The Yokels Are At It Again

Seems like this could be discussed without calling people yokels and pompous a-h's.

"Once again, Barack Obama has demonstrated his appalling hatred for America, and his elitism, and his arrogance, and his tearing down and bashing of his country and his predecessor’s foreign policies, by greeting Japan’s prime minister"

Not, it was not the prime minister, it was the emperor...

Amazing that this is still going on. It's embarrassing that "the right," NONE of whom objected to the spectacle of Bush's cultural sensitivity, has to pitch a fit when Obama does so. Damn, Republicans, grow up.

Now, off topic, but how come no one has covered the GOP health care reform plan? GOP legislators almost unanimously supported it (one "no" vote). Finally there's an alternative proposal that is clearly the GOP's favored solution to health care reform. I'm sure the TMV commenters would like to weigh in on how wonderful the Republican approach would be.

Greendreams,

So Bush's cultural insensitivity forgives any Obama missteps? Pointing to partisan hypocrisy is easy to do, but it doesn't answer the question of the appropriateness of President Obama's greeting the Japanese Emperor.

Whether to bow or not is debatable (and at first glance is appears Obama is the first President to do so, although Clinton came close.), but more troubling, to me at least, is that the President gave a very deep bow, one parallel to the floor, and that was not returned. It was followed by a little bow to the empress, which was also not returned.

I'm all for culturally appropriate greetings (appropriate for them and for us), but I think it's clear something went amiss here. Is it a huge deal? Probably not at the end of the day, but symbolism and perception is still important.

I can't take responsibility for the "pompous a-h" part. Unfortunately.:-)

Well, Pres. Obama could not know in advance that they weren't going to return the bow, could he?

Other than that, what went amiss?

Now, off topic, but how come no one has covered the GOP health care reform plan?

Embarrassment?

Papa Bush (H. W.) went to Japan and puked... and Obama did what?

Did he really?

I guess I don't agree that America from citizen to President should be playing out any "holier than thou" role. American arrogance has historically made us a laughing stock if not the object of chronic whispering in the back of the room. Even if it was a "mistake" it was in the interest of respect, cultural sensitivity, and in the furtherance of American interests. Beyond here it becomes a tempest in a teapot, stirring up rage among those who perceive some loss in stature (where none actually occurred). Relax, folks Americans having been making faux pas(s) since our creation, and on the great scorecard in the sky, this was is a tiny speck.

Sorry but you are wrong. It is not culturally correct for a head of state to bow before another head of state. That kind of action, based upon body language is stating that Japan is superior to the USA

You are wrong. The White House should have Protocol people to tell Obama what he should be doing. The protocol for greeting a head of state, and the Emperor of Japan is the head of state, by another head of State, e.g. POTUS is for a handshake, not a bow.

The bow is totally inappropriate since it has significance in regard to body language. In Japan the cultural significance of the bow is that of subservience or service.

Also it is definitely not appropriate and do a handshake at the same time.

hi there aussieBCComm. Welcome and please read the commenter's policies at the top of the home page of TMV regarding ad hominem attacks on writers at TMV and/ or commenters.

Thanks

dr.e
deputy managing editor tmv

Dear Readers, at TMV when quoting other writers, the use of vulgarity in their works (in this case the quote was not from Kathy, but from another) is and will be abbreviated or omitted. TMV adheres to newspaper standards in terms of certain aspects of language.. by writers and commenters, all. Sorry this slipped through. It has been corrected.

dr.e

your sense of protocol is outdated Aussiebc. Quote your source, not your opinion about what passes for meeting of equals in modern day Japan. Having lived there, your remarks dont hold water. Not even close.

His servile obsequiousness to unelected foreign leaders reflects his deep seated insecurity over his lack of substantive accomplishment during the past year and ought to be praised as a refreshing stroke of candor.

LOL!

Maybe he could give the Japanese First Lady a back rub or kiss and hold her hand. ;-)

I don't remember anyone defending Clinton, ripped by the NYT for ...almost bowing
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/19/weekinreview/...

o.k. - first of all, you don't bow and shake hands - that's just stupid.

I've lived in Japan for 6 1/2 years, and I've never seen anybody bow and shake hands - or at least, not at the same time. Plus, if you're a westerner, they're not going to expect you to bow - they're going to expect you to shake hands. If you bow, they'd be pleasantly surprised, and bow back.

If the emperor was expecting a bow - and not a hand shake, he wouldn't be holding Obama's hand - and he would have returned the bow - which, from what I read - he didn't.

I realize that Obama is trying to show how "culturally sensitive" he is - but he just comes off looking like a buffoon.

And what's up with his protocol people? At the very least, there should have been someone from state - or the Embassy in Japan to instruct him on the proper protocol.

He should have been told how heads of state usually greet the emperor, and how the emperor acts when greet heads of state.

As for the whole "holding hands" thing with the King of Saudi Arabia - that wasn't a greeting - that was a gesture of friendship. Apples and Oranges. I'm not sure if the Saudi King kissed him on the cheeks - but if he had - I'm assuming it was also a gesture of friendship - and probably not at their first meeting.

I think Obama's problem is that he's so eager to please everybody - he just makes himself look like a fool.

Kind of reminds me of the crazed shrieks of Obama supporters who claimed that Hillary Clinton was planning his assassination because she mentioned RFK. You're all a bunch of hypocrites.

Bowing to the leader of a country in which bowing is a respectful greeting when meeting any new person is a betrayal of democracy

Yes, people tend to bow to others in Japan in lieu of a handshake. When two equals meet, the bow at the same degree. When one bows to a greater degree than another, or the other does not bow at all, it shows a position of lower status.

Tell me, did the Emperor bow at all? Nope. But don't stop defending this embarrassment to the United States.

Double tell me: had it been Bush who did this, would you have gone ballistic? Of course you would have. And conservatives would have been pissed off, just like with Bush and the Sheiks. But, what Bush did did not show subservience, just a respect of their culture.

Kathy,

If a President is going to change the manner of greeting from long-standing tradition, then his protocol people should have told the Emperor's protocol people so everyone was on the same page. Looking at the video again it looks to me like the Emperor was expecting a handshake I don't know if this was the President doing his own thing or if his protocol people failed him, but either way it wasn't appropriate and the simultaneous handshake/bow was kind of weird. It is the end of the world? No, but I think it's legitimate area for criticism.

In fact, if you search "Hillary Clinton" at Ms. Kattenburgs's blog "Liberty Street" you'll be graced with all KINDS of Clinton derangement syndrome which make her attack on the "yokels" for their baseless attacks about bowing seem a bit disingenuous. We'll never forget the lies and smears of people like you Kathy.

I'm sorry you don't understand history. My father did not steathily row around battle ships in Manila Harbor on moonless nights, risking his life for the United States of America, nor did he spend an additional 2 years in Japan in the Army of the Occupation, so that one day our clueless President could bow down to the eldest son of Emperor Hirohito, the ruler of Japan during World War II.

A quick quarter-bow to show customary respect would have been much more suitable but that obsequious full over bow is just embarrasing and not fitting for a President of the United States. It's an affrontery to the remaining WWII veterans. What President Bush did or did not do is not relevant in this matter. Obama should get a darn protocol person after all the ridiculous faux pas he has made in the last 10 months.

And for heaven's sake - it's either bowing or shaking hands - never both. You don't see either the Emperor or his wife bowing, do you?

What I find most hilarious about the reaction on the left to the reaction on the right to Obama's bow is the remarkable cultural ignorance that's wrapped up in the appellation of "yokel" to their fellow citizens who find themselves taken aback by Obama's apparent breach of 220 years of White House protocol. I will second many of the criticisms of the original post made earlier in these comments, but I will add the following comments, many of which are based on my 16 years in Japan. Weigh those 16 years against the random thoughts of American libs whose idea of multiculturalism is attending a sitar concert after dinner at an El Salvadorian restaurant however you wish, but don't embarrass yourself by calling me a yokel.

1. The only way that Obama's bow even approached being culturally appropriate is if you accept that Obama should interact with the Japanese emperor in the same fashion as a Japanese commoner. If you look at the typical manner in which foreign heads of state interact with the Japanese emperor, you will quickly notice that it is not culturally or diplomatically appropriate for heads of state to bow - and to bow so deeply - in situations such as this. Unlike yokels such as the original poster, I can actually read Japanese, and much of the commentary on Japanese discussion boards notes that Obama's bow expressed even more deference to the Emperor than is typically expressed by Japan's own prime minister. If so, how on earth can you yokels on the left claim that this was culturally appropriate? You're talking out of your asses, and labeling your fellow countrymen as yokels only heightens your own yokelity (to coin a word).

2. The whole point of 220 years of WH protocol is that our revolution stands for the point - however imperfectly realized - that all are created equal and that Americans owe now king or potentate any allegiance or subservience. That protocol has applied regardless of the foreign dignitary being greeted, and Obama has apparently chosen consciously to break from that tradition (first with the Saudi king and now with Akihito). I think we citizens are entitled to ask why and what, if anything, it is intended to communicate.

3. The historical ignorance of folks on the left never ceases to amaze me. A mere 15 years ago, a far less obsequious bow by Clinton was the topic of many furrowed brows and was deemed worthy of an article in the New York Times, which notably did not call critics of the president a yokel for calling attention to this breach of protocol. It seems to me that our yokel-ific original poster could do the rest of us a favor by (1) recognizing that Obama's conduct is more obsequious than Clinton's 15 years ago and (2) explaining to us why Clinton's bow was worthy of comment in the mid-90s but comment/criticism of Obama's far more dramatic bow is a sign of yokel-dom. Otherwise, she comes across not only as a yokel herself but as a historically ignorant yokel.

4. I have issues with our president kissing the Saudi king. But the issue is indisputably different: Last I checked, kissing was a greeting between equals in Middle Eastern and European cultures. I doubt very much than when thrust before the Saudi king, a Saudi subject is granted the opportunity to kiss the king on the cheeks. Thus, while our president's kissing the king may have troubling implications, indicating an endorsement of a backward, authoritarian monarchy, it does not demonstrate obsequiousness as Obama's bow to Akihito did.

5. Reading the Japanese blogs and discussion boards, you see a wide range of opinions on the bow (I'll post some of these in a subsequent comment). But one thing is clear: Most Japanese recognized this bow as a dramatic departure from prior protocol, particularly in the depth of the bow (which, contrary to the yokel that made the original post, is far from common in Japan, being limited to deep apologies or interactions with somebody several levels above one in the social/cultural hierarchy).

6. As a prior commenter stated, Obama comes across as a buffoon. He resembles nothing so much as the typical, blundering American businessman who's been through three hours of cultural etiquette training before his departure for Japan and ends up mashing everything he learned together into a jumble that makes him come across as exceptionally clueless and occasionally insulting. To see multiculturalist yokels such as the original poster defending this conduct as culturally appropriate merely shows the implicit Eurocentrism of their "multiculturalism" and the general ignorance in which they're happy to reside. I'm sorry, but your reading of Memoirs of a Geisha and your bimonthly jaunt down to the Freer and Sackler Galleries do not make you an expert on Japanese culture and indeed don't even make you capable of evaluating the BS that other folks claiming to have spent time in Japan try to pass off; they certainly don't give you the right to call your fellow citizens yokels. Much of the praise for Obama's conduct in the Japanese nets has the ring of the patting-the-child-like-gaijin-on-the-head compliments that you get in Japan for being able to string two Japanese words together. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not have my president condescended to in that manner.

7. Is it too much to ask that liberals do the following: Ground their criticism of their fellow citizens' criticism of the president's conduct on an actual awareness of historical precedent and cultural practices, rather than on complete historical ignorance (apparently you all have no use for any history prior to the coming of our prince of peace, eh?) and a general multiculturalism that is as riddled with prejudice and actual ignorance about the cultures about which you purport to pontificate (Japanese bow; ergo any bow, no matter how deep and how jumbled together with Western practices such as handshaking is culturally appropriate). You'd call this racist if it was directed toward a culture you actually know something about, but you freely use this clueless reasoning to criticize your fellow citizens as yokels. Really, the irony is so very rich.

As I noted above, there's lots of commentary on Japanese discussion boards. Lots of folks remarking that Obama showed more deference and respect than even the prime minister of Japan generally displays for the Emperor, and lots of the typical patting-the-gaijin-on-the-head comments. But all of the commentary suggests that the Japanese saw this as a remarkable gesture. Here are some representative comments from discussions boards:

-Does the US president bow this deeply? Is our Emperor that impressive?
-The emperor should have bowed, too. After all, he and the president are equals on the international stage.
-Obama, you're lucky to have met the only true royalty in the world.
-The emperor must be amazing if he can get the president of the United States to bow this deeply. Obama must have been overwhelmed by the Emperor's aura. Doesn't he have his back hunched over, making him look really small? . . . One of the seven wonders of the world.
-He is the [American] president. Isn't this level of respect a little excessive?
-The Emperor is the only person in the world who could walk in front of the Queen of England, the US President, and the Pope.
-This is impressive. If I were suddenly thrust in front of the emperor, I'm not sure I'd be capable of bowing this deeply.
-Is it possible that even Obama feels nervous when appearing before our royal family?
-The emperor's expression suggests he's thinking "I've got to do something with this guy." I feel sorry that he has to deal with shits like this.
-We should make him an honorary Japanese.
-Obama was brought up well, wasn't he?
[Obama,] you really don't have to go that far . . . it makes us feel uncomfortable.
-Did Obama join the cult of the Emperor?
-Obama gets it.
-For better or worse, he knows how to grab Japanese hearts.
-He's the kind of guy who would bow like this intentionally when he wants to insult the Japanese.
-An amazing photo. The royal family is really something...
-This shows the power of the emperor.
-Prime Minister Hatoyama should learn from Obama how to properly respect the emperor and the national flag.
-Obama heard that the Emperor had ordered him to make an appearance and flew over right away.
-Well, it's obvious that the US President is about the same level as our Foreign Minister...
-Obama is an impressive person with an amazing grasp of the situation.
-Well, he is the descendant of slaves.
-This is the first 90-degree bow I've ever seen by an American. Obama's impressive for being able to give the most respectful bow possible to our emperor.
-The US president will probably get criticized for bowing this deeply to the Emperor, but I was moved by it. The Emperor's obviously a wonderful person but Obama is too.
-This one picture has made me like America.
-Obama's bowing his head lower than his waist; it's too far. Where'd he learn this?
-After we lost the war, I never thought I'd see this.
-He has a lot more respect [for the emperor] than [Prime Minister] Hatoyama does.

Awesome response richao. Simply awesome.

My only objection is to the coffee spray appearing on my monitor after reading the line "American libs whose idea of multiculturalism is attending a sitar concert after dinner at an El Salvadorian restaurant".

