The Missing Doctrine

After hearing President Obama deliver two of the most seminal speeches on foreign policy so far into his Presidency, historians and pundits have been trying to discern the Obama Doctrine.

Following the West Point speech, disillusioned liberals were infuriated that Barak Obama chose to escalate the war in Afghanistan, while hawkish conservatives were pleased by the President's decision to follow the counsel of his generals (and not his left-wing base), but critical of the arbitrary timeline. Thus, both factions found the speech confusing; liberal doves could not understand how a Nobel Peace Prize winner could double down on President Bush's war, and conservative hawks didn't get why a necessary war mandated an arbitrary exit strategy.

After the Oslo speech, liberals were once again perplexed by the ostensible contradiction of sending more troops to promote peace (really, a non-contradiction as I explain in the Peace through War blog post) and conservatives resented the frequent admonishments of controversial Bush era policies.

No one seemed to be completely satisfied by the President's two major foreign policy speeches. But I think the larger story--and one that does not bode well for Obama's legacy-- is that no central Obama Doctrine emerged. There was nothing unique in either of the speech. Obama declared that as Head of State he has a responsibility to defend his nation. Ok. Obama argued that success in Afghanistan is critical to America's national security. Ok. Virtually everything Obama said has been said before, often by his much maligned predecessor. Interestingly, there were times when Obama enunciated elements of the Bush Doctrine:

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights and tend for the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are; that is the source, the moral source of America's authority.

This is a fascinating declaration considering that the idea of America fostering freedom around the world is perhaps the central Bush Doctrine to which President Bush devoted the bulk of his Second Inaugural Address. The left never gave George Bush credit for establishing a link between America's national security and global freedom, and then candidate Obama joined the chorus of liberal detractors who mocked the idea of America's exceptionalism being used as a vehicle for freedom. But that is precisely what Barack Obama implies in his West Point speech.

To many liberals the President's Oslo speech was reminiscent of George Bush. And they are right. Throughout the speech Obama invoked numerous Bush themes, most notably his recognition that there is evil in the world. Recall how mercilessly the left mocked George Bush for his characterization of Al Qaeda fighters as "evildoers". Well, presumably to the chagrin of left-wing moral relativists, here was Obama making the identical claim.

In the end, President Obama made a case for war but he failed to unveil an Obama Doctrine. Liberals were left disheartened, conservatives lukewarm, and historians scratching their heads looking for the missing Obama doctrine.  

   

Howard Dean's Change of Heart

In what is probably being treated as an insignificant footnote by traditional media and the blogosphere, Howard Dean made what I thought was a shocking confession on Fox News Sunday: he thinks Medicare Part D--George Bush's transformative health-care reform legislation, which lowered drug prices for millions of seniors-- has been working exceptionally well, despite Howard Dean's harsh criticism of the bill during passage:

Howard Dean: ...I think the Republicans actually did some good things with it with Part D. And I was wrong at the time about Part D. It's worked out very, very well.

The acknowledgement is particularly surprising coming from Howard Dean, who as the early frontrunner in the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primary, was one of the most visible and fierce critics of the Bush Administration. To my knowledge, Dean is the first prominent Democrat to publicly praise Medicare Part D. For years, Democrats demagogued the legislation, ignoring its positive effects, and using it as an opportunity to vilify two of its favorite targets, the Pharmaceutical companies and George Bush.

Many Republicans and movement conservatives also opposed Medicare Part D, arguing that it was unfunded, too expensive, and further expanded the size and scope of government. While the criticism from the right was predictably along the lines of traditional conservative opposition to an expanding Welfare State, Democrats' criticism was largely disingenuous because it belied the bill's practical effect of making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. While I was never a big fan of Part D (it was not as targeted as I would like a government program to be), the Democrats' hypocrisy in blasting reform that many liberals have favored for years was glaring.

Howard Dean's change of heart is a welcome--albeit partial--reversal from what has been a concerted effort by the Democrats to demonize every aspect of the Bush presidency. Perhaps, in the next few years, other Democratic leaders will follow suit.