Obama speech thinks local, acts global

Some 47 percent of Americans believe the U.S. is less safe now than it was before the attacks of September 11, 2001, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. That’s up from 28 percent just last year (and, interestingly, the number was just 20 percent one year after the attacks, in 2002). Just 26 percent say the country is safer now than 13 years ago.

As to why, pollsters point to IS, and specifically to the Islamic State’s broadcast beheadings of two American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

A “whopping 94 percent of Americans say they have heard about the news of the beheaded journalists — higher than any other news event the NBC/WSJ poll has measured over the past five years.” That’s at least 15 percent higher awareness than the 2011 debt ceiling debate, the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Syria’s use of chemical weapons in 2013 or Oklahoma’s grisly 43-minute execution in April.

A new CNN/ORC International survey shows 53 percent of Americans think it likely the U.S. will be hit by acts of terrorism around the 9/11 anniversary, up from 39 percent in 2011, the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

Pair those numbers with the 61 percent who now favor military action against IS, up from the mere 21 percent that favored military action against Syria’s government a year ago, when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was reported to have used chemical weapons on his own people.

Throw in the all-time low of 32 percent who now say they approve of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, the 18-point advantage now held by Republicans on the question of which party best deals with foreign affairs (up from a 7-point spread a year ago) and 38-percent edge the GOP has on who’s stronger on national defense (a 10-year high), and it seems all too clear: The president had to act ...

... to help Democrats ...

... before the November midterm elections.

How else to explain the whole of this speech? Not just the timing, not just the four points of sameness, but almost the entire last three minutes of the address. In fact, the repeated references to what seemingly half the Twitter-verse typified as “American Exceptionalism” not only served to alienate a broader audience, it thoroughly muddied the foreign policy message.

There were no mentions of the politically hot country of Iran, even though Iran will play a major role in any moves against IS, and even though it should be seen as a diplomatic success that the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has publicly agreed to co-operate with the U.S. in this fight.

But there were multiple references to Somalia and Yemen, two countries where the U.S. is waging mostly remote-controlled counter-terror operations with dubious results and a limitless timetable.

And there were multiple references to the formation of a new government in Iraq, as if this were an event Americans recognize as a triumph, and as if this were something universally recognized as fully realized or particularly different from the past regime.

And then there was all of this:

“Next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression,” Obama remarked, without so much as batting an eye at the seeming non sequitur. “Yet despite these shocks; through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back — America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.”

The president continued, “Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history.” And Obama went on, “Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day — and that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future.”

“Seize the future?” Unmatched universities? Thriving auto industries? Job creation? “Grit, determination and common goodness?”

There is actually more, tossing in Ebola, Russian “aggression” and Ukraine tensions, and looping back to “the fight against terrorism” before heading for the big finish with the Kipling-esque “America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden.”

It is wonder the White House camera crew didn’t drown out the president with chants of “U.S.A., U.S.A.”

It would be nice to take away from this that the president sought to remind the American people that the country’s strength really lies in what is called “soft power” — the influence and effect of a robust economy and a positive popular culture — but if that was the case, Obama buried the lede. The “four-point plan” was not about any of this feel good, rah-rah stuff.

What the plan was about, to any Americans who happened to listen, was to “degrade, and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State through a sustained (read: open-ended) counter-terrorism campaign. After all, the president quite literally called that the “objective.”

But what the speech was about may have been as counterproductive to Obama’s election-season goals as previous counter-terrorism moves have been against the variety of incarnations of regional non-state enemies.

Americans don’t usually vote on national security issues because Americans don’t usually think about international affairs. The only hope for politicians who want to make problems beyond U.S. borders big campaign issues is to drown out domestic concerns with fevered talk and fervent threats.

That was clearly the intent of the scaremongering digital ad campaign launched today by John Bolton’s super-PAC. The ad, targeted at seven states with contested Senate races, crosscuts between violent mob scenes and pictures of Obama, imploring viewers to “Vote as if your life depended on it.” Bolton has eyes on a 2016 presidential run and knows he doesn’t have much to brag about when it comes to, say, job creation or women’s issues.

In that way, Bolton finds himself in the same boat as most Republican candidates this election cycle. A campaign about foreign policy is all many could wish for. It is not a stump speech most Democrats are looking to make, however.

Which is why Obama’s Wednesday speech should stump communications consultants and electoral handicappers on both sides of the aisle. Asserting the primacy of a foreign threat, but doing so in a campaign-like context, and with a muddy rallying cry, seems like the perfect way to get Americans to forget their hopes and vote their fears.

And for a Democratic Party lead by a Commander-in-Chief that once branded his entire presidential run with “hope,” that’s a reason to be very, very afraid.