"Senator Obama Could Well Become Our First Planetary President."

I recently received an e-mail from a beloved former graduate school professor of mine (and thesis adviser) who has played an instrumental role in how I think about matters of public policy in general, and international relations in particular.  The e-mail came with an attachment to an op-ed that my former professor, Dr. Philip Bom, has penned on what an Obama administration would mean for U.S. sovereignty and America's role in the world.  I'm am posting Dr. Bom's article below:

Planetary President Obama
Philip C. Bom

Senator Obama could well become our first planetary president.

Traditional bipartisan US foreign policy has been one of collective international security of independent nation states. In other words, nations cooperate together as independent countries to maintain international peace. This is in direct contrast to the world-order concept of “common security.”

Candidate Obama heralds change and hope, but his ideological message reads like a “copy and paste” from documents written by socialists of the past century. He presents himself as a new politician but has adopted an old “world order” agenda. Obama’s policies will certainly produce change—but a fundamental change which will shock most Americans.
 
The Democratic Party’s platform (authored by Senator Obama’s policy director) reads like a planetary manifesto for a new global order.

Senator Obama himself has said he seeks to provide “a world that stands as one” with “global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity” (Berlin speech and Foreign Affairs article, July/August 2007, FA). As president, Obama promises to “strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity.”

Obama adopts the old framework of international socialists. He jettisons the traditional meaning of security and adopts the view of democracy as social economic democracy. In his writings and speeches, Obama consistently calls for “building just, secure, democratic societies (FA).”

Senator Obama ties the concept of national security to global poverty. In the FA article, Obama claims that “the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.” He has the audacity to proclaim: “Like it or not, if we want to make America more secure, we are going to have to help make the world more secure” (AH, 304). For him, global security means eliminating world poverty.

According to the 1995 Commission on Global Governance (CGG), “…the security of people must be regarded as a goal as important as the security of states.”  In addition, “The primary goals of global security should be … the security of people and the planet.” The Democratic Party platform adopts this definition of national security (encompassing environmental security). The platform proudly promotes “Protecting our Security and Saving our Planet” as if they are one and the same. “We understand that climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern—this is a national security crisis.” 

Yet, while Obama promises to protect the American people, how often does he promise to protect the USA as an independent nation state? Following the ideology of CGG, he blurs the distinction between our national homeland and “our human homeland.” 

As noted, however, Obama’s political ideas are hardly novel. Concepts and phrases (e.g. common humanity; common security; one world; economic security) in his speeches and in the platform can be found in the agendas of international socialists like the late Willy Brandt and Olof Palme. Even Obama’s words of “change” and “hope” date back to 1981.

In the 1980 Commission on International Development Issues report, Chairman Brandt made “a plea for change.”  He yearned for a new generation that would “liberate people from outworn ideas, from the grip of narrowly conceived national interests and from the passions and prejudices inherited from the past. A new international economic order will need men and women with a new mentality and wider outlook to make it work….”  In his nomination speech, Obama agrees with Brandt on the “need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past.”

Going back even further, the 1974 Charter for a New International Economic Order sought to establish a “just and equitable economic and social order” and promoted “economic security for development, in particular of the developing countries.” A few years later, Brandt advocated “steps along the path to what could genuinely be called a society of nations, a new world order” based on international economic justice (redistribution of wealth and power among all nations).  Note the similarity with Obama’s words: “sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.”

Brandt believed that world politics should move beyond an UN organization of nation states “towards a genuine society of nations.” In addition, the 1975 Human Manifesto rejected the principle of independent nation states and pledged to place “the human interest above the national interest, and human sovereignty above national sovereignty.” This is exactly what Obama has done in his emphasis on defending the American people (versus defending the USA as an independent nation state).

National security was redefined decades ago. The late international socialist, Olof Palme, (Chairman of the Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues) advanced a new definition. “The security – even the existence – of the nations of the world is interdependent.”  The report elaborated by stating “… that nations must come to understand that the maintenance of world peace must be given a higher priority than the assertion of their own ideological or political positions.”  “Common security requires that people live in dignity and peace, that they have enough to eat and are able to find work and live in a world without poverty and destitution.”

Brandt hoped that a future leader would arise from “among the young generations who will soon carry major political responsibility.” It seems that Obama may well be that New Leader for whom Brandt hoped.

Senator Clinton may be liberal Democrat, but the left-of-liberal Obama captured the Party nomination as a hero of hope and change. However, upon closer examination, his message of change and hope is anchored in old socialist doctrines. Obama launched his political career as a local community organizer. If elected, he will affirm his career as the great global community organizer—and will fulfill the dreams of world socialists like Brandt and Palme.

