Column for June 5, 2008

Holy cow! I actually agree with Obama on something...sort of.

I will admit that I would rather be stabbed to death with a plastic fork than vote for Barack Hussein Obama. The same for Hillary Clinton, for that matter. I am almost that way about John McCain, as well, though my feelings about his candidacy are not quite as visceral. I find him repugnant to my sense of decent government nonetheless.

Imagine my surprise when I found something about which I agree with Obama…well, almost. I believe in equal opportunity critique, and find just as many problems with so called conservatives as I do with liberals. One recent issue that came up was whether or not our President should be willing to sit down and have discussions with representatives of other nations deemed to be our country's enemies.

A couple of weeks ago, Barack Hussein Obama was quoted as saying "I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement." He believes that a President should be willing to sit down and have diplomatic discussions with adversarial regimes. Personally, I believe that he is 100% correct.

Thomas Jefferson had the same viewpoint as Obama, just with a slightly different end goal, I suspect. The United States negotiated The Treaty of Tripoli with several nations in 1797 in an attempt to end the Barbary Pirate conflict. Prior to finally voting for Lee's Resolution for independence on July 2, 1776 and the initial signing of the Declaration of Independence two days later, the Second Continental Congress drafted and sent The Olive Branch Petition to King George III of England in 1775. I have taught extensively on and love that portion of US history.

Obama said that sitting down and talking was the method of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, and he is correct. The 1986 Reykjavík, Iceland summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in comes to mind. There were Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty talks (SALT) in 1969 in Helsinki, Finland. There was SALT II in 1979. We also had START I and START II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in 1991 and 1993, all with the Soviets and later with what became Russia.

The United States has a long history of having talks with our adversaries. I find it amusing that as much as the Republican presidential candidates kept referencing Ronald Reagan during the debates, they refuse to follow his lead in dealing with nations such as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. I only wish that Reagan took that lead with other nations, as well.

Having dialogue with your adversaries does not show weakness nor legitimize their positions. It shows your willingness to be reasonable while being strong enough to stand for your convictions. That is, provided that you do not acquiesce.

For over 50 years, the US has had a failed policy of cutting off Cuba with a futile embargo. We have nixed all travel by US citizens to the island nation, as well as all trade. While we maintain the position that trade with China will bring about reform and a penchant for our way of life and freedom, we still snub Cuba. Personally, I believe that if we showed them freedom, American goods and ingenuity, and exported our values, then there would come reform from the bottom up. Instead, we have helped that nation remain in the 1950's. I heard one reporter describe his recent visits to Cuba as being "a scene right out of The Godfather, Part 2". I am very familiar with that movie, considering that The Godfather is my all time favorite movie, and I have seen the trilogy many times.

Here is where I differ from Barack Hussein Obama on his position of dialogue with our adversaries. I do not believe for one minute that Obama has the best interest of the US in the forefront of his mind. I believe that he is an appeaser with a soft spot for Islamic terrorists. From my readings and hearing, Obama believes that our own nation is inherently the source of evil in this world while he is soft on Islamic nations who perpetrate violence on the rest of the world. He has already had meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran. I doubt that his meetings had the same tone they would have if I was the one meeting with him.

The difference between Obama's example of Ronald Reagan and myself is that Reagan "carried a big stick" into his meetings and spoke from a position of power and confidence. I personally have no problem with letting someone like Ahmadinejad know that if he messes with us or our troops in Iraq, that I would not hesitate to turn the sands if Iran into a sea of glass and bomb all of Persia back into the Stone Age. Sure, a good portion of that backwards, Third World nation is there already, but I would oblige further should he attack or meddle with the United States.

Though I agree with Obama that we should always be willing to talk with our adversaries, I do agree more with the Teddy Roosevelt philosophy when he quoted loosely from an old African proverb. In 1901, Roosevelt said we should, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." I do not necessarily agree with his foreign policy of "Big Stick Diplomacy" as it was used (I will not get into a long winded discussion of The Monroe Doctrine or Roosevelt's Corollary), but I do believe that we should always negotiate from a position of authority, power, confidence, and with a perspective that will always put our own nation's interests first. I doubt Barack Hussein Obama has that capability.