OBAMA'S WORLD TOUR REAFFIRMS NEED FOR A CENTRIST OUTLOOK - Yahoo! News

OBAMA'S WORLD TOUR REAFFIRMS NEED FOR A CENTRIST OUTLOOK - Yahoo! News: "OBAMA'S WORLD TOUR REAFFIRMS NEED FOR A CENTRIST OUTLOOK" Georgie Anne Geyer on Mon Jul 28, 7:58 PM ET WASHINGTON -- Let's put aside the possible comparisons of Barack Obama on his foreign trip -- a true "tour de force," as one of the breathless headlines put it -- to Caesar marching down to Rome. We'll stop ourselves from calling him a modern-day Alexander the Great, Marco Polo or, merely, John F. Kennedy. But even without the hyperbole, we can say that the Democratic presumptive presidential candidate had a wildly successful trip. From making a basket in Kuwait with our troops, to dramatically posing for pictures before the Temple of Hercules outside Amman in Jordan, to giving a rousing speech before 200,000 Germans in Berlin, to having Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki effectively endorse his idea that the end of 2010 "would be an appropriate time for the withdrawal" of American troops, Obama's pluck made way for extraordinary luck. But there are some things about Obama's glorious romp through the world that might still be analyzed. First is the idea, repeated many times during and after the trip, that he may have been wasting his time traveling to Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Great Britain and speaking with 20-some leaders. Wouldn't he have done better at home? some analysts asked. Wasn't this too much time spent overseas? Shouldn't his attention have been focused on the economy, on the mortgage scandals, on our immigration problems? Here's the problem. On one hand, we want to think of ourselves as the "single superpower," the "indispensable nation," the inspiration for democracies across the world. On the other hand, somewhere deep inside us, we really don't want to be bothered by all this. That is why, one suspects, so many of us Americans are also confused when the world gets irked or angry with us. The word becomes the fact, and it is enough to proclaim our superiority, wish everyone "Adios" and go home for dinner. Think about it. Yet we have historically extended our hand to the world -- and our reign. We have chosen to have 4,000-plus Americans dead in Iraq -- a country most Americans, polls have shown, can't identify on the map. It is we who have an economy in hock to China, and we have created and supported the great international institutions that reach across the world. In saying this, I do not forget the role of my own beloved profession, print journalism. For either we bring the knowledge of other countries, cultures and worlds to our people -- or no one does. And more and more, it looks as if no one does. In a recent survey by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, nearly two-thirds of the 259 papers surveyed had cut back on space for foreign news at a time when America is fighting two wars and is more intimately involved in the world than ever before. Great papers such as The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Baltimore Sun have closed their remaining overseas bureaus, and a mere 10 percent of the papers' editors think foreign news is essential. The decline is virtually across the board, and no one seems to be asking: How can America go on being an international power when it knows so little about the world it seeks to rule? Grouchy answer to the first question: No, he would not have been better off at home. The second question that constantly comes up about Obama and his tour is whether he is capable of being commander in chief and whether he has the experience to lead America in the world. (The fact that this question contradicts the logic of the first one must simply be left to hang out there, unanswered and unaddressed.) He is out there GETTING the experience and, in fact, his knowledge about the world is quite sophisticated. One has to wonder how those who doubt HIS experience can dare to bring up the question when the theatrically inexperienced group around George W. has delivered our country to so many failures in the world and to such disdain. Now, while no one should reject true and polished experience, it is also not raw or unpolished experience that is primary. It is knowledge about ourselves and about the world, plus judgment based on history, philosophy and American political and moral principles, that is essential. Answer to question two: Obvious! Finally, it seems to me that the presumptive Democratic candidate, although the word "change" has become his byword, is not so much offering us change (except in the sense of a change from the Bush administration). He is offering us a return to what we historically have been. As was shown on this trip, this man is a classic moderate, rooted in the more traditionally, if unevenly, centrist positions of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy or even Richard Nixon. In fact, we are coming out of the extremes. Bill Clinton was far to the multicultural left, even within the Democratic Party; George Bush is far to the neoconservative right, even within the Republican Party. We need to get centrist again.