Sorry Richao, at least half the comments you list are positive undermining your argument that somehow this minor faux pas should take so much of the focus apart from whatever else they discuss in Japan. Now if you told me that this event would cost us billions in trade deals or ignite a revolution against the USA....well I might lend you a half an ear............but that is simply not the case.

As for your list and stated protocols for responding to the likes of you or anyone else, sorry you don't have the right. So long as I follow the TMV protocols I can give my 2 cents and most of the time I don't have to look down my nose to do it.

spirasol,

Well, you're at least willing to admit that the President's bow was a faux pas. This is progress. How long until the original poster confesses her own error in labeling half her fellow citizens as yokels on the basis of a completely erroneous understanding of Japanese social practices? Your admission gives me some faint hope that such a confession may someday be forthcoming.

Yes, many of the comments were positive. But many of those comments were positive in the way that comments about my rudimentary Japanese skills back in the early 90s were positive: In a condescending, praise-the-childlike-gaijin sort of way. The tone of many of the positive comments suggests that they spring from a mindset akin to that of Dr. Johnson's (are yokels such as myself permitted to quote Dr. Johnson? I'll have to check with Ms. Kattenburg) on the subject of women preachers: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." Yes, that's offensive; but so is the mindset underlying many of the "positive" comments.

Moreover, the fundamental issue is not that Obama breached Japanese protocol (and that he therefore put billions of dollars in trade deals at risk) but that he breached White House protocol of 220 years' standing. The only reason I spent so much time on the Japanese piece is that yokels like our original poster are using a completely ignorant understanding of Japanese social protocol to defend the President's breach of White House protocol.

I'm not sure what protocols you're talking about in your last paragraph. I was merely suggesting that some basic rules of discourse should include a commitment to historical and cultural accuracy. I really don't care how you respond to me or the likes of me (who are these people? is my quest for a soulmate nearing completion?), but I can't imagine that you think it a virtue to celebrate your ignorance about the historical and cultural background to issues of contemporary debate. (Remember, ignorance is the exclusive province of those yokel Republicans in flyover country!!!) But if you do think it a virtue, I will cheerfully label you a yokel. Post away, my dear know-nothing.

Ah, dear Kathy. An obsequious post for an obsequious president. Plus, a demonstration of your own (and your quoted cohorts) provincial prejudice toward 'Asians'. I suppose next you will tell us "they all look alike?"

Japan does not exist in a vacuum, and Emperor Akihito is well acquainted with the Western custom of shaking hands - as are many other Far Eastern dignitaries - as demonstrated by this montage: http://domania.us/Oaccess/OBAMA/O-JapanBow.gif

Obama's bows are symbolic, but for reasons different than you note. From Cairo to Copenhagen to Chicago, this president has made it a corner stone of his administration to pander, minimize & apologize to the oppressive theocracies and brutal thugacracies of the world for America's many centuries industrial, military & cultural excellence & leadership.

Japan is our good friend & ally, but this bow is yet another leg on Obama's continued 'apology tour', and a further example of this administration's attitude of flaccid obsequiousness, rather than vigorous leadership.

Oh, btw - they play baseball in Japan, too.
.
.

I have no idea what the protocol on this sort of thing is. I do know that neither he nor his predecessors chose how to approach this encounter. Reading into some latent psychological need to please everybody is just silly. He has protocol people who should tell him what the appropriate form is.

This reminds me of the harumphing from the right over a cheap gift given to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. As if Obama himself personally purchased the toy helicopter. It may have made him look bad, but the fault for it lay with the protocol people.

I'm not defending the bow. And I'm not defending the hyperbole of Obama's monomaniacal critics. I'm just saying that this is the sort of thing choreographed by professionals in the White House who may or may not be doing their job properly.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/11/dwight-d-...

The Dwight D. Eisenhower bowing hour. To be fair, the John Birch Society thought he was a traitorous pseudo-commie, and the current conservative movement isn't too far removed from 50s era Birchers.

wow. Going to lengths to defend Obama again by the "moderates"? Well played, especially in light of this
http://twitter.com/JTlol/status/5729615978

Sort of true, elrod, and yet the buck stops with the chief executive in the WH. Since there's been a series of these incidents where past protocol is being brushed aside, it either speaks to incompetence or a lack or caring about this sort of protocol, or else a deliberate attempt to change the protocol.

I agree that the reaction from many on the right is hyperbolic, and yet at some level I do feel that protocol and body language itself does matter. I remember a fascinating documentary that compared footage of Reagan greeting Gorbachev at their first summit meeting (Reagan walked confidently out in the cold weather without an overcoat while a bundled and dishevelled looking Gorbachev exited his vehicle and approached to shake hands) with JFK's body language during his first summit with Kruschev ( a meeting which JFK himself considered a disaster.)

