THE NEW REALISM

Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

By Michael Freedman | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 04/29/2009 10:47:57 AM

    Obama is a Mixture of Nixon, Reagan & Kennedy....

    Yet he is his Own Man.

    The Next Time North Korea Attempts a Missile Launch of ANY KIND....

    Expect a Ronald Reagan [Libya Response]

    It will Surprise all these Low life's like [Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage & O'Reily]

    But it will Not Surprise me.

    Then you'll start Hearing Comparisons made to the [Ronald Reagan-Libya Bombings]

    Kim Jung Ill is a Maniac, hell Bent on Making this Happen, Sooner than Later.

    Joltin Joe Biden: He was [Right] that Obama would be Tested within [6 Months] and Kim Jung Ill is Pushing this Thing, to Happen.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/30/2009 10:34:11 AM

      Obama is not a mixture of anything and especially Reagan. The man hasn't done anything yet for this country but divide it more with his foolish actions.

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 04/30/2009 10:26:59 AM

    Both men inherited the White House from swaggering Texans, whose overriding sense of mission fueled disastrous wars that tarnished America's image.

    What a bunch of Crock! If you are going to report something this out of line at least get your facts straight. The War and the build up in Vietnam started way before Lyndon B. Johnson became President.

    The author also failed to realize that Nixon left the office in disgrace, so I can see the comparison with Obama being true he will also leave the office in disgrace once everyone sees how he has weakened this nation and lied to the masses over his patriotism.

  • Posted By: sieg6529 @ 04/30/2009 10:14:13 AM

    Everyone is harping on Obama for apologizing for mistakes. What is wrong with that? He feels that America made mistakes, he's in charge, so he makes t he apologies. American doesn't mean that we take responsibility for every little mishap, but it also doesn't mean that we pretend that we've never made a mistake.

  • Posted By: PMOK @ 04/30/2009 5:19:21 AM

    The difference between Obama and Nixon or Daddy Bush is, of course, that their pragmatic foreign policy was carried out without going on an Apologizing About America tour, and without abdicating a position of strength. Obama's policy may be "pragmatic," but it is one based on America's "limitations," completely eschewing its strengths; it is one that accedes and disavows either influence or the capacity to influence by strength, something no other nation - no other nation - does.

  • Posted By: Havener1901 @ 04/30/2009 12:50:14 AM

    Freedman isn't saying that Obama's a Nixon clone. Obama doesn't appear to share, thankfully, Nixon's nihilistic view of the rule of law. There does seem to be a distinct and Nixonian streak of realpolitik to Obama's foreign policy decisions so far, but Obama is handling things with a sense of style and public relations more reminiscent of JFK. The name of Bush is so radioactive right now with respect to foreign affairs that we forget that Bush Sr.was very successful in foreign policy, and that the team of Baker, Scowcroft, and Powell did an outstanding job getting rid of Manuel Noriega, winding up the Cold War and liberating Kuwait (we'll overlook Somalia and the Balkans for now . . .). So I'd propose that Obama appears to have something of Carter's sheer sense of right and wrong, some of George H.W. Bush's realistic competence and command of diplomacy, and JKF's sense of style, image, and public relations. Honestly, that's a pretty potent mix. It will be interesting to see what he can accomplish with all that.

  • Posted By: distantsmoke @ 04/29/2009 8:30:36 PM

    I just don't understand why Islamweek isn't promoting the comparison between Pres Obama and Pres Carter? I thought you guys thought Pres carter was a wise elder Statesman? What's wrong with Pres Carter that you don't want Pres Obama compared to him? Or do you (gasp) agree with the Conservative view that Pres Carter was an umitigated disaster?

  • Posted By: Nor-Cal for Obama @ 04/29/2009 5:46:48 PM

    All i can say is.... this is quite a reach and or a breach in comparison.

    What limited science to base comparing these two... Silly, if you ask me.

  • Posted By: froy1100 @ 04/29/2009 4:12:28 PM

    Well, I hope the new Nixon doesn't share with the old one his habit of supporting (plotting?) armed coups in democratic nations that decided to distance themselves from the Boss's policies. I don't think the Chileans are as fond of Tricky Dick as Mr Freedman.

  • Posted By: bighappy @ 04/25/2009 10:42:57 PM

    What an idiotic comparison. Nixon reached giant China to get economical gain and to weaken the main enemy. What economical gain can be achieved from agreement with small (compared to USAS) Iran and what enemy will be weakened?

    • Posted By: TonyWaters @ 04/29/2009 9:43:03 AM

      There is one difference though. Jimmy Carter's movement of human rights to the center of American policy permanently changed American statecraft. No longer can human rights issues be brushed aside by the US as they were in Vietnam,, or in Bangladesh during NIxon's time as president.

      • Posted By: froy1100 @ 04/29/2009 3:24:00 PM

        You should have told that to Reagan, when he used the Human Rights declaration to wipe his a$$. Ask any Nicaraguan.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/29/2009 1:00:56 PM

      Why don't you go read up on the coup of Iran's democratically elected prime minister (Mossadegh) that we supported back in 1948 or whatever it was, because they wanted to nationalize their oil and British Petroleum wasn't having it? We had the best chance at a free and democratic Iran sixty years or so ago and we blew it.

      They're mad at us for some highly good reasons. This is why I approve of diplomacy. No, they can't win a war with the United States. But I understand, given our foreign policy in relation to them, why they'd like to try.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 04/29/2009 11:00:24 AM

    Jimmy Carter Pluses:

    1. The Israeli-Egyptian Peace Agreement.

    An International Agreement that STILL EXIST to this.. Very Day.

    2. The U.S. -Russian Strategic Nuclear Arms Agreement.

    Another International Agreement that STILL EXIST to this ..Very Day.

    Not Bad, For a Man Considered to be a... Weak Commander in Chief
    --------------------

    I give those Diplomatic Achievements to anyone Disparaging Jimmy Carter, as a Weak President.

    • Posted By: froy1100 @ 04/29/2009 3:19:12 PM

      Carter was the only decent president America has had since it became a superpower. Too bad decency sometimes is counter-productive if you are at the helm of an empire.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/29/2009 12:58:19 PM

    Pity but what Nixon is mostly remembered for the worst part of his legacy...he was really a pretty good President for domestic and even foreign policy. However, civil liberties FAIL.

    I'd say Obama's doing a LITTLE better on that tip so far than Nixon. :P

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 04/29/2009 11:48:18 AM

    NIXON struggled with a poor image both in media and in reality -he was not TV friendly for those obvious reasons -
    americans or others like to see a smiling star as a president -
    anyway WATERGATE did not help him though he has had numerous achievements to his reign -but it is true he was a oragmatist like obama but obama is also an idealogue -
    so he combines the best of both worlds and is thus better than both put together -
    may the messiah rule and triumph longer then FDR-
    CHEERS

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 04/29/2009 10:51:24 AM

    Note: Kim Jung Ill [N.Korea] Says they Will Launch Missiles [Nuclear] if the UN does not [Apologize] !!!
    ----------------------------

    Kim Jung Ill is on a One way Ticket to [Hell]

    I Predict...

    The next Time N.Korea Attempts a Missile Launch of any sort.

    President Obama will Order a Bombing of that Launching Site.

    He will pull a Ronald Reagan Move....

    Remember the [Reagan Libya Bombings]

    Reagan [Did Not] Invade the Country of Libya, but he did Bomb the Hell Out of Specified, Targeted Sites.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse