Comments (0) | |

Sunday, Nov. 01, 2009

The new looks like the old

In September 2008, ABC news anchor Charlie Gibson interviewed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. He posed the question about the so-called Bush doctrine. By becoming flustered over Gibson’s full-court press with reference to military pre-emption, Palin handed the Obama-Biden ticket much fodder.

A year later, I dare say, most Americans have no idea what the Obama doctrine is or will be. If a reporter asks government officials today about the dogma of our country’s CEO, they are likely to get a multitude of answers, depending on the official.

So, what’s the substantive retort to the question surrounding the Obama doctrine? I’ve reviewed some press ramblings and here are my findings;

“The (Nobel Peace Prize) award was made more for the seemingly unbelievable adoption of a foreign policy (Obama doctrine) to make the world free from nuclear weapons!”

— Nelson Lavina, Philippine Daily Inquirer

“The Obama doctrine is a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power, but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness.”

— E.J. Dionne, Real Clear Politics

As you can see reporters and pundits are shaping the discussion, not President Obama. For several months, I’ve been telling my broadcast partner, Charles Richardson, that if anyone should be disappointed in Obama’s performance, it must be Democrats.

In recent days, even Georgia’s 8th District Congressman, Jim Marshall, has questioned the lack of leadership from the president regarding a laissez-faire approach to health-care reform.

If readers have been paying attention to the news, certainly we can’t dismiss Obama’s economic resemblance to George W. Bush’s last two years in the White House.

A column in the October edition of Georgia Trend caught my eye. Publisher-emeritus Millard B. Grimes described Obama with an old Texas adage of, “All hat, no cattle.”

One of those Bush-like maneuvers came when the president reappointed Ben Bernanke to another four-year term as the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Every economist and financial broker seems to have an opinion on this subject. Some think Obama was weak; others say he was savvy to prevent markets from further disaster by allowing Uncle Ben to remain in the Fed’s top monetary position.

We know Bernanke is a follower of Reagan’s supply-side economics, and I recognize his insight and calming voice during the financial meltdown a year ago, but some could blame him for driving lots of our money into firms that created the crisis. An argument could be made that markets would have welcomed a change in leadership, not necessarily philosophy.

Then there’s the issue of foreign policy. When President Bush tried to make decisions based on what Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates were hearing from their field generals, America was said to be in a “quagmire.” Now, Obama appears to be at odds with his military brass, Obama is said to be in a “thoughtful decision-making period.”

Either way, the Obama administration has followed the Bush policy of more troops. After the matters of the economy and foreign policy, any similarities between Bush and Obama stop.

It’s my opinion, President Obama has a yearning for everyone across the globe to like him. At some point he would best be served in shaping his doctrine by refusing to pander to foreign leaders like Chavez, Ortega and the Castro brothers.

I’m missing the Bush doctrine more and more.

Kenny Burgamy serves as a marketing consultant for Atlantic Southern Bank and Mid Georgia Ambulance and is co-host of the Kenny B. Charles E., “Mix in the morning” radio program.