Joe Lieberman, the former Connecticut senator and vice-presidential candidate, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week that the world was suffering due to a lack of American leadership. Lieberman, who identified as a Democrat for most of his political career, did not call President Obama out by name. But in his critique of the world stage, he certainly left little doubt as to what he thinks about the current administration.
“The simple fact is that there is more instability in the world today than at any time since the end of World War II,” Lieberman wrote. “The threats come from emboldened expansionist powers such as Iran, Russia and China, and also terrorist aggressors such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. In short, the enemies of freedom are on the march.”
Lieberman said that this era of instability was only worsened by American inaction. “At the same time, the United States — which assumed global leadership after World War II to protect our domestic security, prosperity and freedom — has chosen this moment to become more passive in the world.”
The former senator has been a harsh critic of Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal, but seldom has he slammed this president’s foreign policy with this much enthusiasm. In his piece, he takes issue with the president’s failure to stand up to Vladimir Putin, Iran, and Syria’s Assad.
“In too many places in recent years,” he wrote, “the United States has treated its adversaries as essential partners to be courted, while dismissing or denigrating its historic allies and partners as inconveniences or obstacles to peace.”
Lieberman concluded by calling on voters to elect a president who would have a firmer understanding of America’s proper place in the world.
We can probably guess that he’s not feeling the Bern, and his disdain for Obama’s policies would seemingly disqualify Hillary Clinton as well. Would Lieberman support a Republican? It’s possible; he endorsed John McCain in 2008 over Obama.
Lieberman’s personal loyalties notwithstanding, it’s hard to find fault with his opinion on America’s current standing in the world. President Obama has gleefully allowed the Middle East to burn under his watch, and he has failed to take any meaningful stance against Putin. He’s too involved to be deemed an isolationist and he’s too timid to be called an interventionist. He’s just…there. And that’s dangerous.
But to a growing number of liberals, Obama’s thinking on foreign policy is the right one. The left wants America to become subservient to the rest of the world, except as it pertains to fluff like climate change. What they don’t seem to realize is that the rest of the world depends on a strong, involved U.S. That doesn’t mean we have to invade every country run by a dictator, but we do need a president who recognizes America’s role as a potent, irreplaceable military force.