Some additional (brief) observations on Obama’s speech today.

1.  Obama the Pragmatic Globalist. On several occasions throughout his speech, Obama highlighted his belief in an interconnected world:

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task.  Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people.  These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere.  When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk.  When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations.  When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean.  When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.  (Applause.)  That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century.  That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings. . . .

Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.  (Applause.)  Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said:  “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

That’s a pretty strong endorsement of the idea that global problems require global solutions, and that we live in an interconnected world.  But Obama isn’t a starry-eyed Kumbayah-singing dreamer; he sees globalism as the most pragmatic approach to solving the huge array of challenges that the U.S. faces today.

2.  Obama the Hard-Headed Realist. The usual suspects on the right have been screeching about what they call Obama’s “apology tour” ever since the Summit of the Americas, but the reality is that what they call apologies are in fact truth-telling sessions.  Take, for example, the first sentence of the section on Iraq:

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world.

That’s not making an apology — it’s acknowledging a reality.   Obama sees little or no value in rhetoric that obscures the truth.  It’s a refreshing change from what we came to expect from the last Administration (and what we continue to hear from Dick Cheney, among others).

3.  Obama the Cautious Democracy Advocate. The section on democratic governance wasn’t the most soaring rhetoric of Obama’s career.  In fact, it was almost ambivalent:

I know — I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq.  So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people.  Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.  America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election.  But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.  And that is why we will support them everywhere.

That’s pretty underwhelming boilerplate.  And human rights is mentioned only in passing.  I think this is in part a function of the Administration’s clear distaste for the Bush Administration’s grandiose vision of democracy promotion at the end of a gun, and part a product of having no strong democracy (or human rights) advocate in a prominent position within the Administration.

That said, it is striking that, as Daniel Levy notes, Obama failed to mention Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak anywhere in his speech.  That represents not only a breach of standard protocol in such speeches, but also a pretty clear signal to those in opposition (including the Muslim Brotherhood) that the United States isn’t about to endorse their country’s authoritarian ruler.

I’m late to this story, so I’ll end there.  I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Related posts

• Some Thoughts on Obama’s Speech
• Obama’s Cairo Presser
• Brooks on Obama’s Speech
• While We Were Putting Lipstick on That Pig. . .
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney