It is high time for a little spin control. With pundits of every ideological persuasion re-presenting President Obama's Dec. 10 Nobel Prize acceptance speech in ways calculated to advance their own political agendas, we need—as Obama might say—to see things as they are, not as we wish them to be.
In his Oslo speech, the president presented nothing less than a dialectical argument, by which I mean a series of ideas, arguments or phases that appear as opposites, but which are eventually reconciled, thus producing a synthesis of contending ideas. But the problem with a dialectical vision is that if you think you can understand the whole of the argument by resting your case on any single part of it, you are going to end up misunderstanding—or perhaps misrepresenting—the overall message.
This is precisely the fate of Obama's Oslo speech. Seeking to congratulate the president for coming round to their point of view, his critics have found in his Nobel lecture ample proof that that President has finally grasped the hard verities that his critics have long understood.
Thus, for example, Bill Kristol announced on Fox News that the acceptance speech was "the most Bush like" of Obama's presidency, and that it "lays the predicate for a legitimate use of force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons." Jacob Heilbrunn chimed in, insisting that the speech "confirmed" Obama's "transformation from dove into liberal warrior." And Robert Kagan proclaimed that having given the "soft touch a try," Obama has come to the realization that "advancing democracy is not only a moral but also a strategic imperative."
Don't get me wrong. Obama's views have evolved. But his ideas stem from a world view whose roots run deep. The President has not woken up in a Kafkaesque nightmare to find himself turned into his most vociferous critics—whether they be on the left or the right. Spinners beware: when you try to add up the pieces, you will find an intellectually intricate vision whose simplification is at best a caricature, and at worst, a distortion.
This is a vision of contradictions and tensions. "The instruments of war do have a role," Obama states, "but this truth must coexist with" the fact that "war promises human tragedy." Indeed, "part of our challenge" is "reconciling...irreconcilable truths." Thus, he argues, the unilateral use of force is sometimes necessary, but "American cannot act alone." The denial of the human aspiration for freedom cannot serve "America's interests," but "engagement with repressive regimes" is necessary. When you "see the world as it is," Obama repeatedly asserted, you know there is "no simple formula."
Some pundits are now referring to "Obama's Doctrine." But thus far, the president has spelled out something that is closer to a philosophy than a geo-strategic policy. It has the merits of complexity and conceptual rigor, which is no small accomplishment. But it must also confront a world in which fast moving events often force the most visionary of leaders to make difficult choices between contending—and perhaps irreconcilable—goals. At the end of the day, the choices that Obama makes will surprise those who appear so sure that this president has embraced their truths.
Daniel Brumberg is an associate professor of government and director of democracy and governance studies at Georgetown University. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the Project on Middle East Democracy. His work focuses on political, social and economic change in the Middle East and wider Muslim World.
