[quetzalcoatl]

David Bromwich, in a rather discursive review of David Maraniss’s biography of Obama’s first 27 years (Barack Obama: The Making of the Man), makes an interesting link of certain Obama character traits to those of Woodrow Wilson.

Quoting Keynes on the subject of Wilson:

"The president was not a hero or a prophet; he was not even a philosopher; but a generously intentioned man, with many of the weaknesses of other human beings, and lacking that dominating intellectual equipment which would have been necessary to cope with the subtle and dangerous spellbinders whom a tremendous clash of forces and personalities had brought to the top as triumphant masters in the swift game of give and take, face to face in council – a game of which he had no experience at all … It was commonly believed at the commencement of [the negotiations] that the president had thought out, with the aid of a large body of advisers, a comprehensive scheme … But in fact the president had thought out nothing; when it came to practice his ideas were nebulous and incomplete. He had no plan, no scheme, no constructive ideas whatever for clothing with the flesh of life the commandments which he had thundered from the White House."

Bromwich on Obama:

"Obama has a harder time than any sane politician I have ever heard in admitting that his words are only words. He told a teacher once that words were the most dangerous power in the world; he seems to have meant they were the most powerful things. But to speak words that carry a distinct meaning on certain subjects, and then not to back them by deeds, is weaker than saying nothing."

Wilson's incompetence played into the failure of the League of Nations, the destructive reparations levied against Germany, and the European holocaust. Wilson was hardly alone in this failure, but alone among world leaders he had a chance to make a positive difference and failed to seize it.

Obama's incompetence is a failure to recognize the historical turning point the US faces, as the last act of US debt ratchet capitalism plays itself out.


Bromwich, D., 2012. Diary. London Review of Books [Online] vol. 34 no. 13 pp. 42-43. Available from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n13/david-bromwich/diary [Accessed 2 July 2012].

[Daktoria]

Yep. He's almost as bad as Jimmy Carter too.

The only difference is he didn't screw up Libya whereas Carter screwed up Iran. Here's hoping Syria doesn't get out of control too fast.

[Far-Right Sage]

He didn't screw up Libya when Tripoli airport was under siege the other week by the Zintan brigades and murder and mayhem is a daily fact of life in almost every town and village?

Also, his connection to Woodrow Wilson would explain my distaste for him, as if there was one commander-in-chief I have always despised with the greatest passion, it is that renegade sicko.

[pugsville]

Trite, insubstantial analysis of both men that plays to popular misconceptions.

Wilson failure was to not reach out to republicans before the peace conference, the republicans were in many ways willing to work with Wilson and not philosophically indisposed to much of what he was working on. But reparations were not a direct cause of the misfortunes of the 1930s or was Wilson responsible for the failure of the League of Nations. The big reparations bill to Germany could only have been prevented by either addressing the Inter-Allied debt (the US demands for repayments drove much of the reparations) or annexation of the west bank of the Rhine (French security concerns) .

The Reparations actually paid by Germany were small and much less than loans received. While there was much propaganda about reparations by the Nazis it was not a cause of Holocaust or living standards of Germans in the interwar period. The right in Germany was never reconciled to the Wiemar republic.

The League of Nations failed in the 1930 from the failings of political leaders in the west to take firm actions against aggression. Notably Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Ethiopia both of which could have been brought to heel with firm action (trade sanctions would have severe effects on both economies. It was not Wilson he was responsible for these failings. He could have brought the US into the League if he was a more inclusive dealing with the republicans, but it's doubtful that US leaders would have put collective security before economics in the 1930s.

US Loan repayments were (IMHO) a driver of some of the economic problems in the 1920s/30s. The US became very rich and the tariffs really prevented any sensible repayments, driving an imbalance of trade that prevented Europe from earning US dollars to repay the loans. The virtually wealth built up in the US, leading to overheating and house of paper investments (rather than real productive investments) . A more sensible view of repayments would have seen a better recovery in Europe, better trade with the US. The Whole false economies of reparations from Germany gping to allies, going to the US load repayments, all founded by loans to Germany.