The choreography and body language do matter whether we want it to or not. Leaders take the measure of each other by their posturing, and sometimes signals are being sent to domestic audiences as well in terms of what kind of diplomatic overtures the leaders are trying to establish. Since the meme of Bush being arrogant was a theme of the campaign and continues to be insinuated in Obama's speeches abroad, I can't help but think that this kind of gesture was choreographed.

A funny aside regarding what protocol really has been was caught by Ed Morrissey here... showing that when the NYT reported on Clinton's greeting of the Japanese emperor they wrote that he almost bowed but didn't actually do the 'unthinkable'.

I agree that body language of this sort matters - though it is so multivalent that it's hard to reduce these things to one cause. (I'm reminded of a moment in grad school where our professor mocked a hyper cultural historian for spending 10 minutes explaining why some diplomat started to sweat when the obvious reason - it was hot out - seemed to escape the historian). I also think the 1994 NYT article on Clinton was awful, as are hypercriticisms from the left of Bush's chumminess with the Saudi family.

My sense is that Obama's protocol people - and Obama himself - are trying to project a more friendly and respectful face of America to the world. Pulling that off, while not becoming obsequious, is not easy. I think his intentions are laudable here. I believe America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth. But I also believe America must act respectfully toward other nations and peoples in ways we have not done in the past. Moreover, I think these gestures really do improve our standing among the peoples of the world and do not make Obama - or America - look like buffoons (only someone who already detests Obama will think that). This has real strategic value in the fight against jihadist terrorism. That said, Obama has to be careful about respecting his own office too. And while the buck indeed stops with Obama himself, I think the protocol people need to make certain that they are not breaking with past protocol to much.

Just to clarify, I agree that if they're purposefully trying to change the tone and partly using the gestures to do so, that this is a very tricky task. So, my point about the buck stopping with Obama is that if this is indeed his intent, he needs to pay more attention to who is making the decisions and expect that they stop making needless blunders. For starters, a lot more subtlety is probably called for instead of being so over the top, and then second main goal should be to make sure that if a cultural sign of respect is used that it be done in the appropriate way. There's really no gain in trying to imitate local custom if you screw it up, because you really do just look a bit silly.

I guess to me, the careless way these things have been handled suggests that instead of good choreography, they're projecting the sense that none of this should really matter much, and if that is what they're thinking I believe they're seriously miscalculating.

This reminds me of the harumphing from the right over a cheap gift given to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. As if Obama himself personally purchased the toy helicopter. It may have made him look bad, but the fault for it lay with the protocol people.

Sorry, Elrod, but, for 8 years we got to hear that the buck stops at the Presidents office. Who hired those protocol people? If they have given him bad advice in the past, perhaps he should have canned them.

There are tons of people working for the State Dept who know about this stuff. Certainly, one of them would have said "don't bow." But, Obama listens to no one but Obama.

"I understand that one cannot expect someone whose highest value in life is “American power” to be able to parse these subtler kinds of human interactions. Having said that, you would think that an associate professor of political science at a university in California would at least “get” the “hard, cold, international” facts of realpolitik that would make it politically and pragmatically inadvisable to defend the rightness and morality of using nuclear weapons while on an official state visit to the country on which they were used."~ Kathy

***************
Perhaps that would explain the word "associate" instead of "full" before the word "professor"...lol...

Look, CA is in a financial bind. This yahoo being employed just reflects the type of "talent" that CA's Universities can afford to hire right now. It's sad. No wonder fewer and fewer students are attracted to CA's university system from other states.

Poor California..

I said in my original post "if it was a mistake" and went on to describe what a tempest in a teapot it seemed to be. I am not the ultimate arbiter on the "mistake", but I don't feel it is some kind of death spiral. I would further say, given the amount of comedic material gathered from the Bush years, that the whole world laughed for 8 years under the previous president. I really believe if for whatever reason you don't like Pres. Obama, than it isn't difficult to find fault, but if this is it, Please.................... I find fault too, but it is about policy or progress not this silly stuff.

Below is a link to a website on Presidential gaffes. I hardly think it is conclusive but it points in the direction of making gaffes comes with the territory, whatever the rationale. http://www.paulsquiz.com/Trivia_Quiz_Resources/...

And I too am a proud American who is not proud of the degree of arrogance demonstrated globally for decades......a little humility for my money would go a long way. The last thing I want to see is some thin skinned overly proud arrogant narcissistic uber-nationlist representing us. Of coarse we want our global interests represented but not with a wooden headed, closed earred cowboy hat while fingering his pocket knife of military alternatives.

CStanley,
Agreed entirely.

richao, by larding your arguments with the usual far right-wing epithets, you made it harder than you needed to for Obama supporters to agree with your basic point. But I'm going to do so anyway. Obama had no business bowing to the Japanese emperor (not the "prime minister," as the MV's article says). What's next, walking backwards after being granted an audience with the queen of England? Obama didn't simply ditch some dusty old piece of protocol, he ignored an important element of this country's history.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and was a supporter of Obama in 2008 to the tune of $2,300. I will likely support him again in 2012 unless lightning strikes and the Republicans were to nominate Nelson Rockefeller's grandson. But when he's wrong, he wrong, and on this one he was very wrong. American presidents don't bow to royalty or cozy up to them. Bush's hand-holding with the Saudi prince, and Obama's bowing and scraping earlier this year, was offensive. We are the New World, a break with hereditary systems of governance. We rule ourselves, and do not recognize the divine rights of kings. Our leaders bow and scrape to no one.