The great New Leader’s “heart is filled with love for this country” (AH, 362).  On the other hand, his political head is filled with love for a new global order. He appears to be enthralled with dreams of global transformation through common security, economic security, and economic democracy—concepts foreign to traditional American international policy. He could very well be a good UN Secretary General, but to entrust him with American presidential leadership will be a bridge too far. If elected, it will mean the end of America’s political, military, and legal independence.

Philip C. Bom is a professor of International Politics at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA.

Anyone interested in reading more of Dr. Bom's keen insights into international relations should purchase his 1992 book entitled, "The Coming Century of Commonism:  The Beauty and the Beast of Global Governance."

Debate Wrap-Up

Just a few quick thoughts on last night's debate.

This debate was by far the best showing yet for Senator McCain.  He was appropriately aggressive, and contrary to what some of the pundits have concluded, I thought he landed some pretty good punches.  Fred Barnes seemed to think, for instance, that McCain missed an opportunity on the abortion issue by neglecting to mention Senator Obama's support for the Freedom of Choice Act.  What McCain did do, though, was bring up Obama's opposition as an Illinois State Senator to the Born Alive Act as well as legislation banning partial birth abortions.  I thought that these two points were terrific.

The high-mark for Senator McCain, in my opinion, was when he boldly told Senator Obama that he (McCain) wasn't George Bush, and that if Senator Obama wanted to run against George Bush, he should have run four years ago.  It's about time that McCain challenged Obama on this point.  Conservatives like myself have long been critical of McCain because of his tendency to stray from the GOP reservation.  It's particularly galling to hear Senator Obama contend that somehow there's an equivalence between McCain and Bush.

The inadvertent (maybe) reference to Obama as "Senator Government" could potentially be a defining moment. 

Senator McCain did a fine job of drawing the critical liberal versus conservative distinction on taxes (Obama wants to spread the wealth), health care (federal mandates and fines), energy (Obama would "look at drilling") and free trade (Obama supports tariffs and more limited trade).

No one would dispute that Senator Obama is a superior debater.  Still, I believe that those watching the debate may have seen what I saw...an unsettling slippery quality usually associated with slick-talking salesmen.  McCain pointed this tendency out on a couple of occasions ("looking" at drilling and "health of the mother").  I can't guarantee that everyone viewed the debate the same way I did, but , more than on any other occasion, I thought that Senator Obama looked plainly evasive.  His propensity to bob and weave was very evident when challenged to repudiate the incendiary remarks of Congressmen John Lewis.  He talked around it prodigiously, but never issued a repudiation, even when challenged to do so a second time by Senator McCain.

I liked McCain's effort to tie Senator Obama to Acorn.  He needs to keep doing that, as the Acorn voter fraud story is so pernicious that it has broken through the MSM protective filter.

I watched the Frank Luntz focus group of "undecided" Florida voters after the debate.  While most of them thought that Obama had won the debate, one got the sense that they still weren't sold on either candidate.  In fact, the first person interviewed plainly stated that, while he thinks Obama won the debate, he wasn't going to be voting for him because he just doesn't trust him.  Some of the others who thought Obama won the debate, when asked for their thoughts on what they watched, complimented Senator McCain for making this or that point rather than talking about Senator Obama.

This reminded me of the GOP primaries.  As most of you know, I was a strong supporter of Governor Romney.  I was joined by pundits and focus group participants in my belief that Governor Romney won each of the debates.  Even so, the polls never seemed to move significantly in Romney's direction and McCain won the primary.  I think what this illustrates is the disconnect that exists between a good debate performance and how voters feel about a candidate.  Voters may award a debate victory to an articulate candidate on points, but still like the other guy better on election day.  Voting can often be more visceral than cerebral, and therein lies both the risk and the hope for McCain's candidacy.  Voters are presently feeling an anger about the economy that has them seemingly poised to vent their frustration by putting the new and untested candidate into the White House.  The ideal situation for Senator McCain is that undecided voters and independents have a deeply felt discomfort with Senator Obama that trumps their anger about the crumbling financial market.

Senator Obama is looking strong at the moment.  I think it's entirely possible, though, that undecided voters, if they choose to vote at all in large numbers, may walk into the voting booth and find that they can't pull the lever for Obama because, well, it just doesn't feel right.  There are too many questions and doubts involving Senator Obama.

The next three weeks will be critical.