Obama in Africa
[Guest post by DRJ]
Barack Obama and his family have taken a whirlwind tour of Ghana in West Africa where, to an adoring media and populace, he has preached the benefits of democracy:
“At the heart of Obama’s message here: African nations crippled by coups and chaos, like Ghana has been in the past, can reshape themselves into lawful democracies. He said it takes good governance, sustained development, improved health care.
And that the moment is now.
“Africa doesn’t need strongmen,” Obama said. “It needs strong institutions.”
This is a good message and I give Obama credit for it. Too bad he won’t apply it in Honduras.
– DRJ
Dude’s script writers put out some awesome material, at times.
Now if only he’d actually apply some of the good stuff….
Comment by Foxfier — 7/11/2009 @ 6:45 pm
Obama won’t apply it anywhere. He doesn’t believe it. But it makes a good sound bite.
Comment by Ken Hahn — 7/11/2009 @ 6:45 pm
well said Ken
Comment by drone — 7/11/2009 @ 6:58 pm
Ken has it. Obama will continue the policies that ensure the corruption and Kleptocrats will remain in power.
Comment by JP — 7/11/2009 @ 7:03 pm
He must have let somebody else write his speech in Ghana, because it was actually pretty good in parts compared to his more recent apology tours.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/11/2009 @ 7:04 pm
It needs strong institutions what can be co-opted by dirty socialists and fashioned to more better transition to some craptastic one world government I bet. This man is really really noxious and I remain unfond.
Comment by happyfeet — 7/11/2009 @ 7:14 pm
“Too bad he won’t apply it in Honduras.”
Could he possibly be more wrong than he is on Honduras???
One week it’s “don’t meddle” in Iran when democracy is strining for the light, the next week it’s all in “meddle mania” for the Leftist Dictator democratically removed from power by the Supreme Court and Congress.
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 7/11/2009 @ 7:46 pm
“striving” not “strining” oops, doh!
Comment by J. Raymond Wright — 7/11/2009 @ 7:47 pm
“Africa doesn’t need strongmen,” Obama said. “It needs strong institutions.”
Too bad he didn’t have the courage to tell the truth in Cairo.
Comment by Terry Gain — 7/11/2009 @ 8:31 pm
Like most of Obama’s speeches, he said a lot without really saying anything of substance. It’s boilerplate milquetoast bullshit that you would typically find in an college undergraduate essay, where they rattle off a lot of vague generalities in the hopes that the professor will find an excuse not to dock them for not being able to support their point with actual specifics.
The fact of the matter is that without respect for humanity and the rule of law, an “institution’s” strength is irrelevant and nonexistent. Africa is a continent that has been ruled at the point of a gun, literally and figuratively, for centuries now. Until that fundamental cornerstone changes, Africa will continue to have the problems it has always had.
Comment by Another Chris — 7/11/2009 @ 8:54 pm
If you read the speech in full, it is safe, hopeful and makes the listener believe that the President really understands their unique situation. It’s what Obama excels at. Not a lot of depth but always with the salve of hope.
Until that fundamental cornerstone changes, Africa will continue to have the problems it has always had.
The corruption is never-ending but another approach to overcoming the overall dysfunction of Africa may come from a different approach to the problem: Dambisa Moyo, an African economist, has written a brilliant book about the devastating effect on Africa’s independence Western aid ironically has had.
“In Dead Aid, Dambisa Moyo describes the state of postwar development policy in Africa today and unflinchingly confronts one of the greatest myths of our time: that billions of dollars in aid sent from wealthy countries to developing African nations has helped to reduce poverty and increase growth.
In fact, poverty levels continue to escalate and growth rates have steadily declined—and millions continue to suffer. Provocatively drawing a sharp contrast between African countries that have rejected the aid route and prospered and others that have become aid-dependent and seen poverty increase, Moyo illuminates the way in which overreliance on aid has trapped developing nations in a vicious circle of aid dependency, corruption, market distortion, and further poverty, leaving them with nothing but the “need” for more aid.
Comment by Dana — 7/11/2009 @ 9:19 pm
Dana – Sort of like LBJ’s Great Society Programs. Once people become dependent on the Nannystate, it’s tough to wean them off. They’ll vote for you forever, especially if you keep expanding their benefits the way Obama wants to.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/11/2009 @ 9:22 pm
Absolutely, daley. It’s become a multi-generational way of life – and expectation. All incentive disappears and independence, a vague memory.
Moyo’s basic approach is almost too simple and logical to be taken seriously. In an interview, she said that when she began her book tour and giving speeches, Bono and Bob Geldorf’s group preceded her appearances, always one step ahead, with negative comments about her ignorance and position taken on aid dependency and the West’s damaging effects.
Comment by Dana — 7/11/2009 @ 9:38 pm
Dana – I don’t know Moyo’s work, but the theory ain’t rocket science.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/11/2009 @ 9:41 pm
That’s the point, daley – it’s not rocket science. It’s sensible, logical and benefits individuals and the whole.
So if it is this sensible, why is there such resistance to it, particularly from the West?
Comment by Dana — 7/11/2009 @ 9:44 pm
In part of Obama’s speech in Africa he talked of corruption and government interference getting in the way of progress. He said that (and I quote from memory), “Who would want to start a business where the dock master requires a bribe or the government takes twenty percent right off the top?”
Some one needs to ask him about corporate tax rates and baksheesh demanded by the ACORN types here in this country as an impediment to progress.
He also complains about Kenya and South Korea as economic models. That a generation ago Kenya’s GDP was higher that South Korea but now languishes way behind, having actually declined while South Korea has exploded in prosperity. His solution to this problem? THE GOVERNMENTS OF AFRICA HAVE TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND BE EVEN MORE CONTROLLING AND MICRO-MANAGING OF THEIR ECONOMIES.
I think he mixed up the South and North Korean models of prosperity.
Comment by Have Blue — 7/11/2009 @ 9:44 pm
He also complains about Kenya and South Korea as economic models.
I’m reading a book titled “Trust” about how culture has great bearing on the success of a nation. (BTW, he also notes that South Korea, in some crucial ways, has been a command economy, to a degree that would make most free marketers gag, myself included.) The author’s central point is that people need to have great confidence and trust in one another in order to allow an economy to flourish.
So if too many of the people in a society are flakes and fraudsters — if there is too much dysfunction — it’s less likely that the economy they’re a part of will do well.
The never-ending stagnation or decline of inner-city America, on one hand, and various Third-World nations, on the other, do have one thing in common: too many flakes and fraudsters in the population, who tend to flourish — in a negative way — when the political system around them also is very Socialistic, very leftist.
Comment by Mark — 7/11/2009 @ 10:20 pm
#12- Sort of like
LBJ’s Great Society Programsthe military industrial complex. Once people become dependent on the Nannystate, it’s tough to wean them off.Comment by DCSCA — 7/11/2009 @ 10:22 pm
Once more Dcrap
forgetsproves he never knew that “provide for the common defense” is literally on e of the ONLY legitamte functions of teh federal government.Comment by Have Blue — 7/11/2009 @ 10:33 pm
Hey Dcrap – What about the theory that the only reason we got out of the Depression was the spending incurred by WWII? Ws that nannystatism too?
Comment by Have Blue — 7/11/2009 @ 10:35 pm
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It seems to me that provide for the common defense and promote the general Welfare are on roughly equal footing.
Comment by aphrael — 7/11/2009 @ 10:50 pm
provide != promote
Comment by steve miller — 7/11/2009 @ 10:55 pm
It’s promote the general Welfare, not provide the general Welfare.
Comment by Official Internet Data Office — 7/11/2009 @ 10:56 pm
Promote the general welfare in the language of the time simply meant “support free markets.”
The term “The pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration was a 17th century term of art reffering to the right of Englishmen to support themselves and their own by the labor of their own hands with out undue interference of the king or other government.
Comment by Have Blue — 7/11/2009 @ 11:10 pm
Just curious…did Pres. Obama ever happen to mention who owned and operated that “slave castle” he toured with his family?
Comment by gahrie — 7/11/2009 @ 11:17 pm
Gahrie at 25 – No, and neither did the press. (At least not that I heard, and I will admit I was not glued to the feeds as I am somedays.)
Did see a CNN news reader ask a field reporter if all of the dancing and celebration around the Obama welcome was “unprecedented” and almost bite his tongue off when her response was basically, “Well no, Bush got a huge welcome also, and they even pulled him out to dance with them during his welcome.”
Comment by Have Blue — 7/11/2009 @ 11:24 pm
Time to re-colonize it appears.
Most of Africa has gone into the dumper since they tossed out the colonizers.