I understand the impulse behind Obama's gesture. He is trying to signal a different attitude by the U.S. in engaging the world, following George W. Bush's absurd and disastrous attempt to dictate terms to every nation. But he went too far this time, and it was a mistake. It shouldn't be impossible for his supporters to admit it.

look at it this way:

At least Obama didn't give the Emperor white flowers

"richao": Bravo!

By way of reinforcing the point about what a serious breach of not just U.S. but Japanese long-established protocol President Obama's bow represents, let me offer the following:

[b]China's Wen Jiabao meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://www.asianews.net/NR/rdonlyres/5F68EC21-F...

[b]Russia's Vladimir Putin meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/56251775.jpg?v...

[b]Germany's Angela Merkel meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02NM6eScqgb...

[b]Canada's Stephen Harper meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://gpdhome.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/...

[b]India's Manmohan Singh meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://pmindia.nic.in/photo_gallary/ShowLargePh...

[b]Israel's Ehud Olmert meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/hHx5oP0RC2y/Japa...

[b]Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/71376868.jpg?v...

[b]Jordan's King Abdullah II meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mrY6K6-VHpg/SeWkHVpbI...

[b]Vietnam's Nguyen Minh Triet meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/78089514.jpg?v...

[b]Sri Lanka's Rajapaksa meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2007/12/16/z_p08-P...

[b]King of Morocco Mohammed VI meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/56283743.jpg?v...

[b]South Korea's Lee Myung-bak meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://www.korea.net/image/issue/album/A_19210.jpg

[b]Republic of Slovenia's Janez Janša meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://www.nekdanji-pv.gov.si/2004-2008/fileadm...

And, ... best for last:

[b]Dick Cheney meets Emperor Akihito:[/b]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7...

What on Earth is "moderate" about slagging people who are offended by Obama deeply bowing to monarchs (he is, after all, the Head of State of a democratic republic) as "yokels? And are the New York TImes' staff now "yokels?" http://tinyurl.com/cqxbze

FrequentPoster, it was not my intention to offend unnecessarily. Anybody who knows me would be surprised by the far-right label you attach to me: I am right of center but disliked Bush only slightly less than I dislike Obama; I enjoy vigorous, frank discussion with my friends of all political stripes.

However, Ms. Kattenburg's tone - which I note you apparently do not object to, despite its patent offensiveness and, dare I say, copious "larding . . . with [left]-wing epithets" - conveyed one long, condescending sneer to a wide swath of her fellow citizens (many of whom are my friends, colleagues, and family), and I thought it appropriate to turn that back on her with evidence that her post itself revealed her to be as much a "yokel" as any of the right-wing bloggers she linked in her post. The reference to "multiculturalist libs" could perhaps have been phrased a little more diplomatically, but it describes a phenomenon I find especially loathsome, having spent 40% of my life abroad - namely, that of coastal elites (and I say this as one myself - only of a different political stripe; I don't fancy myself a tribune of the people) who think themselves superior to the vast majority of middle America because they've developed a refined appreciation for foreign cuisine and foreign art and who manage to haul themselves abroad (generally to Europe) for a vacation that's long enough to give them the multiculti bona fides they desperately seek but not long enough to force them to confront and grapple with their own assumptions both their own nation, the world in which we live, and their own deeply cherished political and other beliefs. The spectacle of these self-appointed umpires of cosmopolitanism displaying their own ignorance in their sneering condescension toward their fellow citizens who lack either the interest or the means to travel abroad themselves (and who can tell which in many cases?) is simultaneously hilarious and infuriating. And I believe that it deserves all the scorn I can muster.

Johnny Galt, in some of the examples you provided the greetings are both bows and handshakes. Though Obama's bow is obviously the deepest of bow them all.

What's more important? Showing respect and being criticized by one's enemies for not doing it quite properly OR looking into the eyes of a major world leader and instantly knowing that he can be trusted, as Bush did with Putin? And how many headaches did Putin give Bush (and the rest of us) after that?

I don't have a problem with people trying to show respect, such actions go a long way. What's important is whether Obama "gives away the store" or not during talks.

Not my point, Andy. I had no problem with Bush kissing the Saudi prince or bowing to the pope. I don't give a damn how our leaders follow, or do not follow cultural norms in other countries. But to pretend that when Obama bows to the Emperor of Japan it's America bowing down to a foreign power is just childish nonsense. I avoided such nonsense when it was Bush, but the "right" shows its hypocrisy when they ignored it with Bush, Reagan or Nixon but pitch a fit when it's Obama. Did Obama bow too low? Who the hell cares? You, apparently

What's more important?

