Okay class, what is wrong with the logic used here. What’s going on is our new President using the Everything’s-a-meetin’ brand of diplomacy to get something done…or undone…I’m really not sure what and I don’t think anybody in the administration knows, either…with Venezuela’s boss, Hugo Chávez. James P. Rubin wrote a column defending it — so what exactly is wrong with Rubin’s logic. That’s your assignment. Hint: Think “back-to-basics.” Plans versus goals.

Despite the results of November’s election, Mr. Obama’s critics are judging him on the basis of the old Bush calculus. Whether it is Venezuela or Cuba, they assess Mr. Obama’s actions based on whether or not they immediately contribute to the downfall of a regime. If not, then they go off in high dudgeon.

Worse yet, Mr. Obama’s critics are using the same logic that contributed to early failures in Iraq. They say the president’s politeness to Hugo Chávez, for example, should be judged by the standards of the Cold War. They point to the fact that dissidents in Eastern Europe were heartened when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire.” But that truth doesn’t always translate to other parts of the world. If Iraq has taught us anything, it is that not all countries respond the same way when a dictator falls. Unfortunately, many heirs to the Reagan tradition haven’t learned that policy by analogy is a risky business.
:
If the president’s critics continue to judge him by Bush-era standards of diplomacy and regime change, they are going to have a lot to shout about over the next four years. But the majority of Americans who supported Barack Obama will withhold judgment and give the administration the opportunity to implement its initiatives on climate change, nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan and Iran. They may even give the new policies time to work.

First of all, there is the question of time. It is used here, consistently, and as nothing but, an agent for implementing Obama apologetics. Let us borrow, here, a page from Tom McMahon’s 4-block world. Imagine a matrix of four blocks arranged two-by-two: President Bush succeeds, President Bush fails, President Obama succeeds and President Obama fails. James Rubin’s recognition of time, then, is consistently implemented in the following way…

If President Bush has succeeded at something, it will take time to recognize all the ramifications.

If President Bush failed at something, the verdict is IN!

If President Obama has done something that might lead to success, we can go ahead and declare victory right away.

If President Obama failed at something, you’re being premature, reckless, and a bit of an oaf by pointing it out at this early date. Give him a chance fer cryin’ out loud.

Another issue raised with regard to time, is this notion that there are “eras” and “chapters” in diplomacy. This is a very silly notion, considering that even today the wise diplomat finds it prudent to quote from Aristotle, Machiavelli, Cicero…et al. This “old Bush calculus” said the imprimatur of the United States should not be lent to the likes of Chavez and other thugs, because they’ll use it as a prop to achieve their goals, and their goals are inimical to us. What is Rubin’s response to this, exactly — that Chavez is not an enemy once you get to really know the guy? Or, rather, that the photo-op with the current United States President is of insignificant value to him? Perhaps both? But neither supposition is meritorious enough to be tangibly fastened to Rubin’s good name — he won’t come out and spell out either one.

This is the trouble with Barack Obama. It seems, to even defend his new policies, necessitates a rather vicious assault upon logic and common sense; there is a wedge driven rather cleanly between the desired outcome of a plan, and a plan itself.

This is measurable. Easily. Imagine yet another four-block matrix, with Bush-era logic on the top, current logic on the bottom, desired outcomes in the left column and implementation plans in the right column:

Top row: Regime change in Iraq…is achieved by…getting that s.o.b. out of there. With our 2009 wisdom, we look back on that and say, that there didn’t work…was stupid…was a failure. Although the objective was completed. Certainly, it worked a lot better than disarming North Korea in the ’90s, or getting the hostages back from Iran in the early ’80s. And, a cool, dispassionate, reasonable mind with a robust command of the historical record, would have to nurture some strong doubts that any other method ever would’ve or could’ve worked.

Bottom row: Stronger United States economy…is achieved by…unprecedented, extravagant deficit spending. That’s supposed to be “smart” — and solely because of the identity of the idea’s author. Nobody can even explain how it has a greater-than-50-50 chance of working. Simply spelling out what exactly is to be achieved, and placing it in juxtaposition with a summary of how we’re going about doing it, is sufficient to deal it a devastating rhetorical blow. Not my idea of a great plan. Sorry.

But I’m in the minority today. This is the logic by which it seems to be a swell idea to send our leader down to pal around with Chávez. With this kind of modern logic, we really shouldn’t expect success, though, without somewhere along the line fundamentally re-defining what it is we’re trying to do. Because this logic demands that we try to do something, we don’t really try to do it. In sum, it really isn’t logic at all. Simply keeping in mind, as the project is underway, what you had hoped to accomplish at its inception — is coloring outside the lines. So this modern logic is really nothing more than raw emotion when all’s said and done. It is a strange and surreal form of anti-logic.

To make this look like a cool idea, that’s the style of thinking you must embrace. Everything is judged by a current and instantaneous emotional state, history always began this morning, and if we ever knew what it is we were trying to achieve here, we forgot it a few minutes ago. Kumbaya.