On the Meaning of Toughness

The critique of Obama always has been that he is soft. He smiles to the Russians, bows to the Japanese, agrees with the Chinese, and even wants to talk to the Iranians. Many Republicans started asking themselves: Is something wrong with the President, does he know that international politics is not a global cocktail party? And suddenly Obama “toughened.” He played tough in winning his health care reform, and then he played tough against Israel after the humiliation of Vice President Joe Biden’s response to the Israeli government’s housing development in East Jerusalem. Obama’s exercise of toughness was in the best tradition of “know your place” politics that Republicans are so fond of. Here is how the correspondent of the Daily Telegraph described Obama’s exercise of “tough love” for Israeli government.

Tweet

Email

Print

"Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. … (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr. Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in East Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr. Obama rose from his seat declaring: 'I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.' As he left, Mr. Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. 'I’m still around,' Mr. Obama was quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper to have said. 'Let me know if there is anything new.'"

It was power politics at its best: Cold, humiliating, threatening, and leaving the other side to face the consequences of defying American interests and policies. It is not by accident that in the Middle East the common wisdom is that Americans make you an offer you cannot refuse, while Europeans make you an offer you cannot understand.

So, now Obama’s Republican critics should feel better. The American president has demonstrated that he can be tough, arrogant, and uncompromising when it is needed. No one would dare to humiliate an American vice president without paying a high price for it any more. Obama’s Republican critics, however, did not feel that way. On the contrary, among conservatives, Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu fueled almost as much anti-Obama sentiment as his “socialist” health care reform did.

But why are the Republicans angry when the American president has demonstrated that nobody should mess with America?

It is easy to say that the Republicans’ attack on Obama simply reflects policy differences. There are differences in politics for sure, but Joe Klein from Time magazine is right when he writes:

“the anti-Israel activity by the Obama administration is merely an insistence that Israel comply with conditions that the entire world, including the administration of George W. Bush, has assumed were mandatory before peace talks begin.”

It is also easy to say that since the emergence of the Tea Party movement Republicans are permanently angry. The recently discovered property of “tea” to provoke anger and resentment on the right can be compared only with the effect of LSD on the imagination of the American far left in the 1960s. Tea and policies aside, there is a fundamental difference in the meaning of toughness that separates Republicans and Democrats.

The Republicans are of the opinion that “toughness” is for the enemy. A strong leader is the one who would take the side of his boy right or wrong. Being tough on your friends is a sign of weakness, and it only means you are pleasing your adversaries.

Obama is of the opinion that really tough guys are tough on themselves and their friends first. It is the only way to gain the respect of the opponent. The Western narrative is replaced with a Romantic one.

For Republicans, “pressing” your allies is a sign of weakness. For Obama, “pressing” Israel is a sign of the ultimate strength, keeping in mind the public’s pro-Israeli sentiments.

The Republicans’ anger is best captured in the latest issue of The Weekly Standard in which William Kristol writes: “Obama aspires to be a leader of humanity, not merely a President of a single state.” But the logical question is: Can a country whose president aspires to be merely president of the state, be a global leader?