Clinton's Charm
A Review of His Speech
Ben Judge
Last Updated: 9/26/07 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
After hearing President Clinton speak, I had the feeling that the only thing that has changed between January 20, 2001 and now was his office address. He was still the same guy whose demeanor could make an audience think he was no different from a neighborhood shopkeeper-soft spoken when referring to himself, but forceful when talking about his world views; still the same guy who could make public speaking look so easy that an audience overlooks its difficulty; still the same guy whose clear, plainspoken rhetoric could make anyone forget they were listening to an Oxford and Yale grad who has never known any profession other than politics. Most importantly, he was still the same relentless campaigner.
Like all good campaigners, President Clinton had a simple, structured arguement-in his case question-based-that put forth an easy method for thinking about current and future world issues, portraying his own answers as the next logical step in the thought process.
President Clinton's first questioned the fundamental nature of the 21st century. Interdependence, he argued, is the defining characteristic of our times. Ironically, the term interdependence originates from 19th century classical liberal philosophers who used the term to describe the adverse effects of government intervention in society. President Clinton's new form of interdependence, however, says that in the 21st century, the world is too interconnected for any one part to be driven solely by self-interest. If the world has outgrown all forms of isolation, then, just as Clinton said of President Bush Sr.'s economic policies at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, many of the current President Bush's international security and economic policies are "caught in the grip of a failed…theory." Interdependence implies reliance. This does not leave any room for an America-first foreign policy.
Clinton next addressed whether global interdependence was good or bad for the global community. His answer: both. Interdependence, Clinton asserted, is good for developed nations, but does not do enough for developing nations. If this explanation is accurate, then the responsibility of the international community is to bring developing nations into the global system. How do we do this? President Clinton's vision encompasses humanitarian efforts that promote the environment, health, education and development. While he acknowledged the need for a national security policy, he pushed it to the side as far less important. Arms and war are more costly and less effective than humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, which apparently are always an option.
Like all good campaigners, President Clinton had a simple, structured arguement-in his case question-based-that put forth an easy method for thinking about current and future world issues, portraying his own answers as the next logical step in the thought process.
President Clinton's first questioned the fundamental nature of the 21st century. Interdependence, he argued, is the defining characteristic of our times. Ironically, the term interdependence originates from 19th century classical liberal philosophers who used the term to describe the adverse effects of government intervention in society. President Clinton's new form of interdependence, however, says that in the 21st century, the world is too interconnected for any one part to be driven solely by self-interest. If the world has outgrown all forms of isolation, then, just as Clinton said of President Bush Sr.'s economic policies at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, many of the current President Bush's international security and economic policies are "caught in the grip of a failed…theory." Interdependence implies reliance. This does not leave any room for an America-first foreign policy.
Clinton next addressed whether global interdependence was good or bad for the global community. His answer: both. Interdependence, Clinton asserted, is good for developed nations, but does not do enough for developing nations. If this explanation is accurate, then the responsibility of the international community is to bring developing nations into the global system. How do we do this? President Clinton's vision encompasses humanitarian efforts that promote the environment, health, education and development. While he acknowledged the need for a national security policy, he pushed it to the side as far less important. Arms and war are more costly and less effective than humanitarian and diplomatic efforts, which apparently are always an option.
Be the first to comment on this story