Obama in Berlin: Self-indulgent mush masquerades as leadership

The Obama presidency has always depended heavily on one bedrock notion - that Barack Obama's oratory brilliance is so exceptional that he can essentially govern the people just by giving great speeches. It seems his answer to every significant issue is a "major speech," promoted with much fanfare and usually covered with fawning admiration by the adoring media.

Some of us noticed a long time ago that there is a pretty serious flaw in this proposition: Obama is actually not that good an orator. His speeches are heavy in self-regard and light in substance. He is so impressed by his turn of a phrase that he has a tendency to put words together that, when read in the cold light of day, sound completely absurd. Even his fabled delivery was never all that. Dripping with smug dismissiveness of anyone who doesn't immediately embrace his greatness, his tone generated whoops of enthusiasm when delivered to the faithful on the campaign trail - but try that crap with other world leaders on the global stage, and you just come off as a preening adolescent who still can't get enough of letting you know that he's president and you're not. George Will calls out one of the most egregious examples to date, offered a few days ago in Berlin, which is certainly the site of some far superior addresses by American presidents past:

---

Regarding another threat, he spoke an almost meaningless sentence that is an exquisite example of why his rhetoric cannot withstand close reading: "We may strike blows against terrorist networks, but if we ignore the instability and intolerance that fuels extremism, our own freedom will eventually be endangered." So, "instability and intolerance" are to blame for terrorism? Instability where? Intolerance of what by whom "fuels" terrorists? Terrorism is a tactic of destabilization. Intolerance is, for terrorists, a virtue. It is axiomatic: Arms control is impossible until it is unimportant. This is because arms control is an arena of competition in which nations negotiate only those limits that advance their interests. Nevertheless, Obama trotted out another golden oldie in Berlin when he vowed to resuscitate the cadaver of nuclear arms control with Russia. As though Russia's arsenal is a pressing problem. And as though there is reason to think President Vladimir Putin, who calls the Soviet Union's collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," is interested in reducing the arsenal that is the basis of his otherwise Third World country's claim to great-power status. Shifting his strange focus from Russia's nuclear weapons, Obama said "we can...reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking." Were Obama given to saying such stuff off the cuff, this would be a good reason for handcuffing him to a teleprompter. But, amazingly, such stuff is put on his teleprompter and, even more amazing, he reads it aloud.

You read this stuff, and you sort of shake your head and wonder why Obama goes on international trips at all - if he has nothing more worthwhile than this to say. Remember how Obama and other Democrats decried that George W. Bush was "alienating" our allies with his supposed go-it-alone cowboy-ness? What Bush was doing was pursuing a serious agenda in the service of American interests. Some of our allies liked it more than others did. Our adversaries didn't like it much at all. When Bush went abroad to deal with foreign leaders, the reception was not always great because there were difficult issues being dealt with. That is how it goes with serious leaders. What exactly is Obama dealing with? Trying to revive the notion of "arms control" negotiations with the Russians as if it were 1979 again? Continuing to push the fairy tale that global warming is the "greatest global threat of our time"? Vladimir Putin must be astounded at his luck that the American electorate put this empty suit in the White House, not once but twice. Obama still appears sold on the notion that he can lead the nation - maybe even lead the world - with brilliant speeches. No matter how nonsensical his words, all he has to do is say them skillfully enough, and he can not only keep Americans buying it but somehow do the same to the likes of Putin, Merkel and Cameron. That, I guess, gives him the heft he needs to slash America's arsenal and funnel the money into more schemes to create a permanent class of government-dependent hopeandchange voters. Raise your hand if you've noticed that Obama's speeches are terrible and what he says makes no sense whatsoever. In his mind, Putin is raising his hand, but he doesn't want to help you figure it out. It's in his interests to have you to keep buying it.