While the national media in the United States continued its obsession with one of the eerier individuals to recently pass away, the President wisely departed for his latest world tour. The first stop was Russia, the one country where President Obama’s abysmal economic policy could be well-received. While the president was right to try and make traction with leaders in Moscow on Iran and Afghanistan, he also showed that he still does not understand underlying aspects of the tensions existing between the Russians and the United States. While the President of the United States may not view small states as “pieces on a chessboard“, he is naive if thinks other leaders of significance internationally share his mindset.

President Obama, if disarmament is truly an aim he seeks, then the way to achieve it is to prevent more states from acquiring nuclear weapons, not restricting the arsenals of states already possessing said weapons. Should more rogue states unfortunately acquire such weapons, the great powers have a right to deter any attack against themselves by said malcontents. Of course, the Russians were not sold on increasing pressure on Iran, whose “democratic institutions” increasing resemble those of Russia by the year, to disarm.

The next stop for the U.S. President was Italy, where his efforts at the G8+5 summit were similarly unsuccessful. Not only was the administration unable to get those gathered at L’Aquila (including Russian President Medvedev) to address Iran effectively, but they failed to embrace the carbon dioxide reduction commitments he sought. Of course, considering the state of affairs stateside, no one should be left to wonder why G8 leaders have been unreceptive to Obama’s proposals for addressing the economic crisis.

Before returning to Washington, the President is set to visit Ghana, a country in western Africa. When commenting on his upcoming trip, President Obama rightly derided African leaders for blaming current problems faced by their countries on the abuses of colonialism. But, within this criticism, President Obama misses a larger point; these same leaders in Africa, in their criticism of the colonialism, opted toward idealism, growing substantially the role of their governments in the economies of their nations, stifling individual liberty and initiative in the process.

Indeed, idealism and aspirations or grandeur have their limitations. Leaders like Kwame Nkrumah, the first president of independent Ghana, allowed grand schemes and the pursuit of an ideal get in the way of running his country. Ghana suffered through decades of avoidable poverty and instability. Recent, more pragmatic leadership in that country has allowed the ec0nomy to rebound, and the political climate to liberalize. The embrace of gradual and responsible change and the acceptance of imperfection have, for Ghana, substantially albeit not fully improved a bad situation.

Thus, in the pursuit of change, process and pragmatism matter. Obama the candidate knew this. However, Obama the President seems only at times to embrace it, and seems content to do so even less on the world stage. For Republicans, the lesson should be clear. While values and beliefs are relevant, progress requires pragmatism. To paraphrase President Reagan, someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is not your enemy.

The current U.S. administration may not much like the authoritarian character of contemporary Russian politics, nor the possession of nuclear weapons by any government, but both are realities. Only working within these realities can change on other, more important fronts occur. President Nixon demonstrated that when he engaged Chairman Mao in dialogue which has since so substantially changed the world. Despite steep differences, the Americans, through give and take, and the Communist Chinese, learned to accept, and even work with, one another. George W. Bush was heavily criticized for seeing the world in black and white, but so far Barack Obama seems little different. Telling the Russians that little nations should not be viewed as pieces on a chessboard while increasing an armed presence in a nearby disputed country is nothing short of disingenuous.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010