The Art of Organizing on the Arabian Rug
By Al Giordano
These six paragraphs, reported by Reuters, pretty well capture the snapshot as the President sets foot into the Muslim regions of the Middle East today:
LONDON (Reuters) - A double blast from al Qaeda against Barack Obama shows the group is as worried as ever by the persuasive skills of the U.S. president, who makes a speech to Muslims on Thursday.
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, in an audio recording aired on Wednesday by Al Jazeera television, said Obama had planted the seeds of "revenge and hatred" toward the United States in the Muslim world and he warned Americans to prepare for the consequences.
A day earlier, the militant network's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri urged Egyptians not to be seduced by Obama's 'polished words' when he makes a major address in Cairo seeking to repair ties with the Muslim world.
For some, al Qaeda's concerted attempt to upstage Obama is a propaganda own goal that shows its normally media-savvy operatives in disarray following the departure of Obama's predecessor George W. Bush. They found Bush easy to stereotype as a belligerent, Muslim-hating cowboy.
"Zawahri is right to be worried," said Edwin Bakker, a senior research fellow at the Dutch Clingendael Institute in the Hague.
"Al Qaeda partly lives on anti-Americanism and the 'war on terror'. Now Bush has gone and been replaced by a guy who's second name is Hussein. And they fear his speech really is going to have a positive effect."
First of all, how long has it been since there has been such anticipation toward a “speech,” any speech abroad, by a US president? Not since Ronald Reagan visited the Berlin Wall has so much attention and importance been placed on a US citizen’s words and oratory. The art of the speech – a pillar of American and global democratic history – lost its way over the past two decades in the United States. Nobody, but absolutely nobody, ever looked forward to a scheduled speech by presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Between them, they held the stage for twenty years during which they surrendered the bully pulpit; the lost generation of speech.
The big speech of this trip will come on Thursday in Cairo. It will receive roadblock TV and radio coverage throughout the Muslim and Arab worlds perhaps greater than any other speech in the history of broadcast in the region. Chew on that for a moment.
An interesting footnote (well, something much bigger than a footnote for millions of Muslim and Arab youth) is that ten leading Egyptian dissidents have been invited to attend the speech, including former presidential candidate and political dissident Ayman Nur and members of the banned “Muslim Brotherhood” organization. Actions like their inclusion drive a stake between Al Qaida and potential young recruits from the universities, cities and towns throughout the Muslim regions. No wonder bin Laden – who was raised and educated as a member of the elite in Saudi Arabia, the first stop on the President’s tour - is upset: the Arabian rug is being pulled out from under the future of his violent political prescriptions. In recent decades, groups like Al Qaida have thrived largely because the paths for peaceful means to political change and participation have been blocked by states like Egypt. If the invitation of the dissidents to attend Obama’s speech indicates a path back into democratic participation by legitimate critics and social movements in US-friendly but not-very-democratic states like Egypt (a prospect which remains to be seen) the siren call of violent opposition would soon become no more than a whimper.
An important job of a community organizer – in this case, again, Obama is essentially applying the craft of organizing in the Global Village – is to convince local political leaders that it is in their self interest to, if not outright support the local social movements, to at least get out of the way. To view this trip through the community organizer lens is to see the Saudi King or the Egyptian president as akin to Chicago party ward bosses: they exist with very different motives and goals than that of the organizer, but convinced of their own self interest, they can cease to be so problematic and at times even be harnessed to collaborate toward the change being organized.
The real stake through Al Qaida’s heart can’t be achieved militarily. As with all matters of terrorism or insurgency (two different things which at times overlap but in the end are at cross purposes) these are battles for hearts and minds, most importantly those of the up-and-coming generations. It is through that lens that tomorrow’s speech in Egypt should be watched and analyzed. Those GOP leaders like Mitt Romney that are shrieking preemptively about so-called “apology tours” abroad by Obama are essentially saying, “We don’t want Al Qaida and groups like it dismantled. If they ceased to exist or to have strength, we wouldn’t know how to view the US role in the world. We need an enemy. How dare Obama deprive us of one by defeating it with speeches!”
