The Bear Scare--"Reset" With Russia Won't Cut It (Rosett)

In his Moscow speech, Obama delivered what is by now familiar as his trademark mix of historical omissions and revisions, sweeping statements about the "arc of history" and phrases of hope, change and moral equivalency. He brought up, yet again, America's "imperfections," dismissed as outdated the brand of American moral certitude and leadership that brought victory in World War II and called for collaboration, convergence and partnerships forged on common ground and progress toward a shared future. Call it Brotherhood 2.0.

But missing from Obama's philosophy is the immense role played by the U.S. America stood for decades as a bulwark of freedom. Americans fought real wars in such places as Korea and Vietnam. Americans kept brilliantly alive a philosophy of democratic government and free markets, which offered a beacon to oppressed people of the world, and exported both ideas and inventions that have vastly enriched mankind. Following the fiascoes of Jimmy Carter--on whose watch the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and Iran had its Islamic revolution--Americans elected Ronald Reagan. His version of "reset" was to stop the appeasing and apologizing, and to reassert America's system as one of virtue and America's global role as one of both moral and military strength.

There is a great deal more illuminating detail in these case studies, but they boil down to a warning that despots of the modern world are already quite busy with their own reset of the global system: "Authoritarian regimes are eroding the international rules and standards built up by the democratic world over the past several decades, threatening to export the instability and abuses that their systems engender." In this setting, what the world needs from America is not a reset button, but a rudder.

Loved Rosett's personal story:

Watching President Obama hit the "reset" button in Moscow this week, I was reminded of one of my own New Age encounters in Russia, about 14 years ago. Then, working as bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal in Moscow, I was on the receiving end of a shipment of new computers for the office. After much wrangling, delay and expense, they finally arrived. But the first one we unpacked would not boot up. The Russian customs service, in its own version of "reset," had stripped out the hard drive before turning over to us the hollow shell.

The scariest thing of all is that a majority of the U.S. electorate cannot tell the difference between charisma and intelligence, charisma and benevolence, or charisma and effective leadership--that a majority of the U.S. electorate is so dazzled by charisma that it cannot perceive anything else.

We saw this in Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. It was dangerous then, and it's dangerous now.

To be dazzled by charisma is to be blinded to reality. The blinded cannot see anything but the charisma.

Such people love dazzling charisma so much that they don't seem to care about anything else. Sobriety means nothing to them.

This is what' really scary. Note tagline.

Neither Kennedy, Clinton, or the present entertainer, had or have the courage, intelligence, benevolence, or the leadership skills of FDR, SOB with Marxist friends that he was.

The majority of today's electorate knows much more about the arrangements for Michael Jackson's funeral than they know about the Constitution, American History, or Government. Reagan had enough charisma to charm that part of the electorate.

He was the last Republican that did. If your candidate doesn't have charisma, he had better have some sort of decent, logical, and a program that is obviously going to be immediately effective to sell. McCain -- no charisma --- no program --- disaster.

Oddly enough I do not believe the present recumbent has "charisma." The infotainment industry tells us we should think he does, so ipso facto, he does. To an educated person of my generation, he is just some jive-ass jerk with a suspicious record that some cosmic HR Department has decided should get a position based on everything but skill, ability, and experience.

I do not dispute what you say, Ken, and you have said it very well.

I can say that John Kennedy's charisma was lost on me. I never saw him as handsome or charming or anything other than a politician. However, he must have had charisma or something to incite such hysteria in millions of people.

I never admired Jackie-O either. However, there were some things that I admire about her. She was obviously very intelligent and well educated, and I admire that.

When she sat next to de Gaul at dinner in Paris, she discussed obscure people and events of French history in detail and in flawless French. De Gaul later remarked that this was astonishing in the wife of a U.S. President and that he saw her, in a few years, on the yacht of a Greek billionaire. These stories may not be true, but they were reported in the press (and are thus inherently suspect).

I also like the tale of her standing up to the government (including her husband) and insisting on receiving some fine Arabian horses as a gift, over the objections of all officials.

I admire such things as these, but as far as finding some dazzling charisma in these people (Jack or Jackie-O) it's just not there for me.

I've always thought of myself as an average Joe--and that's what I am--but I had my I.Q. tested several years ago (Stanford-Benet), and it was up in the 150s. Maybe there's something to it after all. Maybe you have to be smart to see beyond the dazzling charisma to the sober truth behind it.

Your observations and the way you express yourself--and your presence as a poster on Free Republic--suggest that your intelligence is far above the average also.

As for Bill Clinton, I have been told by people who have met him, that when they did, they understood why he is so popular--that his charisma is indeed overwhelming.

Maybe if I met some of these people I would experience it.

However, I doubt that I would be blinded to the truth behind it all. I'm too analytical and too aware of the dangers of denial and other delusions and the susceptibility of all of us to them. I wish everyone were.

As for Franklin Roosevelt, my parents adored him. They were blue dog Democrats. I think he left us a horrible legacy and that my parents were foolish not to see him for what he was.

I don't think any of these people were or are particularly bad people. They're politicians. That says it all quite sufficiently.

What I do say is that dazzling charisma is fine in a movie star or a rock star or an opera star, but it is extremely dangerous in a politician and that people who allow a politician's charisma to overwhelm their sobriety are fools. There are millions of them among the U.S. electorate.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.