Capitulate, Chait! Succumb, Drum! Obama's rhetoric is a force for change

Two of the admirers of Obama I'm most attuned to claim a tough-minded immunity to the alleged intoxications of the president's rhetoric. Jonathan Chait, in a truly moving and incisive tribute to Obama's radical pragmatism, protests at the outset, "I never felt his election would change everything about American politics or government...Nothing Obama did or said ever made me well up with tears." Kevin Drum goes him one better:

I simply never took seriously any of Obama's high-flown rhetoric—Hope and change, Yes we can! You are the solution, etc.—dismissing it as nothing more than typical campaign windiness.

To which I must respond: Gentlemen! Tune in, turn on, don't cop out. Listen to what the man has been saying these five-plus years.

Leadership alert: Obama's salute to Liu Xiaobo

To paraphrase (and mangle) Michelle Obama, every now and then I'm still proud of my country.  As in, this morning a little before 8:00, with a glance at the lede to this Statement by President Barack Obama:

One year ago, I was humbled to receive the Nobel Peace Prize - an award that speaks to our highest aspirations, and that has been claimed by giants of history and courageous advocates who have sacrificed for freedom and justice. Mr. Liu Xiaobo is far more deserving of this award than I was.

What a two-stroke. The Chinese authorities call Liu Xiaobo a criminal. Obama raises his stature above that of the President of the United States.

The rest of the statement shows an equally agile, subtle, forceful approach to criticizing the Chinese government in public:

The delayed gratification presidency

"Patience" and "persistence" have been the Obama team's watchwords as they tout the Presidedent's victories in health care reform and an arms reduction treaty with Russia.

For months, delays in Obama's signature projects have been portrayed as signs of weakness. But the 'patience' tag is carefully chosen.  The long delays are in at least some cases a result of Obama's willingness to wait out counterparties -- and so a sign of strength.

That is the subtext of the admittedly Administration-lauding account by The New York Times' Peter Baker of the yearlong negotiations with Russia (though Baker pointedly claims Russians as well as admin officials as sources).  The narrative suggests that the Russians repeatedly tried to roll Obama and " would not resolve the big issues until they had taken his measure"; and that last month, when Medvedev introduced 11th-hour demands, Obama had to show willingness to let the whole deal fall apart.  Perhaps even more revealing, though, is this chapter:

The two sides also split over sharing missile data known as telemetry. Moscow was adamant that the new treaty not require telemetry exchange. The topic came up so frequently that Mr. Medvedev joked, “My favorite word in English now is ‘telemetry.’ ”

With those issues unresolved, Start expired in December. The Russians calculated that Mr. Obama would be so eager to have a new treaty by the time he traveled to Oslo later that month to accept his Nobel Peace Prize that he would accept concessions, so they took a hard line.

The rap on the peace prize, of course, was that Obama had no concrete accomplishments on the world stage. The temptation to seal a deal may have been strong.  But the evidence is considerable -- in health care, in setting AfPak strategy, and in "new Start" negotiations with the Russians -- that Obama is willing to appear weak rather than be so.

Pitch perfect as usual

What else could Obama say about winning the Nobel just 37 weeks into his Presidency?

Mr. Obama said he doesn't view the award "as a recognition of my own accomplishments," but rather as a recognition of goals he has set for the U.S. and the world. Mr. Obama said, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize."

But, he said, "I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.''

Actually, the claim that Obama has so far accomplished nothing concrete on the world stage is exaggerated. Under his leadership, the G-20 meeting in March, at the depths of the financial crisis, exceeded expectations, producing a strong financial commitment to cushion the downturn for developing nations. The G-20 in late September also surpassed expectations, effectively establishing the G-20 as successor to the G-8 in real decision-making power and subjecting member nations to regulatory peer review. The meeting of the U.N. Security Council last month exceeded expectations, securing a commitment to revitalize and strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. And the highest-level direct negotiation with Iran in 30 years exceeded expectations, yielding Iran's agreement to submit about 75% of its known nuclear stockpile to Russia for enrichment and to open its newly disclosed nuclear facility outside Qom to inspection.

Of the G-20 meeting in March, Philip Stephens wrote, "Mr Obama shows wisdom beyond his years in realising that to understand the extent of US power – and it is still unrivalled – a president must also map its limits" That's true of all four of the meetings referenced above. That's why each yielded something concrete.

Not the stuff of a Nobel by established standards, perhaps. But Obama has done far more than deliver a handful of uplifting speeches on the world stage. Though those speeches themselves were a key part of the paradigm shift that Stephens articulated.