In his previous Oval Office address, the one on BP, Obama
chopped the air with his hands, a style of gesticulation most
presidents reserve for ropeline hackery in a campaign season. One
of Obama’s advisers evidently told him to knock it off, and so in
this week’s Oval Office address on Iraq, he carefully clasped his
hands together. This is what passes for presidential growth.
“Operation Iraqi Freedom” ended not with a bang but with a
whimper. One would think a seven-and-a-half-year war deserves more
than a seventeen-and-a-half-minute speech, and Obama couldn’t even
feign interest or stay on topic for that brief period of time on
Tuesday. He was clearly phoning it in, itching to “turn the page”
back to himself. His plans, his agenda for America, the blah, blah,
blah of “jumpstarted” industries, “innovation” unleashed, a
“growing” middle class, all of which was code in the speech for
more of his statism — these are the subjects he regards as
urgent.
The only pages he turns with any real interest are the
ones he rereads in his two memoirs and his dog-eared copy of
Rules for Radicals. Bored and annoyed by having to talk
about the success of a surge in Iraq that he opposed, Obama lamely
tried to change topics. Basic decency would have told almost any
other president to refrain from slipping a stump speech into an
address about the sacrifice of America’s troops. But Obama, prodded
by panicky Democrats and his own restless egotism, couldn’t
restrict himself to just that and attempted the crassest of
connections: that military heroism abroad should inspire a
redoubling of Obamaism at home:
“And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq,
we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and
grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform
who have served abroad. They have met every test that they
faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility
to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure
the dream that so many generations have fought for — the dream
that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and
reach for it.”
This is the euphemistic equivalent of Joe Biden saying
that the submission of Americans to higher and higher taxes is
“patriotic.” “We” will do this, “we” will do that, Obama droned on.
But who is “we”? We means he. He will jack up domestic spending to
benefit the special interests of the Democratic Party and “we” will
have to pay for it.
Not that anyone should expect logical consistency from him
at this point, but one line in the speech invites an obvious
question: If, according to him, war should not be paid for on a
credit card — “We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed
by borrowing from overseas,” he said — why is he launching a phony
new debt-financed war on unemployment? Why is a trillion dollars
that we don’t have foolish to borrow for war but smart to borrow
for “stimulus”?
Anytime a politician talks, as Obama did in this speech,
about giving Americans “the education they deserve” and the “skills
they need to compete in a global economy,” he is talking about
deficit spending. And who exactly would be giving these beleaguered
Americans the education they deserve and struggling entrepreneurs
the skills to flourish in global free markets? Obama’s Department
of Education officials who trotted off to the Al Sharpton rally
last weekend? The socialists sprinkled throughout his
administration and agencies who have never held a private-sector
job in their lives let alone created one? Department of Energy
officials who consider the very creation of wealth and expansion of
economies to be bad for the environment?
Obama’s speech on Tuesday was reminiscent of the one he
gave to dozing cadets at West Point last year. In that address, he
complained about the distracting burdens of the presidency and drew
a strained connection between “national security and our economy,”
by which he meant a ballooning federal government.
The core responsibilities of the presidency, from
protecting America’s borders to defeating her enemies, leave him
cold while the bogus and reckless ones he invents for it occupy his
attention. He says that he abhors nation-building. But that’s not
true. There is one nation he wishes very much to change at its
foundation — his own.
