Obama and Africa in Perspective
I alluded in my most recent update on the president’s America-Bashing Tour that there was more to discuss about his speech to the Ghanaian Parliament. Here it is:
A week or so ago, I was out for drinks and overheard a typical Obamaphile going on about how great this speech of his was. Nothing struck me until he expounded as to why he liked it: The president had actually called on Africans to take responsibility for themselves and practiced some tough-love, according to this friend-of-a-friend of mine. Having not read it, I withheld comment. As I read through it in putting together the aforementioned post, I actually was struck by the tone.
Of course the beginning is perfunctory bla bla about thanks and how we’re great friends of Ghana and (natch) how America is bad. But directly after the quote I used to display the president’s penchant for voicing derision for America comes this:
But the West is not responsible for the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy over the last decade, or wars in which children are enlisted as combatants. In my father’s life, it was partly tribalism and patronage and nepotism in an independent Kenya that for a long stretch derailed his career, and we know that this kind of corruption is still a daily fact of life for far too many.
He also goes on to lecture Africans about their need for self-sustainment and -reliance as well as taking responsibility for their own success:
[J]ust as it is important to emerge from the control of other nations, it is even more important to build one’s own nation.
Then he hits us with this:
As for America and the West, our commitment must be measured by more than just the dollars we spend. I’ve pledged substantial increases in our foreign assistance, which is in Africa’s interests and America’s interests. But the true sign of success is not whether we are a source of perpetual aid that helps people scrape by — it’s whether we are partners in building the capacity for transformational change.
Two questions arise here:
1) Does he mean this? I mean is the West (and in particular, America) going to develop a new relationship with African nations that relies less on simply dollars and more on the development of democratic forms of government? Could it be that we are rounding a corner with Africa where we’ll be more likely to “teach them to fish”, rather than throw money (and rice) at them? And if so,
2) Why isn’t this good enough for the rest of the world? If Obama really believes that the future of success for Africa is not found in the dollars of our charity but rather in the “transformational change” of theirs into a modern society led by a transparent and democratically representative government of citizens, what was wrong with wanting that in places like, say, Iran?
The president’s speech goes on to highlight four ways in which he hopes to see improvement over the continent and ways he wants to help. The categories are: democratic governments, thriving economics, public health, and ending violence.
I have to say, having heard for over two years now (well, actually, since 2004 to a lesser extent) how rousing and inspiring The One is, I’ve never been moved. (I even stood on the west lawn of the Capitol listening to his Inaugural Address and felt more that I didn’t recognize the America he was describing than I did motivated or inspired at all.) And, fair enough, I didn’t hear this speech, but rather read it. And yes, he probably didn’t write it anyway. And certainly I am not nearly as impressed as the guy I overheard or any other acolytes of The One…
All that said, though, I have to give the president props for not giving Africans a pass here. It would have been easy (and oh, so typical) to go there and bawl over how it’s not their fault and how America will just send tons of more money for them (in fairness, he did linger on both of those themes, too). But Obama’s speech, if to be taken seriously, is a kick in the pants to the continent. Not necessarily putting them on notice that the gravy train won’t run forever, but perhaps a heads-up from the benefactor that progress is expected, and that while we’ll be there to help and cheer Africa along, they oughtn’t simply sit back–like, say, some welfare queen–collecting checks from the West.
(Okay, before the flaming ensues, given I was called-out (even by my fellow blogger) for having given Jared Polis credit for writing a letter to Nancy Pelosi this week–because it was “just a letter”–keep in mind that for Obama, words are everything. This is a guy who won’t even say that the election in Iran was a sham and who changed the words we use to describe war and terrorism. It is a big deal for him to actually use rhetoric in this way. Taken from his perspective, that is.)
Which brings me to this: Why is the president willing to prod Africa to pull itself up and take some responsibility for itself, but won’t say the same thing to his own constituents?
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
His comments on tribalism and nepotism could apply to many other countries around the world. Is he adopting a “freedom agenda” for Africa, along the lines of the much-maligned policy of his predecessor? Also, I’m glad to see that I am not alone in not being moved by Obama’s speaking style. He comes across to me as angry and condescending. I can’t understand the conservative pundits who seem to fall all over themselves to praise his oratory skills.
Comment by Male of Gaiety and Pallor — July 19, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - July 19, 2009
Tribalism and nepotism are part and parcel of the Obama administration. Woe be to Ghanans should they accept aid conditional upon accepting what they already practice, modernized. It’s a revealing speech, but I doubt in the way Obama intended.
