Obama's World and Palin's
Ah, in reviewing Obama's performance in the White House, there is one thing that comes out truthfully; how Obama stacks up poorly against Sarah Palin when it comes to leadership. While I admire Ms. Palin, this is not an endorsement for her Presidential run, if just a run occurs. (The Republicans are full of talent to challenge President Obama in 2012 without Ms. Palin’s baggage.)
What I will do is compare leadership of the two and let the readers decide, would we be better off with a President Palin as opposed to a President Obama? The recent crisis in the Middle East is a good starting point since Ms. Palin called for the policy that Obama is now pursuing. While one can disagree with the policy, you can’t disagree with the reality; Ms. Palin was far more decisive in what needed to be done. Obama dithered while Gaddafi went from being ready to be pushed out of Libya or being killed to on the verge of crushing the rebellion, where we are right now. If Obama had chosen to set the policy three weeks ago when the rebels held the edge, Gaddafi would most likely be six feet under.
Obama's biggest failure is to set forth a vision for his policy and even today, Americans and the world for that matter, don’t know what end game Obama has in mind. With President Palin, the end game would be the end of the Gaddafi regime. (As I stated, one can easily disagree with Ms. Palin's position, and one only has to read the pages of the National Review to know that conservatives are divided and much of the left is shaking their heads as the Nobel Peace Prize winner is now involved in his third war. One pundit noted that Obama has managed to kill more Muslims that all but two Nobel peace prize winners.)
Does anyone think that President Palin would have taken some eight months before deciding on supporting the surge as Obama did? Many pundits who are in love with Obama would have viewed his reluctance to set a course early in his administration for Afghanistan as being deliberate and looking at all sides before deciding. The reality is more simple, Mr. Obama delayed in making decisions due to his lack of knowledge of foreign affairs to begin with, and a worldview that is not connected to the reality of the world as it is, not as Obama has been taught.
The past months, the Middle East has exploded and even the most knowledgeable of experts would have had trouble deciphering which way the wind was blowing but Obama's lack of understanding of the world produced an even more dangerous world since Obama is totally confused about the world itself.
As for Palin, she's not only able to see Russia from her home in Alaska but she is also capable of seeing the world as it is; a dangerous place in which America power is one of the few things that keeps a lid on complete disintegration. Nor is she afraid to think outside the box as her recent trip to India showed. On the future, Ms. Palin talked of a vision of an expanding Anglosphere, a growth of the English speaking people values of freedom world wide including the inclusion of India as an equal partner. She told the audience, “Our ties and bonds are deep! And they’re not driven so much by “political leadership summits” & bureaucrats – they’re driven by free people and free markets! That’s why there are no natural limits to the future of U.S.- India relations. And that is why the world’s largest democracies – NOT its largest autocracy – will lead the 21st century.”
She does not accept the conventional wisdom that the 21st century is the Chinese century but a continuation of the last half of 20th century in which freedom continues its own march. Contrast that to the Obama world view, a world view that is based on America ceding power to the United Nations and international bodies while simply being one nation among many. The Obama vision is the diminution of America’s power whereas Palin's vision is an America, still exceptional and still strong, leading the world through an alliance based on the strength of the English speaking people, the Anglosphere.
We can take this to domestic policy as well since Ms. Palin's description of Obamacare has been validated, including the rationing of healthcare, the famous “death panel” and her thoughts on energy policy is based on the idea that production matters. If nothing else, a Palin administration would not have seen a massive stimulus, a less expensive and more patient oriented health care plan, a more equitable tax reform would be on the table, and we would not have seen trillion dollars in deficit as long as the eyes can view.
Some pundits may have been impressed with how impeccable Mr. Obama dressed when he ran for President, but it is now self-evident that Obama's major problem is that he simply did not and does not have the understanding of the market forces that make America work. Nor does his leadership reflect an understanding of the high stakes he is playing for. He has pushed America into a war it is not certain of, through consultation with our allies, the Arabs, and the United Nations, but he has yet to make the case for his policy with the one group of people that counts the most, the American People. (Note, notice how the Arabs are demanding our help in getting rid of one of their own, so can we put the notion that much of the Arab street hate us because we get rid of nasty dictators in the region?)
We are seeing a President who was not ready for prime time with advisors who were also not ready for prime time. So how it is that Sarah Palin would have been worse? At least President Palin would not have needed to be educated on the importance of America’s role in the world nor the importance of market economics as the basis for economic policy. But it is now apparent one learns more from the University of Idaho than Harvard.