A final observation for this morning: I continue to be impressed by the President’s skill at multi-tasking so many matters and issues at once in a way that plays each across from another to completely deny his opponents any opportunity to gain traction on any of them. This is one of the recaptured lost arts that has begun to define the Obama Doctrine.
Last month (again, with a speech) the President made the case for closing Guantanamo and against torture, while also explaining why prosecution of past crimes is not the rosy path or silver bullet to justice that some promoters within his own base seem to believe. But before they could get their balance back to mount a rhetorical assault, he changed the subject back to domestic issues with the very well executed nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. That Supreme Court pick was a real base pleaser that drew out the self-marginalized crazies on the far right as he picks off moderate Republicans (Senator Spector to the Democratic Caucus, Governor Huntsman to China, Congressman McHugh to Secretary of the Army) from their ranks.
Prior to leaving for Saudi Arabia yesterday, he called 24 Democratic Senators to the White House and gave marching orders about the health care legislation he wants passed this year. He then hopped onto Air Force One to set GOP spokesman to blather about foreign policy again. Meanwhile, through Organizing for America, he’s marshaled his grassroots army to, mostly under radar, build the public opinion underpinnings to roll health care through Congress in 2009; the very gargantuan task whose failure doomed the eight-year Clinton administration to become a relatively minor event in US history remembered, if much at all, for its very mixed and underwhelming record.
Back and forth, forth and back, from domestic to foreign to domestic again, his opponents and critics of the right and from a certain ghetto of the left are left spinning their wheels, not even knowing anymore what the poutrage du jour is or ought to be. Say what you want about all that Obama is accomplishing, but, as with Reagan, objective observation from any ideological standpoint must marvel at the sheer competence and efficacy with which the President is pulling off, so early in his term, so much of what he was precisely elected to do.
This ain’t mere politics, ladies and gentlemen.
This is called organizing.
Update: Continuing the forced hemorrhage of moderates from the Republican party, the President has just appointed an important one to another post:
WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate former Republican Congressman Jim Leach as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Leach, of Iowa, was the founder of the Republican Mainstream Committee in the 1980s, creating a pro-choice bulwark in the heat of the Reagan era, and the hugely influential chairman of the Banking Committee when his party had a majority in Congress. He endorsed Obama last year during the primaries.
Update II: For night owls and early risers, here's the President's itinerary for tomorrow, in Eastern Time Zone hours: 2:10 a.m. ET arrival in Cairo; 2:40 a.m. ET welcome ceremony; 3 a.m. ET meeting with President Mubarak; 4:50 a.m. ET the President and Secretary Clinton tour the Sultan Hassan Mosque; 6:10 a.m. ET "the speech" at Cairo University; 8:45 a.m. ET the President tours the Pyramids and the Sphinx; 11 a.m. ET departs for Dresden, Germany.
Breaking: The Organization of American States (OAS) has just voted by consensus to allow Cuba to rejoin the organization if it so chooses. You can watch the live stream of the follow-up remarks by each country's representatives at this link. The Cold War thus was officially ended on June 3, 2009. I'll have more to say about that shortly...
Email this page
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Ironic
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 10:38 am by Kat (not verified)that the two groups freaking out the most about Obama's speech are Al Qaeda and and right wing Republicans. Both have gotten a lot of mileage out of the status quo.
The Benefit of a Doubt
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 10:46 am by Jonathan (not verified)Well put again. I see a lot of people at Daily Kos that are convinced that Health Care will fail and Obama will fail and betray all of them. I mean, I certainly understand why they're this passionate, and they should be, but there's also got to be the benefit of a doubt in this case. After all, we voted him in and he's hardly done anything to destroy the confidence. Not every single effort pushed by Democrats is doomed to fail like it did in 1994. We've learned a lot of lessons of that, Florida, organizing, etc. And those lessons have really paid off as we can tell so far.
