Krauthammer: pettiness and insecurity

Charles Krauthammer splutters with indignant outrage at President Obama's 'apology' interview with the Dubai-based al-Arabiya cable network. (NOTE: outside of block quotes, I use single quotes to denote Krauthammer's words and double quotes for sayings or anything not from the column).

[Obama was] needlessly defensive and apologetic.

Is it "new" to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn't just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to "restore" the "same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago."

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years -- the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world -- America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved -- and resulted in -- the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Krauthammer continues in this vein, angrily maintaining that even in the face of repeated abuse from the 'Muslim world', such as the OPEC embargo and all kinds of 'cold-blooded' terrorism, the United States has done nothing but seek to alleviate the plight of Muslims around the world.

Perhaps the past eight years have made it hard for Krauthammer to remember, but what Obama is doing is called "diplomacy." Regardless of how one-sided our relationship with the 'Muslim world' may be, if indeed it is, it is their perception of us that really matters. And currently, we are seen as the firm, unyielding backbone of the hated, land-stealing, baby-killing Zionist menace. That description may be significantly at odds with reality--and the additional hatred brought on since March 2003 may be even more at odds with Krauthammer's reality--but if our goal is to engage with the Muslim Middle East, that is the view with which we must engage, at least to start out with. The goal being, of course, to change it.

Keep in mind, Obama has made no actual concessions nor promises to the 'Muslim world' or any individual majority-Muslim Middle Eastern country. But reading Krauthammer, you'd think he gave away the world:

If Barack Obama wants to say, as he said to al-Arabiya, I have Muslim roots, Muslim family members, have lived in a Muslim country -- implying a special affinity that uniquely positions him to establish good relations -- that's fine. But it is both false and deeply injurious to this country to draw a historical line dividing America under Obama from a benighted past when Islam was supposedly disrespected and demonized.

Again, it may be false, especially from Krauthammer's point of view, but it's the perception within the Muslim world that matters. More to the point, though, 'deeply injurious'? Really? How exactly does it hurt us as a nation for our president to apologize for perceived wrongs? For myself, I would add "especially when there is some substance to the complaints," but even if you take Krauthammer's view that we have done nothing but good, how exactly does it hurt us to simply apologize?

Hurt George W. Bush's legacy, perhaps, though by all accounts the former President needs no assistance there. But the United States 'as a country'? Again, even if this amounts to 'gratuitous disparagement of the country he is now privileged to lead', as Krauthammer continues, I fail to see how exactly that leaves us weaker as a nation.

On the contrary, owning up to one's own mistakes, real or perceived, and apologizing for same costs us nothing. In fact, I would argue that it makes us look more powerful. "Being the bigger man"--notice the word "bigger"?

Let's try a different tack. Ever see a Porsche commercial that loudly asserts their number one status? How about Johnny Walker--"Keep walking", what kind of an ad is that? Nothing in there about what makes their brand superior to that of other scotch.

Openly flaunting one's power and wealth creates the impression of insecurity and hidden weakness.* There's a reason that "nouveau riche" is considered an insult. A lesson certainly lost on the supremely patriotic and testy Bush Administration, and apparently on Charles Krauthammer, too. Or do is America really so fragile that a few apologies is enough to bring her down?






*In fact--and I can't find an exact quote at the moment--far better writers than I have observed a certain shabbiness associated with the truly wealthy, those with absolute security and a total lack of self-consciousness about their status. I have seen this mentioned more often in connection with the British rather than the American upper classes, which I assume is due to the greater length of British history allowing the upper classes to grow more accustomed to their greater means. (A quick Google search turns up this (search for "shabbiness") and this, just to provide a few examples). Of course, this also meant greater social stratification and less social mobility in general, as opposed to the rags-to-riches American Dream. Might these other characteristics also apply to countries as well as people? Perhaps, but, I would argue, not nearly as inevitably, and anyway that's another post.