On Words and Power

Lebanon has turned West.  In an election where many thought the Hizbullah-led opposition would come out on top, the Lebanese people have instead chosen moderation and pragmatism over extremism and confrontation.  Here’s an excerpt from a Thomas Friedman op-ed piece in yesterday’s N.Y. Times:

While the Lebanese deserve 95 percent of the credit for this election, 5 percent goes to two U.S. presidents. As more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 — and forcing them to get out of Lebanon after the Hariri killing — this free election would not have happened. Mr. Bush helped create the space. Power matters. Mr. Obama helped stir the hope. Words also matter.

I think this is a pretty good lesson in foreign policy.  Seemingly contradictory presidencies can actually complement eachother well.  For all of his flaws, it seems fair to say that George Bush’s use of muscle led to some positive changes in the world.  However, the unpopularity of his policies created a vaccum for a president like Barack Obama to fill.  The way I see it, Bush sacrificed America’s popularity to rid the world of certain rogue regimes.  Obama was elected to assuage the negative side-effects of the Bush years and restore America as an example.  This just might be the best of both worlds.

There was a lot of talk during the campaign and in the first few months of Obama’s presidency about how his speeches were nice but lacked any real substance or utility.  While some were skeptical, others were turned off by Obama’s reliance on words that seemed to border on the theatrical.  But if his speech in Cairo last week actually influenced the Lebanese election in the way that it is currently being reported, the skeptics were flat out wrong.  If they make people believe, speeches can truly change the world.