What people need to understand that there is so much damage to undo. Considering what Bush and the GOP did to us, a completely totaled car was in better shape on January 20. These things take time, and considering what Obama's been able to do already as of June 3, he's got every bit of my support and confidence, not to mention the political savvy talents of which rarely any public offical is fortunate to have. Sometimes you do have to play political games in order to get what you want, but there's more than just the Bush/Cheney way.
Expectations
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 10:48 am by Jim (not verified)I am fascinated by the rubric of "expectations."
Obama is trying to lower expectations, well aware of the huge anticipation. He knows the limits of a speech.
Yet, how many of us doubt that he will meet certain expectations never dreamt of in the last several administrations: i.e., he will undoubtedly come across as eminently "reasonable," acknowledging the divergent points of view, recognizing the need for all parties - including the US - to change behavior. He will expressly disavow any imperiliastic intentions and promise to work hard towards a just peace for all. Amazingly, even though all of this seems common sense and a given for him, this rhetoric still appears to be news when a US president gives it voice in that region.
Meanwhile, Romney tries to manage expectations by condemning Obama as engaging in an "apology" tour before it has even begun. Apparently, Romney is so desperate for attention that he has not paused to consider how out of step he will appear when Obama receives fawning coverage, from both the national and international press.
The only thing that seems in doubt is how directly Obama will discuss human rights and democracy while in countries that have little respect for either. Yet, it is not hard to guess how he will deal with such matters. Obama will refer to them briefly, and he will be praised for doing so, probably even more than will be deserved. For the scope of the speech will be so broad that it would be difficult to dwell on specifics, even if Obama were inclined to do so.
Simply put, I expect Obama will succeed in saying what should have been said all along: it will be momentous because past presidents have not taken the obvious steps. But it will be easy for this president to manage, and woe to those who try to belittle him for making "apologies."
"...a certain ghetto on the lft..."
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 10:56 am by IVA (not verified)You gave me a good chuckle with that line, Al.
As always, great piece you've written. Spot on. The man is not perfect, but he's really not wasting any time to try and put our country on the right coure, and bring about substantive changes. I'm grateful for that.
Right-o again, Al!
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 11:02 am by Pamela Hilliard OwensAl, you are SO on the money about how President Obama continually out-maneuvering the extremists on both sides as he strolls down the middle with that "walk" of his. No, he's not pleasing everyone, not even me, with the time it is taking for him to get out various "pet projects"--such as DADT...but I am in awe every single day at what he is accomplishing and how he is "workin' it"!
One of my students in the UK is from Saudi Arabia, and we were on the phone together watching the President land in Saudi Arabia. I have seven students in England from three MidEast countries, and I cannot tell you how happy and excited they are with our new President.
My student from Saudi Arabia was so happy with what he was seeing on TV that he started talking to me in Arabic, forgetting that I only know how to say in Arabic: "Hello; how are you; I am well, thank you; and you; yes I would like something to eat!" LOL! (Actually, I'm doing pretty well learning Arabic...I can actually hold a conversation for about two minutes with my students...)
We were discussing the different points of view as he was watching Al-Jazira and I was watching MSNBC!
Our Prez is simply brilliant; even the Newt apologized and said Judge Sotomayer is "not a racist"!
It is just fascinating to watch President Barack Hussein Obama; and even more fascinating (and fun) to watch people like Rushbo and the Mittster pull out their hair in total frustration!
Prez O will probably find some ambassadorship for Palenty, too!
By the time he's through, the only persone available to run against him in 2012 will be Sarah...good luck!
