Hendrik "Rik" Hertzberg, last seen around these parts burbling about President Obama's "metaphorical call to duty" and "redefinition of patriotism" in the face of that dreaded "strain of ideological conservatism that wields market fundamentalism as a sword and cultural populism as a shield," is back at his New Yorker "Comment" perch declaring that every recent positive bit of news out of the Middle East just might be the result of Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo.
The words of an American President, even one from Chicago, were not necessarily foremost in the minds of the Shiites, Sunnis, Druze, and Christians of many theological varieties and political persuasions who lined up to cast their ballots and dip their thumbs in ink. But most analysts…agreed that Obama's speech, and the carefully constructed edifice of public diplomacy of which it was the keystone, was a factor in the outcome.
Meanwhile, as this was being written, a joyfully energized electorate was awaiting the results of a vigorously contested election for President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. No matter who wins—the jingoist-populist-obscurantist incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or his comparatively moderate main opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi—ultimate power will continue to rest with the "supreme leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his council of unaccountable theocrats, who kept liberal challengers off the ballot. But Iran is not a completely closed society. Change is in the Tehran air, and the American President's openness is part of it.
This is one of many reasons why my eyes tend to glaze over when New York- or D.C.-based commentators write with confidence about events in the Middle East. Apparently the greater the distance, the easier it is to just ditch the whole correlation/causation stuff, throw in a couple of "to-be-sure"s, then carry on to the conclusion that the policy and/or politician you support is creating whatever positive "effect" is currently taking place (you'll note that the headline on Hertzberg's piece is "The Obama Effect"). It was the same when Libya abandoned its nuclear weapons program back in 2003, and it would have been the same if this week's remarkable events in Tehran had happened in 2008 instead of 2009. I say this as someone who (so far) prefers Obama's Middle East approach to that of either his predecessor or challenger.
Aside from inducing fatigue, this all-too-routine confirmation bias (evident in just about all sides of every foreign policy debate) has the unfortunate side effect of reinforcing the narcissistic, practically imperialistic and only occasionally half-accurate notion that every notable event in a faraway land is at least the indirect result of Washington policy. Sometimes it really ain't about us.
More scenes from inside Hertzberg's tank, this time illustrating almost perfectly how it really is the singer, not the song:
The Cairo address had the qualities we have come to expect from Obama's best speeches: empathy, frankness, respect for his listeners' intelligence. This time, he had an inherited advantage. Many of the words and phrases he used would have sounded strained and pandering coming from any other Western leader, ever. But Barack Hussein Obama's personal history drained the condescension from his recitation of the contributions of Islam to world civilization and of Muslims to American life. He sprinkled markers of respect: Islam was "revealed"; a mention of Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad was followed, as in Islamic custom, by "peace be upon them"; the Koran was "the Holy Koran," as holy as the Holy Bible.