South Africa is a shell of its former self and lawless.
The tribes have failed Somalia and Zimbabwe.
Comment by Typical White Person — 7/12/2009 @ 7:38 am
That’s a bit of grad school pap. Africa, particularly the ex-British ruled bits, had strong institutions when whitey left. Many countries still maintain the pretense of such institutions and it may even help a bit, as in the case of Zimbabwe. The independent courts and the parliament managed to slow down the ethnic cleansing of white farmers for a year or two, but it was a delaying action.
Comment by hortense (aka horace) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:56 am
Get with the times, Typical White Person. Have you been to London, or Washington DC (with scores of African immigrants), or Minneapolis lately? It is the Africans that get to colonize whitey’s territory.
Comment by hortense (aka horace) — 7/12/2009 @ 7:58 am
That’s a strange definition of ‘colonize.’
Comment by imdw — 7/12/2009 @ 8:26 am
horace and imdw having a discussion should prove to be scintillating.
Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 9:32 am
…to honduras” or to Iran, or to Russia, or to the Pfakistinians, or to Venezuela, or to Bolivia or to Nicaraugua, or to China…
Comment by eaglewingz08 — 7/12/2009 @ 10:32 am
…to honduras” or to Iran, or to Russia, or to the Pfakistinians, or to Venezuela, or to Bolivia or to Nicaraugua, or to China…
So, I gather everyone believes that, in the wake of unanimous OAS and EU stands, the US should exhaustively underwrite the coup regime in Honduras.
How long should Americans bankroll a Berlin Airlift promise of humanitarian shipments to get around the hemispheric trade isolation? Honduras was a near lost-cause before embargoes. CNN and PBS will document all exaggerated hardships nightly. Windbags in Congress then will posture and strut until the US taxpayer has effectively adopted another country.
How far should US support extend beyond diplomatic stagecraft?
Comment by steve — 7/12/2009 @ 11:57 am
“Repression takes many forms, and too many nations are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.”
Amusingly enough, Barack Obama actually had the nerve to scold Africans in these terms.
Actually, there’s nothing amusing about it.
Comment by Federal Dog — 7/12/2009 @ 12:10 pm
steve – Do you believe what happened in Honduras was a coup?
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 12:14 pm
Does America need a strongman? Obama seems to think so.
Comment by Thomas Jackson — 7/12/2009 @ 12:34 pm
steve – Do you believe what happened in Honduras was a coup?
A semantics dodge.
To what extent should US support extend beyond diplomatic stagecraft? How – and for how long – should US taxpayers underwrite the new regime and sustain a now-isolated population? We talking comprehensive and open-ended?
Whether the ‘coup’ was Zelaya’s arrest and ouster or his illegal plebiscite to overturn the one-term restriction is becoming inconsequential now. Zelaya staged it? Fine.
Comment by steve — 7/12/2009 @ 12:45 pm
steve likes his sophistry.
Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 1:02 pm
No one should turn a blind eye to the illegal things going on, but aimless symbolism has a short pragmatic shelf life. This might end with a power-sharing arrangement – Zelaya gone after his term.
Otherwise, we’re talking long-term humanitarian alimony.
Comment by steve — 7/12/2009 @ 1:25 pm
“How – and for how long – should US taxpayers underwrite the new regime and sustain a now-isolated population?”
steve – Instead, why doesn’t Obama do the right thing for a change and stand up for the Constitution of Honduras and its people?
He wants the entire world to love him, which is a tough task and you usually come across looking like a feckless squish.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 1:45 pm
steve – Just because committees of the U.N. pass endless series of anti-Israel resolutions do not make them right. Nations are allowed to express their own opinions. Your logic is underwhelming at best.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 1:49 pm
“but aimless symbolism has a short pragmatic shelf life.”
Principles don’t mean anything to the left in other words.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 1:50 pm
A semantics dodge.
Typical response from a Troll who has nothing to refute the correct answer.
Comment by Dmac — 7/12/2009 @ 1:58 pm
Dmac – steve basically admits that we’re backing the wrong side, but the only reason to do it is that it’s the popular thing to do. Hey, steve and Obama are for what’s popular! We’ve seen this show before if I recall.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 2:03 pm
But who has decided that it’s the popular thing to do? Most of the citizens in this country have no idea what’s been happening down there, so did teh One take a poll among his inner circle? Did he ask Michelle what she thought? Their dog?
