Where is the Love: The Obama Doctrine’s Emotion Problem

By Maile McCann

Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent piece “The Obama Doctrine” portrays Barack Obama as a president with a clear, pragmatic, and thoughtful foreign policy plan that consistently breaks from traditional interventionist thought for something better. The only problem, however, is Obama’s inability to communicate the strength of his plan. Obama has time and again callously dismissed the concerns of the foreign policy establishment, the media, and the American people, and it has unnecessarily hurt his plan’s support, press coverage, and approval ratings.

Obama’s last­minute change of plans, open disrespect for the status quo despite a cabinet of traditionalists, and casual disregard for the big players in the foreign policy establishment have isolated him from potential political allies. This is perfectly illustrated by Obama’s interactions with his staff during the Syrian chemical weapons debacle.

Obama let John Kerry, his Secretary of State, take the stage and harshly condemn Syria’s use of chemical weapons, he helped his team to devise a plan to attack Syria and protect American credibility, he waited until the last minute, and then changed his mind.

It’s not to say his choice not to invade was a wrong one; by taking a pause before the attack, his suspicion that there would be little international, congressional, or public support for the move was confirmed. But, one has to wonder if had he offered the foreign policy community more respect, whether he could have prevented some key missteps. Perhaps—if he had respected the community more—he would have listened to their warnings about drawing a red line in the chemical weapons sand. Or perhaps he may have had more vocal allies in the ensuing media fallout.

Obama also disregards and misunderstands the media. Goldberg illustrates a moment at the G20 Summit right after the ISIS attacks in Paris that perfectly epitomizes Obama’s interactions with the press.

Obama, fresh off his speech about climate change on the summit stage, greets the press. He gets question after question about ISIS, one even, “Why can’t we get those bastards?” He answers them, but gets more and more frustrated with them and later puzzles with Goldberg about the shocking lack of discussion on what he believes is the more pressing issue: climate change. In fact, one staff member admits that it took the administration a full day to even realize how much the media and American citizens’ cared about the event.

Obama’s frustration that the media just doesn’t “get it” is ironic, as he just doesn’t get the media. He seems to disregard the modern demands on media for sensationalism, the cinematic qualities of terrorism, the resonance of wealthy white travelers in Europe getting killed. He seems to think of the media in the terms of how it should operate, rather than in the ways it actually does. If he shaped his media goals to fit those realities, he could have more success in spreading the platforms he cares most about.

This lack of understanding of how much the Paris attacks resonate serves to partially explain Obama’s most harmful disdain of all: that for the American people’s fear of Syrian refugees. Obama’s constant reminder to his staff that terrorism takes less lives than handguns seems apt, but his reminder that terrorism takes less lives than bathtub falls seems facetious. And he just can’t help but let this glib tone slip through to the people.

Obama operates rationally, not emotionally, and he just doesn’t seem to get the people’s fear of terrorism. He doesn’t seem to get the resonance of Donald Trump’s message assuaging that fear. He calls refugees no less dangerous than tourists and suggests that the American people needn’t get “worked up” over it all. This may all be true, but a man as intelligent as Obama should know ​ ​ that the last thing you tell an irrational person is that they are being irrational.

He suggests that his glib rhetoric comes from his desire to not stoke fear, but all his dismissal creates is anger. A president can listen to his constituents’ fears and then guide them to more ​ ​ important issues; simply dismissing them does nothing.

At this point, a caveat must be made: Obama’s dismissal of the foreign policy establishment’s, the media’s, and the people’s misguided misgivings isn’t wrong, it’s just not effective. If he wants to change the status quo in the establishment, he should explain rather than disdain, and make allies along the way. If he wants to shape the media narrative to ultimately cover more pressing conflicts, he needs to tailor this information to the needs of the press. If he wants his constituents to show some compassion for Syrian refugees, he first needs to show a little compassion for the American people.

Obama, often the most intelligent person in the room, seems to have one intellectual hiccup: he doesn’t ever seem to factor people into his big policy plans. Until Obama learns to understand the foreign policy establishment, media, and public (emotional, nonsensical, irrational warts and all), he will continue to unnecessarily undermine his own contributions to American foreign policy.