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Speaking of Reagan, back and forth, forth and back
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 11:37 am by Lucidamente (not verified)don't forget this, from today's Washington Post:
Obama Signs Bill to Create Reagan Centennial Panel
By Michael D. Shear
With former first lady Nancy Reagan by his side, President Obama today created a commission to plan events that will honor former president Ronald Reagan on what would have been his 100th birthday. . .
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/02/obama_signs_bill_to_creat...
@Jonathan
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 11:38 am by BR (not verified)On health care, I'm not worried that Obama won't do the right thing, but I do worry about senate democrats who seem very content pushing through a mediocre bill and just calling it "health care reform". I'm going to go to my first post-election OFA event this weekend to help organize in some small way for a decent bill.
Reply to BR
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 12:27 pm by Jonathan (not verified)Well, Senate Democrats are always unpredictable, that's very true. Still, dont underestimate the fact that Obama won't be too forgiving if they screw up this one. And on a side note, let's hope Senator Franken can be seated in time for a vote on it. The more, the better!
Three Things...
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 1:28 pm by Travis (not verified)1. I totally agree with the assesment about how well Obama is doing. Shifting the ground on Republicans almost daily, and beating them time and again when they do meet head on. It reminds me of an a football team with a totally dominate running game. Pound it in the middle, then toss left, then overload right, reverse, again again again. He's just systematically marching down the field in every area.
2. There was a comment I saw (I think on TPM, from an email Marshall posted) that said something along the lines of "After the US defeated Communism, they needed a new enemy and they picked Islam." It's so true...so unfortunately true.
3. Speaking of the Obama White House compotence, I am really rooting for them to revamp GM into a new, streamlined, profitable car company. Imagine how much fun it will be when we're all able to run "Government Motors" in the faces of every Republican who says the Government can't run things as well as the private sector. GM in private hands...bankrupt. Government steps...profit. With the Government basically buying GM at such a low cost, the possibility of stabilizing it and making a nice profit (revenue, in Gov. terms) seems pretty likely. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
What a difference a year makes
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 1:49 pm by Anne CrumptonA year ago the poutrage was over a simple fist bump. Today it is over engaging all of arabia. The Man knows what he is doing.
Once again, Al, spot on.
Happy Fist Bump day!
Telling
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 2:07 pm by bob h (not verified)that Al Zawahiri called on Egyptians to "shun" Obama and not to kill him. Maybe Obama already has the upper hand.
Fist Bump!
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 2:16 pm by Al GiordanoAnne - Yep. Today also marks the anniversary of the last primaries, Obama reaching 50%+1 in all delegates, and HRC still not dropping out of the race!
And to think... on the NBC special this week about the White House, the President did a fist bump... with Bo the dog. I enjoyed that.
healthcare
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 3:58 pm by scats (not verified)I've got a question about Healthcare strategy. It seems to me that if OFA members got behind the push for single-payer (HR 676) which is getting some traction, it would have a good chance of passing.
And if it did not pass, Obamacare would be the natural fallback compromise position. Whereas just pushing for Obamacare will at best give us, well, Obamacare and not single-payer. Most likely it will get us something short of Obama's maximal position.
Assuming HR 676 is a better healthcare solution for the country*, can anyone tell me why OFA members don't get behind it?
Most of the country wants single-payer. If most of the organizers advocate something else, we won't get it. It would be a shame if we missed a chance for single-payer.
[See here for a single-payer response to the OFA plan.]
* I've seen Al in these pages express concern about civil liberties and privacy with a national healthcare plan, but having read the bill, its very clear that citizens would not be required to pay for health services with national insurance, or give the government access to their health records (at least any more than the government does at the moment). In fact, with single-payer it would be cheaper to pay for healthcare out of pocket in order to stay out of databases.
Breaking: OAS & Cuba
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 5:01 pm by Lorie CavinAl, Looking forward to your take on this: Cuba and the OAS.
