Jack and Squat

As if almost on cue, the Nobel committee this week served up another softball for this blog. Just last week, Saturday Night Live skewered Obama with a parody on his lack of achievements [see Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5Kl38fSVY or search SNL Obama Do Nothing skit]. A liberal politician should take heed when SNL, Jon Stewart and Conan O’Brien are taking potshots at you.

The Nobel Prize just rounds out a legacy of nonaccomplishment for Obama. Other than winning elections, his resume has been completely void of actual, tangible results. As a community organizer, no one has come forth with anything one can call an actual achievement. As both a State Senator and US Senator, he sponsored not a single piece of legislation. As a professor, no original published works carry his name. No one in recent history has attained as high of a station and gotten more accolades on such a flimsy record of concrete results. In the business world that I inhabit, any job candidate must credibly reel off a series of actual, quantifiable achievements if he or she wishes to be a serious candidate for the job. For the Nobel committee, however, aspirations and great speeches are apparently enough.

So, what exactly did Obama do to deserve this distinguished award? Let us look at the statements of the Nobel Prize committee itself for the answer. In its press release, the committee singled out Obama for, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Again, maybe I’m missing something, but so far, the actual accomplishments of the Obama administration have been to (i) send the mullahs in Iran a holiday video greeting, (ii) paid our UN dues and joined the Human Rights Council (along with other zealous defenders of human rights such as Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and China), (iii) kicked off his presidency with a European apology tour, telling them that “America has been arrogant and has even ridiculed” its European allies, and (iv) permitted the investigation of whether the CIA caused undue discomfort to Khalid Sheik Muhammed and his cronies in attempting to gain intelligence from them. One would think that to win a Nobel Prize, you would have to come up with at least one signature achievement of some import. However, we are no closer to a Middle East peace accord, no closer to a stringent verifiable nonproliferation regimen, no closer to defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan, or advancing women’s rights (as an aside, I find it interesting that NOW found time to scold David Letterman for his “promotion of a hostile work environment” but they still have yet to utter a word about how women are treated in the Middle East). In fact, under the Obama administration, America has not entered into a new material accord with anyone, nor has America brokered a peace deal between any two parties in discord.

The committee singles out our president for his “vision of a world free from nuclear arms [and he] has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations”. This is almost a parody in itself. Obama made his high minded vision statement about a world free of nuclear weapons concurrent with the disclosure of the Iranian facility at Qom was made public. No actual steps were taken by Western leaders (other than to talk to the Iranians and give them time to hide things before the IAEA came to visit). Perhaps Barack will someday persuade the mullahs to give up their nukes, but so far, the centrifuges are still spinning. If actual tangible achievement counted, surely Ronald Reagan would have gotten a Nobel. Under Reagan, more verifiable arms control agreements involving the dismantling of more kilotonnage and throw weights than any other world leader. But this award is not about achievement. It’s about politics. It’s about the Norwegian committee blessing Obama’s vision for America as the semi-European nanny state, where all states, no matter how odious have equal standing, where democracy is only one of many equally plausible ways of organizing a state and governing peoples, where the state, not individuals are responsible for the well-being of its citizens, and where aggressive, hostile, and tyrannical regimes are faced with letters of disapproval, carefully crafted by large committees. It is a world in which two of the world’s leading democracies—the US and Israel are roundly condemned, while the world’s worst dictators are free to acquire weapons to threaten and destabilize the world. We have gone from Ronald Reagan’s vision of the “shining city on the hill” to the vision of Obama, “we’re sorry we’ve been so arrogant in our promotion of liberty, democracy and free enterprise.” This is why the European on the Nobel committee is so willing to overlook that nagging little detail about not having any achievements. They love his, well, European vision for America.

Games and Bombs

The rejection of Chicago as the site for the 2016 this week represents the latest setback for the Obama administration. With as many domestic and foreign challenges facing this administration, I was frankly surprised that the administration decided to spend political capital to attempt to snare the Olympics for Chicago. The city itself was divided as to whether it really wanted the games. After nine months on the job, Obama’s star power was beginning to show signs of wear and he needed a win at this juncture. It seemed to me that the Olympic push had only small upside potential and large downside risk for the president. And alas, after a personal plea by Obama, the Olympic committee promptly scratched Chicago after the first round.
On the surface, this doesn’t seem like a major blow to the administration, but on a closer look it is deeply symbolic of what is wrong with this administration and does not portend well for the immediate future of his administration. Here’s why.
Obama has come an astonishingly long way on rhetoric. His golden tongue was super b in rallying the faithful during the election. At a time when the country was in a state of fright over its fracturing financial system and exhausted from its war in Iraq, Obama’s cool demeanor and mantra of hope and change and high sounding ideals had pundits swooning. At the inauguration, they immediately began drawing analogies between Obama and FDR and Lincoln. We wanted to believe.
There is an ocean of difference, however, between giving a speech and spouting ideals and actually getting things done. The missing ingredient in Obama’s background is negotiating experience. He has none. No one has been able to tell me exactly what he accomplished as a community organizer. He had no legislative accomplishments to his credit. And certainly being a lecturer to a bunch of 20 somethings does not give you one iota of experience at negotiating. Making a case is one thing. Controlling events and negotiating for the support of other key players is another.
As a result, we are beginning to see this administration grind to a halt. It was naked and exposed for all to see during the UN meeting last week. In very lofty and idyllic terms, Obama spoke about the vision of a world without nuclear weapons, a high minded ideal about which there is little disagreement. Yet, the very next day, when faced with the actual, real concrete evidence of the crazed mullahs in Iran blatantly ignoring the West with incontrovertible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is humming along, Obama seemed disjointed and out of step with our European allies. Britain and France both spoke about “lines in the sand” and deadlines. Obama mumbled something about Iran “having to live up to its international obligations.”
This was the perfect forum to present a pre-negotiated orchestrated united front to Iran. After all, we had only the week before given the Russians a huge concession by scuttling our plans to put missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.
But the only concrete action we received from others was a commitment by Iran to talk about the program, and by Russia to consider sanctions (not commit to them, mind you, but to commit to consider them). Iran promptly fired off a bunch of missiles just to let us know what they think of all this.
This is all symptomatic of an individual and an administration that has no experience in getting things accomplished. Obama much prefers grandious speeches to the hard, grinding work of negotiating and making deals. In the health care reform push, Obama’s efforts have been to ramp up the speaking circuit. Obama believes that if he just says it often enough and in an eloquent enough fashion, people will see the sense in it. But the art of getting things done involves getting people to do things they don’t really want to do. It involves cajoling, bribing, threatening, pushing at many levels to get what needs to be done. And it needs to be done in a coordinated fashion with nothing left to chance.
The issues we face with Iran are deadly serious. We failed to stop North Korea from getting the bomb. And now we are arguably faced with the most odious regime since the Nazis on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. The actions of the West over the next twelve months could easily change the history of the world. It is time to stop campaigning and get to work.