Why choose? The president can show respect in the ways that have been traditionally accepted throughout decades. GWB making some dumb gestures (the Merkel shoulder rub was particularly bad IMO) and made that inexplicable comment about Putin doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Obama's protocol staff (or he himself if he's overriding their advice) are making good decisions.

After 8 years of sneering superiority toward our allies, Obama now signals that we like and respect our allies. You guys on the right, PLEASE keep shrieking like it's the end of America as we know it. Makes you look absurd, trite and above all shrill. We'll see how that plays out in future elections. IMO you're doing yourselves no good at all with this. So again, please keep it up.

bogopogo, "As for the whole "holding hands" thing with the King of Saudi Arabia - that wasn't a greeting - that was a gesture of friendship. Apples and Oranges. I'm not sure if the Saudi King kissed him on the cheeks - but if he had - I'm assuming it was also a gesture of friendship - and probably not at their first meeting."

Yes, you're right that comparing Obama's bow and Bush's holding hands (and there were kisses, on the lips) is like comparing apples and oranges. However what Obama did was an attempt to show respect. The Bush family and Saudis have had close ties for many years, through the oil business and politics. Bush was never tough with his friends the Saudis and I recall when gas here was over $5/gallon that Bush pleaded with the Saudis to decrease the price (this was during the presidential campaign in 2008, May, if I recall correctly) and the Saudis refused to lower the costs. I don't think the Saudis could actually have lowered the price of gas since it is traded on world markets, but the point I'm making is that Bush groveled before them and did not get tough with them. Most of the terrorists were Saudis.... Bush invaded Iraq. Human rights in Saudi Arabia? Bush pretty much yawned over that issue. Etc.

So yes, the bow and kisses are apples and oranges. What's important is results and when push came to shove, Bush couldn't even muster the will to raise a wooden ruler to admonish the ruler of Saudi Arabia for his many actions which go against American ideals and American interests.

The bowing seems like a bit much. I know nothing about the traditional greeting protocols and etiquette of Japan, but I would assume that in a country as Westernized as Japan, a simple handshake would suffice.

I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.

The president then asked the reporter what the rest of his question was, specifically saying it had several parts and he wasn’t sure he remembered the last one. I’m sure he knew that he had not answered the query about his personal feelings, or opinion, regarding the morality of the bombings — but he did leave that opening for the reporter to repeat the question and the reporter did not, for whatever reason.

Donald Douglas bluntly criticizes Obama for evading the question. I would have liked to hear his answer, too, but not for the same reason. Douglas’s post title says it all: ” ‘America’s First Pacific President’ — Won’t Defend U.S. Nuclear Attacks at Hiroshima, Nagasaki.” Emphasis is mine. And Douglas goes on to comment (at the bottom of the post):

What else would you expect from a blog titled "American Power"?

With a title like "American Power", you might suspect that Mr. Douglas' blog promotes a neoconservative ideology. And a quick perusal of his blog archives would show that you'd be right.

The difference between nodding one's head and inclining one's shoulders while shaking hands and maintaining eye contact (gestures that, it is important to note, Akihito reciprocated) and what Obama did is not one of degree(s), but of kind.

When one performs the kind of bow that Obama did, the only eye contact that can be maintained is with one's own eyes, as reflected in the other person's (hopefully) impeccably shined shoes.

StockBoySF, "What's important is results and when push came to shove, Bush couldn't even muster the will to raise a wooden ruler to admonish the ruler of Saudi Arabia for his many actions which go against American ideals and American interests."

Yes - and as I recall, Bush never bowed to a Saudi Prince (my mistake, it wasn't the Saudi King) - so I'm sure Obama will be much more willing to raise something much more substantial than a "wooden ruler" to slap down the Saudi's.

If it's a "matter of protocol" as the White House spin machine is now trying to put out - then perhaps they can explain why the rest of the world doesn't feel the need to follow the same "protocol"...

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/presid...

And, again, if protocol - why did Obama not bow to the Queen of England?

You may not give a damn, but a lot of people do. It's a question of perception. No one is saying the President is actually giving allegiance and fealty to the Japanese Emperor, but the perception is there nonetheless. You say you don't care. On that score, I'm with you. I don't really care about all the high-level protocol, but I know enough to understand that a lot of people DO care and so I want my President to act appropriately. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Your justification really amounts to tit-for-tat logic, the logic of the schoolyard. And your hauling out of all the right-wing chestnuts is boring. Obama shouldn't have bowed to Japan's emporer; the author of this column we're commenting on shouldn't have called those who object a bunch of yokels; and you shouldn't have gotten out all of your toy cliches to play with like some favorite doll.

This is the sort of thing that makes it so much harder for people to talk to each other. No one's got a monopoly on right or wrong. No matter who's the president, he's going to get it wrong from time to time. Bush stood beneath a banner reading, "Mission Accomplished," and then dared the insurgency to "Bring It On." Stupid on both accounts. Obama bowed to the prince of Saudi Arabia, and again to the emperor of Japan. Dumb moves, both of them.