A question for Al
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 5:40 pm by Oothoon (not verified)There was a comment I saw (I think on TPM, from an email Marshall posted) that said something along the lines of "After the US defeated Communism, they needed a new enemy and they picked Islam." It's so true...so unfortunately true.
That wasn't an e-mail -- that was Madeleine Albright. :)
Al -- a trivial question, but I'm curious why you said people weren't interested in Bill Clinton's speeches. He's supposed to be a great speaker. (But honestly, I don't remember any of his speeches, not even his victory speech on election night in Little Rock which I heard in person.) Is it personal or political circumstances that make us indifferent to certain presidents' speeches? (Well, we all know the answer for George Bush.)
Should clarify Albright's comment
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 5:47 pm by Oothoon (not verified)Sorry, I think I should post the entire quotation, because it makes Albright appear to say something that she doesn't.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright pointed to a common theme among the many conferences she has attended with Muslim speakers: "When the Cold War ended, America needed an enemy to replace Communism and chose Islam."
In an op-ed Tuesday in The New York Times, Albright wrote, "How else, they ask, to explain the two Gulf wars, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the plight of the Palestinians?
"To support their thesis, they cite the bellicose post-9/11 rhetoric of U.S. officials, the Western media's preoccupation with Muslim extremists and the plethora of pundits who have identified Islam, especially 'political Islam,' as the leading threat to civilization in the 21st century."
Albright said, "To most Americans, the idea that our country is attacking Islam or that we view the Islamic faith as an enemy is absurd."
She pointed out that in the 1990s, the U.S. twice led NATO into conflicts on behalf of Muslim populations -- first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo.
News Cycle
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 6:35 pm by KathinNC (not verified)If there has ever been an administration as adept at managing the news cycle as this one, I must have slept through it. Just as important as keeping the opposition off guard, is keeping the press so busy that they have less time on their hands to concentrate on the faux issues of the day.
Hail to the Chief!
Thanks!
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 8:22 pm by Travis (not verified)I totally botched where I heard it from...thanks for clearing it up!
Great post!!!!!!
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 8:58 pm by NLinStPaul (not verified)Great post Al. I really hope you'll consider putting it up at dkos.
Kill 'em with kindness
Submitted June 3, 2009 - 10:53 pm by bonkers (not verified)For years I've felt this is way to reduce "terrorism." It's breathtaking to see our President Barack Hussein Obama actually putting this strategy into action (although we can start bringing them home from Iraq/Afghan anyday now, buddy...).
A few years ago, "60 Minutes" ran a piece about some NYC Paramedics rushing to help villagers in the big Afghan earthquake. Even though the New Yorkers were greatly hurt by the Twin Towers attacks and the village was dominated by Taliban, by the end, after they all went to work saving babies, kids, and adults from the rubble, they were crying together and hugging one another.
Imagine this happening on a mass scale across the globe. We can do this RIGHT NOW for peanuts compared to what we're spending for the Iraq and Afghan Occupations. If any al-queda types come poking around these areas, I'd bet most of the locals would run them out of town for us
Watching Obama in Egypt
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:38 am by Alexa (not verified)I love this guy.
Great Speech!
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 5:57 am by Pamela Hilliard OwensI am sure that Al may do a post of the President's speech, but, yes it was AWESOME!
Because half of my extended family is Muslim and I have a wonderful group of Muslim Arabic students (not all Arabs are Muslim), I heard many small details in his speech and his knowledge of Islam and his pronounciation that were very important.
My phone's ringing again...it's my student from Qatar...
I'll wait for Al's brilliant discussion of the speech...
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
The speech
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 6:20 am by Laura M. PoyneerAl, I gotta give it to ya
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 10:17 am by Connie (not verified)As a proud 'Republican for Obama' I gotta say I love reading your blogs- you're one of the few voices of sanity in the blogosphere.
