THE PRAIRIE EDITOR: Changing the American Brand
Former Governor and first Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge
was in Minnesota recently, and I hosted a small event in Minneapolis to
celebrate his new book “The Test of Our Times.” This book is his account
of how the new cabinet post was set up after September 11, his
assessment of homeland security today, and what we need to do “to keep
America safe.”
Before taking questions and signing books, Ridge made a few remarks.
A fearless, pragmatic, no-nonsense figure, Ridge is by now an experienced
and articulate speaker, but I was not prepared, nor was the audience, for
his eloquent and passionate articulation of America’s national values, and
their value in the world. Discussing Guantanamo, Ridge stated that America’s
“brand” was its “rule of law.” This was no defense of a subsequent decision
of the Obama administration to try the 9/11 perpetrators in criminal court
in New York City. In fact, Ridge suggested that most if not all of the detainees
should be tried in a military court. But he did say that everyone detained
should have their cases disposed in the spirit of the rule of law. Ridge was not
advocating that America (or its president) constantly apologize for matters
which make us unpopular, nor that we should present ourselves as weak before
our adversaries and avowed enemies. He was simply and eloquently
reaffirming that the United States has a unique “brand” in the world, a brand
which practices something which sets us apart, and which both in word and
practice is an example (albeit sometimes imperfect) of global idealism without
ideology and boundaries.
President Obama is in China now, and making his latest series of apologies
for what he thinks as affronted the rest of the world, particularly our
adversaries. At the same time, he has sided with a deposed dictator in
Honduras (who is allied with the other radical dictators in the region), and
against a Honduran free election. He has affronted one of the greatest living
figures in the world, the Dalai Lama, to appease his totalitarian Chinese
hosts. He pressures the only democracy in the Middle East, and our long-time
ally, Israel, to compromise its security while getting nothing in return from
its terrorist enemies. He has treated our new East European allies, Poland
and Czech Republic, as pawns in a game to satisfy a newly belligerent
Russia. He sends a former president of the U.S. to Pyongyang (unofficially, of
course) to make the North Korean dictator feel important. And everywhere he
goes, he apologizes for what he feels are America’s shortcomings.
Is there a pattern here?
It occurred to me after Tom Ridge’s remarks that President Obama is attempting
to change America’s brand. Since an “enemy combatant” and self-admitted mass
murderer cannot possibly receive a “fair trial” as a common criminal in federal
court in New York City, the only conclusion I can draw is that the “rule of law”
is no longer the higher standard for this administration. With this, and the other
incidents I have cited, the real question is: What is the new “brand” that Barack
Obama wants our country to have?

It may not be so much of a new brand as a more passive message to the rest of the world about our role in international relations. Whether it is an overt attempt to rebalance our involvement in how we deal with other countries or a attempt to back away from spheres of influence where we had been more actively involved, this administration is creating a vacuum that will be filled with other entities who may or may not be sympathetic to our interests. It will be interesting to see if or when Obama chooses to reassert our influence to reverse those policies.
You’ve raised a very interesting point. Is this a purposeful rebranding, a defacto rebranding, or a function of weakness?