Practicing the Art of Moderation

Elijah Nodd

In a Democratic debate based on internet questions a few months ago, a question was put forth regarding the candidates’ willingness to have unconditional talks with Iran, Venezuela or other nations whose leaders who have publicly expressed displeasure or antagonism with US policy. When the question was put to him, Barack Obama replied quickly and assuredly that he would have unconditional talks. The mass media immediately pounced and proclaimed it as a crucial mistake, a tragic flaw in growing campaign. Yet, to his credit, Obama has not backed off of that claim. The art of moderation, along with the science of creating compromise is an integral part to the peace process. The willingness to talk to people should not be seen as a weakness or flaw – it is a key strength.

Consider the example of South Africa. After more than one hundred years of entrenched apartheid, institutionalized racism and hatred; the dominant paradigm was overturned. After the white government conceded the need for general elections and adhered to the results, the transition has been mostly peaceful. The two sides talked, came to an agreement, a compromise, and now the two populations live together in relative equality and democratic representation. That is what can bee accomplished by talking with your perceived enemy.

Leaders in our country, in recent history, have made a habit of using the politics of fear and using implied caricatures of leaders from other countries to influence the population of the US. In short, US leaders have used the intolerant positions of other leaders to serve their own purposes. Likewise, there are some leaders out there that serve their own purposes by antagonizing the US government. Most of the leaders around the world who habitually berate and antagonize the US are leaders of countries who have been systematically disenfranchised by the actions of our military-industrial complex. They want a seat at the table. A popular argument has been that to sit with these leaders, particularly Iran and Venezuela, would be to give them credibility in the world’s eye, and therefore empower them. A US president doing that might have that effect initially, yes, that is true.

However, in the long term, as we discuss issues with those antagonistic leaders as well as more cooperative leaders, the mere action of granting these antagonistic countries a seat at the table de-powers their argument that the US is an intolerant regime. US policy would not have to change beyond just allowing discussions to occur. No concessions would be necessary, initially. Just by showing that we are open to discuss their issues and their problems, with civility, we could reduce their ability to demonize America and flog their population to frenzy.

Then, we may find those demagogues that use anti-US rhetoric as their empowerment would become antiquated, archaic, petty and obsolete to their own populations. Then we may find those demagogues not being re-elected or allowed to stay in power. Then, we may find more moderate leaders put into positions of power in those countries. Then, we may find a more moderate discourse would evolve. Demands on both sides would lessen in extremity. Then we may find our own moderate president talking to their moderate leader in moderate negotiations over whatever disparity in trade, access, human rights or opportunity may be the issue at hand.

For this to happen, however, someone has to be the first to put down the guns. For that to happen, we need to elect a leader that can communicate our population’s desire to ratchet down the perpetual escalation of fear and tension around the globe. For that to happen, we need a leader who can speak clearly, eloquently and intelligently. What we need in this country is some serious critical thinking. We need a leader who displays good judgment.

Barack Obama was quoted and questioned on Meet the Press in 2004, as he was gearing up to give the nominating speech for Kerry and as his own campaign for an Illinois senatorial seat was barreling to its finish. Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press and an egregious purveyor of “gotcha” journalism tried to pin Obama in a corner. During that interview, Russert quoted bits of a speech Obama gave in 2002 at and anti-war rally. >>>>>>

Senator Obama said, in 2002:

“What I am opposed to is the attempt by potential hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.”

He was further quoted as saying:

“...I also know that Saddam possesses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.”

When questioned about this further by Russert, Obama replied:

“I think is that it was an ideologically driven war. I think that George Bush was sincere and is sincere about his desire to maintain a strong America, but I think there was a single-mindedness to this process that has led our country into a very difficult position. It’s a consequence of that single-mindedness that we did not create the kind of international framework that would have allowed success once we decided to go in…

…I think that this administration is sincere but I think it’s misguided.”

When asked about how he would have voted, had he been in the senate at the time:

“I would have voted not to authorize the president given the facts as I saw them at that time…but, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone and a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.

Russert then asked if Obama thought we would be able to withdraw troops immediately, to which Obama replied: “I don’t think so.”

Mind you, this was in 2004, when Obama was still running for a Senate seat. Sure, given the way the press fawned over him, he might have sensed the possibility of a presidential run, but what struck me was his ability to communicate clearly one of the essential elements of the flaw in the Bush II administration’s plans. Yet, still, he did not address the very core of the issue, the military-industrial complex that drives the US government to institute policy that causes or perpetuates conflict around the globe.

We need to send a message to the world that as a population, we are not satisfied with the action of our government over the last 25 - 50 years, the last 25 - 50 years of contrived conflict for the perpetuation of a military-industrial complex. We need to send a message that we, as a population, are not afraid of the world; that we are willing to hear the world’s concerns. As the current sole superpower we need a president who will act in good faith and with genuine effort to set an example of benevolence, not belligerence. We need someone new, young and relatively untainted, uncompromised by political machinations.

We need a leader who is not afraid to contradict the military-industrial complex, though such an action may cost that leader their life. We need a leader who shows good judgment and a willingness to engage our enemies – real or perceived – in dialogue. Out of all the candidates, Obama seems the closest to fitting this bill.