You know, maybe it’s just me being a fuzzy-headed liburul, but I simply don’t understand the right-wing freakout over Barack Obama (gasp!)shaking Hugo Chávez’s hand! (Dun dun DUNNNNNNNN).
Don’t get me wrong — Hugo Chávez is a Fidel Castro wannabe, and he’s rapidly moving from barely-democratic leader to authoritarian despot. Of course, that doesn’t distinguish him much from, say, Vladimir Putin. ((Not that Vladimir Putin is pulling the strings in Russia now. I mean, clearly Dmitri Medvedev is his own man. Also, I hear Siberia is balmy in mid-January.)) And it makes him quite superior to our frienemies in China, not to mention everyone’s buddies in Saudi Arabia. (Indeed, while Chávez is autocratic and anti-liberty, I haven’t heard that Venezuela is engaged in torture; in that respect, at least, he’s a more ethical leader than George W. Bush.)
But…so what? Was Obama supposed to greet him with a roundhouse kick to the head? Should he have reached out his hand, but ostentatiously pulled it back and run it through his hair? Should he have given Chávez the stinkpalm?
Well, sure, he could have done that. If he was a bully.
America is far more powerful than any other country on Earth, and arguably more powerful than every other country on Earth combined. And we could leverage that power in each and every meeting with each and every leader we run into. We could try to manipulate the world like an eighth grade classroom, with us at the apex, our friends forming a ring around us, and the outcasts beaten and bloodied. That was the Bush fils approach to foreign policy, and it might make you feel better, just as a bully feels better when he’s on top.
But glory for a bully is transitory; eventually, the rest of the class moves on from eighth grade, into a more adult world. And the bully can either grow up, and deal with others like an adult does, or he can flail about as others work together and leave him behind.
Barack Obama dealt with Hugo Chávez like an adult. He shook his hand, was polite, listened respectfully despite disagreements, and generally behaved like we expect people older than 22 to behave. We expect customer service workers to greet angry customers politely; why would we expect less out of the leader of the free world?
Will Obama’s adult approach empower Chávez? I doubt it sincerely. And frankly, so what if it does? America has nothing to fear from Venezuela. Besides, the bully approach hasn’t worked so far — Chávez has built his power base in no small part because he was able to rally domestic constituencies against the evil of the United States. If the U.S. is a bit less overtly evil, it undermines Chávez’s raison d’être.
Ultimately, America only needs to shun other nations if it fears engaging them. But there’s not a country on the planet we really need to fear right now. A confident America doesn’t treat other nations like dirt; it treats them like equals. That doesn’t mean capitulating to their every whim — but it does mean that when another leader reaches out his or her hand, you take it.
Realised I was misconstruing what you said, so I deleted by comment.
Sorry.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Obama “bows to the Saudi King and is friends with Venezuela” and claimed the President showed “shallowness” in talking with Chavez. Gingrich then claimed that U.S. presidents do not “smile and greet” with Russian leaders. And remember, you can believe Gingrich; he’s a former history professor!
I think it’s naive to so underplay the effects of body language on personal judgments and perceptions of power. Demonstrations of respect on greeting, such as a slight bow over the hand or simply shaking the hand vigorously rather than reluctantly, can be and often are influential data that varies by culture. When world leaders meet, surely they eagerly examine any minute indicia of the character and mood of their fellow leaders to aid the building of a mental model to predict future behavior; it makes sense, then, to make less-than-casual decisions about seemingly superficial habits of standing, hand-grasping, and facial expression.
We do make snap judgments on first impressions. Why give up that advantage?
I suppose we all do. But I suspect that different people may observe the same body language and draw different judgments.
In other contexts I’ve discussed my theory of cultural distinctions. People from an honor-based culture prize ostentation and swagger, and regard those who don’t swagger as lacking in merit; people from a dignity culture prize confidence and self-control, and regard those who swagger as lacking these qualities. On the other hand, some research has suggested that political perspective is not primarily a matter of culture, but a biological reflex. People who demonstrate heightened anxiety to stimuli are more likely to self-identify as conservative; people who demonstrate less anxiety tend to self-identify as liberal.
I tend to self-identify as liberal. Whether as a result of my biology, my culture, or my position living at the other side of the world, I regarded Saddam Hessian’s style of speech – “mother of all wars,” etc. – as laughably vitriolic; it suggested to me a man who was reaching the end of his rope, or was unbalanced under any circumstance. But I understand that many people regarded his speeches as powerful.
Similarly, I regarded Reagan’s “evil empire” talk about the Soviet Union as cheap, cringe-worthy moralizing, the kind of weak gesture you make when you realize that you have no influence to lose. The fact that many conservative Americans found it inspiring did not alter my views. But I’ve heard that dissidents and dissident sympathizers within the Soviet Union were also gratified. These were people who, unlike my neighbors, had every reason to fear the Soviet Union. If Reagan’s words provided them with solace, well, I guess I could endure a little cringing; I wasn’t really the audience for those words.
When I see Obama being friendly with other heads of state, I see a man who demonstrates sufficient confidence and self-control that he doesn’t feel the need to act defensively or to make an ostentatious display. But perhaps if Chavez triggered anxiety in me, I’d crave some kind of alpha displays of triumphalism by him, signally to me that all other leaders are subordinate and therefore unthreatening.
Anyway, I agree that all of life is a negotiation, and that we’re constantly on stage. But then I think of the video of Bush holding hands with and kissing the Saudi prince. In any context in which we speak to a broad, international audience, I question how well any of us could conform our behavior to meet the expectations of everyone.
I have no problem with our President shaking the hand of the President of Venezuela as a greeting. What was he supposed to do – go tell him to take a hike? It’s a standard greeting, it doesn’t mean you approve of the man’s words or actions.
OTOH, bowing to a King is not a standard greeting by the President of the United States. He should not have done it and should have known this.
As far as holding hands and kissing a Saudi Prince, from what I read on the Milblogs by people who are serving in the Middle East, this is a pretty standard greeting or action between males of equal status there. I don’t have time to pull up a link for citation, but it’s been remarked on by more than one of them as something they found quite different that from here in the U.S. I’ve also seen a picture of it with an accompanying comment about how common it is in National Geographic.
Hugo Chávez is a Fidel Castro wannabe
Oh, I think Hugo Chavez’s ambitions far outstrip Fidel’s accomplishments.
I’m trying to imagine what the people complaining about this think Obama should have done. It’s one thing to disagree with what Chavez is doing, but to publicly snub the leader of another country? Um, why would this be a great idea exactly?
But no, Presidents should not be bowing to the Kings of other countries unless it’s a culture in which everyone bows to each other, which Saudi is not.