Why the Obama Bow Matters

Why spend so much time discussing Obama’s bow to Japan’s Emperor?  Aren’t there more important things to be talking about than what he did?  If we look back to the 18th Century we find a book titled the “Hagakure.”  This book is a code for the Way of the Samurai.  The part of this book we should notice is this:

Among the maxims on Lord Naoshige’s wall there was this one: ”Matters of’ great concern should be treated lightly.” Master lttei commented, “Matters of small concern should be treated seriously.”

Let us reflect upon this for a moment.  One would say the “economy” is a matter of great concern and Obama’s bow is a matter of small concern.  However, looking at another quote, this time from Homer in his master work The Odyssey we find this:

“You’ll come to learn a great deal if you study the Insignificant in depth.”

Why does a man bow?  If it is a little bow, as is customary in Japan when two people meet, it is a sign of respect for the other person.  However… both people bow.  When one person bows to another it is not a sign of mutual respect it is a sign of subservience to the other.  Thus, a peasant would bow to his feudal lord or a subject would bow to his king.  When a world leader bows to another he or she is saying: My nation is subservient to your nation.  Diplomacy is about signs and their significance thus Obama sent one of two (possibly both) signs:

My nation is subservient to your nation.

I don’t understand diplomatic protocol.

Either one is disasterous.

Much has been made about Obama’s views of himself, other cultures, and his views of the United States.  Perhaps because Obama has very little foreign policy experience he decided to bow to the Emporer of Japan (having previously bowed to the Saudis).  This may be the case however Obama should feel inside himself that the United States will not be subservient to any other nation!  Working with other nations, drawing treaties up with other nations, coordinating efforts with other nations… fine… but subservient to other nations?  Never.

I found this from an interesting blog, PowerLine:

Douglas MacArthur is pictured with Emperor Hirohito.

MacArthur was a faithful representative of the only country in history founded on the proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When MacArthur stood beside the Emperor, he subordinated himself to his country. MacArthur not only believed in the proposition that all men are created equal, he sought to teach it to others. Japan was a case in point.

Thus the “little things” with Obama become a metaphor for the “bigger things” like the economy, defense, national policy, etc…  Time and time again in Obama’s presidency he shows a willingness to subjugate the United States to the political wills of other nations thus he did not stand up to Russia on SDI (in the hopes of extracting “promises” to help with Iran which never came), he said he would not “interfere” in the affairs of other countries in reference to the Iranian protestors who were being shot yet he has told Israel he wants them to stop building settlements, etc…

The United States, though beset by fiscal problems, is still the biggest kid on the block and what we say (and do) matters.  Though our leadership is not as strong as it once was, it is still stronger than any other nation.  Countries which were our equals once (or hope to be our rivals in the future) are looking to get any advantage they can on us.  They are not looking for this advantage so they can be more just and fair than we are… they are seeking to impose their will upon the world.  If they get their way, the “world” will not be as happy of a place as it is now.

The most successful tactic in negotiations when you are the stronger party is to extract concessions from whomever you are trying to reach agreement before you surrender anything.  What President Obama has done over and over again is to simply hand over all of his chips hoping this will somehow create “goodwill” and other countries will then just act against their best interests because Obama has been so open and giving.

This type of strategy is absurd and can only result in disaster for the United States.  Whether it is voluntarily tying our economy into so shadowy Cap and Trade scheme (which will not be borne equally by everybody) or tying to create some silly multi-polar approach towards foreign policy (Iran, North Korea, Iraq, etc…) which will only result in other countries defering a decision hoping the U.S. will take the lead, Obama has shown he does not understand how the real world works.

I find it ironic that when President George W. Bush strutted upon the aircraft carrier in a flight suit and stood underneath his “Mission Accomplished” banner Liberals grew very angry.  Why?  Because it was a sign as to how President Bush viewed the world:

America is better than everybody else.

And yet, when confronted with Obama’s bow Liberals see no problem.  They see “no problem” because they cringe at the thought that a president of the United States would dare send the message we will not be subservient to other nations.  We can debate the point forever whether it was a good idea to be sold bold in our message, however Liberals are contradicting themselves if they say signs don’t matter.

Thus Obama’s bow means a lot more than bending at the waist and it’s why we should study the “matters of small concern” very closely.