I've haven't been this excited or proud of a president since Reagan. And I'm disappointed with how he's treated by both the right AND left. IMO President Obama is probably the most progressive president I've seen in my lifetime which is why my jaw drops when I go on the HuffPo and see him being referred to as 'GOP-lite'. I dunno perhaps President Obama is (at heart) a 'Rockefeller Republican', but there's nothing wrong with that.
President Obama just keeps on shinin' :)
It's a great day for America!
Is Hannity giving us an opportunity
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 11:01 am by Jeff Larson (not logged in) (not verified)I assume everyone has seen Hannity's latest excursion into his unmedicated side. My question Al, is that since this appears to be so stupid on his part, does it give us a chance to organize against Fox in any effective way? Or do we still need loonies like Hannity and his other buddies at Fox to help continue marginalizing the wackiest of the right?
@Pam
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 11:04 am by BR (not verified)Pam - it would be wonderful to hear a bit of what your students and family thought of Obama's speech. :)
Also, it appears the usual folks on the "left" are at it again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/let-women-wear-the-hijab_b_2112...
Despite the fact that their track record is so very poor:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=22141
@ Laura
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 1:44 pm by Elisabeth (not verified)But Liz Cheney was on my tv telling me that Obama's mention of the headscarf was "troubling." She said the whole issue was too nuanced and probably did not go over well with the Muslim women in the audience because there is great debate of the issue and that he shouldn't have waded into it.
Ms. Cheney also said that Obama should have focused instead on all the wonderful things Muslim women have done in the last several years (no doubt because of her father's, oops President Bush's, actions).
Peter Daou: "The Cooler"
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:21 pm by Al GiordanoBR - Peter Daou consistently offers a kind of reverse litmus test. In Las Vegas, he would be called a "cooler": If he makes a claim about political strategy or tactics, you can make good money betting on the opposite of whatever he says.
Essentially, he's asking, no, demanding, that the President add words of challenging indignation to the very leaders (I likened them to "ward bosses" yesterday) who he sought to neutralize with his more carefully chosen words today. And for what purpose? A typically ham-handed American gesture about "right and wrong," which, if anything, would have only provoked a backlash against women in the Islamic world, with even more persecution and violence against them. Not inconsiderably, it would have also erased the goodwill created by today's speech.
But here's where Daou is just a village idiot of the blogosphere: He can't even see what the President did today to embolden and empower pro-democratic and feminist and pro-human rights youth movements in those countries! Daou is blind to that because he hasn't got a frickin' clue as to how movements operate or how change is made.
Coming from the guy who single-handedly assured - through his own incompetence and ineptitude at the political game - that Senator Clinton's presidential campaign would get swamped on the Internet and among small donors by the upstart challenger, it's a wonder that anybody listens to the guy at all. I'm not really sure that anybody does, frankly.
@Elisabeth
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 3:43 pm by Laura M. PoyneerI would hardly take Liz Cheney as an authority on anything, let alone the Muslim world or what is best to say about Islam or Muslims!
The issue that Obama addressed was not whether Muslim women should wear the hijab (headscarf) but whether they should be allowed to do so by others when they make that choice. He referenced the case of Nashala Hearn (now featured on the White House blog), a school girl in Oklahoma who wished to wear the hijab to school but the school prohibited her from doing so. This is a basic issue of freedom of religion and of expression and countries where there are restrictions on this practice (such as France and Turkey) are countries that are not completely free. I don't know about you, but I don't want my government telling me how I should dress, whether it is requiring me to wear something or prohibiting me from something!
Whether or not a particular Muslim thinks women should wear the scarf, in my experience most Muslims agree that she should not be prohibited from doing so if she wants. Obama got applause every time he mentioned this, and I think it will have gone over very well with most Muslims.
@ Laura
Submitted June 4, 2009 - 4:45 pm by Elisabeth (not verified)I wish that woman would stay off my tv but I was a bit curious as to why she'd say. No surprises, either. (I wouldn't take her word if she said the sky was blue and I could feel the rays of the sun.)
Post new comment