being a push-over for his handling of the Iran hostage crisis, while Bush was seen as trigger happy, blow it up, and ask questions later type of President who relied more instinct, rather than analysis.

[seattle_blue]

4. Seen this one before

It's the old divide and conquer trick that's as old as the hills. But it's effective and people fall for it all the time.