Comment by Dmac — 7/12/2009 @ 2:14 pm
Back on topic, if I may… does anyone know which African nations Obama’s visiting on his current tour (besides Ghana)?
Comment by DubiousD — 7/12/2009 @ 2:20 pm
“But who has decided that it’s the popular thing to do?”
Dmac – According to steve it’s the euroweenies and the OAS.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 2:27 pm
Ah, well that would explain an awful lot.
Comment by Dmac — 7/12/2009 @ 3:32 pm
Ah, well that would explain an awful lot.
Naturally, from the outset, you had a viable solution that didn’t involve open-ended American aid as Honduras endures strong economic contractions. We’d probably need to consider capitalizing their border security as the de facto government weakens. Do we commence oil deliveries now that Caracas has stopped shipments? The World Bank has suspended lending to the country as well. Is everyone convinced we can extend them a giant line of credit just now?
No, let’s spend all our time determining whether the removal of Zelaya met the definition of a military coup under U.S. law.
Comment by steve — 7/12/2009 @ 4:10 pm
How about standing up for freedom and democracy, steve?
Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 4:22 pm
“No, let’s spend all our time determining whether the removal of Zelaya met the definition of a military coup under U.S. law.”
steve – Obviously you are missing the boat here. The concern is whether Honduran law was followed, while the left appears to apply U.S. legal standards to the situation or something equally as silly. Most observers agree that indeed Honduran law was followed in the removal of Zelaya from office, except perhaps his exile.
Try to keep up and avoid promoting positions people here have not taken. Do you or do you not agree Honduran law was followed?
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/12/2009 @ 4:24 pm
So, I gather everyone believes that, in the wake of unanimous OAS and EU stands, the US should exhaustively underwrite the coup regime in Honduras.
First of all, if you tend to be an isolationist, I’ll give your sentiments the benefit of the doubt. However, if you’re one of those usual-suspect liberals who rarely, if ever, complains about the cost of government doing touchy-feely things, foreign and domestic, then I’ll have to recommend that your skepticism in regards to Honduras be applied to a larger variety of things.
For instance, the cost of the US government directing its precious dollars to aid Third World nations that are loaded down with graft and theft, and self-destructive corruption in general. Or, for that matter, all the money that the current federal government (Hi, Barack “Spendthrift” Obama!) in particular will be wasting and has wasted on various do-gooder, do-little, do-nothing social programs directed at people right here in the United States.
No, let’s spend all our time determining whether the removal of Zelaya met the definition of a military coup under U.S. law.
Why? After all, Obama said it wasn’t the business of the US to meddle in the affairs of other nations. If anything, you should be telling the guy in the Oval Office to STFU!
Comment by Mark — 7/12/2009 @ 4:27 pm
This is precisely why his reading from TOTUS in Africa, while having some pretty words, was frakin’ meaningless. His actions do not follow with his words, and Honduras is a perfect example of that.
Comment by JD — 7/12/2009 @ 4:37 pm
We’d probably need to consider capitalizing their border security as the de facto government weakens
Once again, you’re assuming facts not in evidence. Must you continue to demonstrate your lack of remedial comprehension skills?
Comment by Dmac — 7/12/2009 @ 6:10 pm
Steve – for a primer on what’s happening down there, here’s Mary Anastacias O’Grady, who’s been covering Latin America for the better part of two decades. She’s anything but a right – wing shill, and she gets to sources that the other media outlets can only dream about:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683595220397927.html
Comment by Dmac — 7/12/2009 @ 6:19 pm
And few years ago, O’Grady blamed Dubya for his “supine reaction” to Hugo Chavez election
irregularitiesswindle.The OAS, by doing and saying nothing this spring while Zelaya subverted the constitution, was worse than supine, it was complicit.
But rage rarely leaves room for reason. Are Zelaya’s leftist policies or the well being of Hondurans more critical TODAY? He can only be emasculated once. Now, with the third poorest country in the hemisphere completely isolated, what happens? No oil. No lifeline. No trade. Does a power-sharing deal – Zelaya gone when his one term ends – offend the conscience? Put him on trial for all I care. End the impasse.
Comment by steve — 7/12/2009 @ 7:58 pm
Maybe the Hondurans are willing to endure a little more hardship in order to be free than you are, Steve. Maybe they won’t even know what they’re missing when they cannot get a Grande skim latte.
Comment by nk — 7/12/2009 @ 8:03 pm