Comment by Ignatius — July 19, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - July 19, 2009
Does he mean this?
If he doesn’t mean it to apply here, why would it apply there?
Tribalism and nepotism are part and parcel of the Obama administration.
Read: Cronyism, special interests and unions.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 19, 2009 @ 6:07 pm - July 19, 2009
I’d like to be able to disagree with this, but alas I cannot.
On the surface, it’s a wonderful speech. If he means it, and has a plan (I was going to say a concrete plan, but really at this point I’d take nebulous & theoretical) to see it through, then it’s a good thing.
But I think TGC is right. It’s too far afield from his domestic agenda. Either he is just saying what he thinks will fly the best to his audience, he is legacy-building already a la Bill Clinton, or he’s got one heckuva cognitive dissonance thing going on where he doesn’t even realize the dichotomy.
Comment by Sabra — July 19, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - July 19, 2009
Nick,
“what was wrong with wanting that in places like, say, Iran?”
I cannot say what big O wants in this regard, or what the administration is planning in regards to Iran. Yet given our history with Iran, I think his response was very appropriate. Any strong statement is just going to give the Supreme Leader there a basis to say “this uprising is a Western conspiracy!” And that kind of paranoia will crush any hopes that their society will become more free. As you said, it is tough love, and that is painful to watch.
“Which brings me to this: Why is the president willing to prod Africa to pull itself up and take some responsibility for itself, but won’t say the same thing to his own constituents?”
What’s good for the goose won’t get you re-elected by the gander. Instead he talks about ’sacrifice’ like a substitute for taking responsibility. The way he talks about sacrifice strikes me as a bit of feel-good Mercerism. Politically that is brilliant, as there is a portion of his ‘base’ which is so tormented with guilt, and this gives them a touch of absolution.
In other news, this story is worth some consideration: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12814603
Comment by DRH — July 19, 2009 @ 7:34 pm - July 19, 2009
When I heard some of the snippets of this speech, my thoughts were similar to those of Ignatius and TGC. Why was he criticizing the corrupt governments of Africa, when his policies and actions in office are doing whatever they can to bring that sort of government here to the U.S.? Then I remembered that it was Obama speaking, and “the one” has a history of saying one thing and doing something very different. There was no truer case of a president for whom actions speak louder than words.
Comment by Kurt — July 19, 2009 @ 7:58 pm - July 19, 2009
Obama is spot-on with the source of Africa’s problems (whether or not he means it is another story). I think the same thing could be said of problems in segments of our own population.
But if tribalism and patronage and nepotism are bad for African countries, are they not also bad for this country?
Tribalism seems to be job #1 for politicians (wise Latinas, the black vote, the white vote, the women’s vote, angry white males, the gay vote, soccer moms, the Hispanic vote, the rich, the poor, the middle class…). I’ve long held that tribalism and the attendant pandering to demographic groups may well attract votes in the short term, but, in the long term, will be our ruin.
Sonia Sotomayor was born in the Bronx (last I checked, the good old US of A) and all we’re supposed see as relevant is that she is of P.R. descent and female. Why not just “US citizen”?
And for patronage and nepotism – Chicago politics anyone?
Comment by SoCalRobert — July 19, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - July 19, 2009
Why is the president willing to prod Africa to pull itself up and take some responsibility for itself, but won’t say the same thing to his own constituents?
Then liberals would hemorrhage voters. There’d be no point in ACORN or the race pimps who wanted to cut his balls off.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 19, 2009 @ 11:19 pm - July 19, 2009
Somebody needs to educate Obama on who did/does the slavery thing in Ghana.
He told his daughters (via CNN) “You try to explain that people were willing to degrade others because they APPEARED DIFFERENTLY.”
But the facts came out in a Chicago Tribune article that the people who sold/sell Ghanans into slavery are parents, uncles and others who look JUST LIKE the children they sold!
Here are the two citations:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/17/obama.slavery/
and
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-africa-slavery-0713-07jul17,0,7118237.story
Comment by Nan G — July 20, 2009 @ 5:56 pm - July 20, 2009
And don’t forget, Nan G, that African Muslims (Obama’s father’s ancestors, anyone?) were also involved in capturing and selling other Africans as slaves. Some were also slaveholders themselves.
Comment by Kurt — July 20, 2009 @ 10:56 pm - July 20, 2009