Probably the most important thing to realize is that neither of them is inclined to see the mistake, much less admit it, and same for their followers. Support for someone's candidacy shouldn't blind you to their flaws, but American politics is increasingly marked by a mindless herd mentality on both sides.

Right. Because it's much more "culturally appropriate" to declare your subservience to an emperor than it is to... what was it that Bush did that was so insensitive?

> Well, Pres. Obama could not know in advance that they weren't going to return the bow, could he?

The leader of a nation, such as the Japanese emperor, does not bow to anyone. Someone who was "culturally sensitive" would have known that.

He announced that we are the Japanese emperor's subjects.

Telling someone that they are wrong is not ad hominem.

I wonder, is Obama's bowing to the Japanese Emperor really that big a story in the media and around the blogosphere? It would seem to me that with the rampant federal spending being done by the Obama administration, the potential passage of the Democrats' $1.2 trillion Health Care bill, and the escalation of the war in Afghanistant, the Right would have something more substantial to be talking about.

As is typical of all blogosphere discussions these days, both sides spend more time on the more superficial issues than the substantive ones. It happens because one side will react to a superficial issue or event, sometimes while still also engaging in the more serious issues as well, and then the other side finds it more advantageous to try to ridicule their opponents outrage (often even overstating the degree of it) than to respond to the blog posts that focus on issues.

You can see it happening repeatedly at blogs like this one, where we see several bloggers posting about how the right is reacting to the bow and it's rare to see a blogpost seriously responding to something that a right wing blogger has written about policy (whether it be about healthcare, deficit spending, the war, etc.)

So, we should approve of Obama's submissive behavior because the people he was submitting to approve of it?

Your justification really amounts to tit-for-tat logic, the logic of the schoolyard. And your hauling out of all the right-wing chestnuts is boring.

I think what richao was getting at, and what I immediately noticed and found amusing about your initial comment, is that other people are just as 'bored' or turned off by left wing chestnuts which this blogpost is chock full of, yet you commented only on the offenses you perceived in richao's comment.

Given that most of those people bowed back, and the French Republic doesn't have a tradition of bowing - that kind of undermines your entire argument, don't you think?

Here's how other world leaders greet the emperor of japan: http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/presid...

Many men nod briefly when they shake hands - particularly if they are taller than the person they are shaking hands with.

That's not the same as a bow.

Actually, Obama would have known (or should have known) in advance - the Japanese Emperor doesn't bow to anyone. So either due to ignorance, or simply his never-ending attempt to apologize for America's 'wrongs', he chose to anyway, instead of greeting him as head-of-state to head-of-state, which would have been proper.

the comment that was ad hominem was removed mwheinz. You didnt see it. Thanks.

It is, btw, untrue that the Emperor of Japan does not bow to anyone, as this example demonstrates:
http://www.life.com/image/53156979

But the only time you'll see him even approaching the kind of deep bow that Obama surprised him with is an occasion such as this:
http://www.daylife.com/photo/032X2rnen05OF

Well I am not mortally offended. They were not mortally offended. So
where is the injury here? You are taking a minor little faux pais and
inflating it to the point of silliness and what's more other much more
serious international behavior, including are insane foreign policy is
disrespected globally. I think if you want to rant, I agree with Green
dreams, go ahead, you just sound shrill and draw negative attention to
yourself.

He pledged his allegiance to the Emperor of Japan.

Ah. Okay.

Why would they be offended that the President of the US announced that their Emperor was his liege lord?

John Galt and richao, I do believe that most of us get it. Obama should not have bowed. Albeit, I have to agree with frequentposter that "by larding your arguments with the usual far right-wing epithets, you made it harder than you needed to for Obama supporters to agree with your basic point."

1. I don't see a single instance of anything that even remotely resembles "far right-wing epithets" in any of my posts, let alone a "larding" thereof.

2. It seems to me that richao more than adequately explained the "what is good for the goose (in this case, the author of the thread) is surely good for the gander" reasoning behind his use of epithets such as "yokels".

3. I am glad that you, and others, understand how egregious Obama's faux pas was.

4. I would not be holding my breath, however, while waiting for the epithet-flinging Ms. Kattenburg to reach such an understanding. Something tells me that her heels would remain firmly dug in, no matter how nicely/soothingly the opposing case were to be presented to her.

It's the reaction of the right-wing blogosphere as seen in most of the comments here that keep me away from support of the Republican Party. What we've got is a President who tried to show respect to the nation of Japan through a bow. It may have been deeper than appropriate. Fine, make the argument, small breach of protocol, argue that Obama needs to make sure his Protocol people are giving him the right advice.

Fine.

Instead what you get is diatribes about the apology tour, subservience to dictators, submission of America, and tons of hypersensitive, meme-quoting nonsense.

I periodically think I should be a moderate Republican so as to hound on deficit issues and states rights; things I care about. But they'd never have me.

"I don't see a single instance of anything that even remotely resembles "far right-wing epithets" in any of my posts, let alone a "larding" thereof"

In your case you are right, JG, and I take it back.

"I am glad that you, and others, understand how egregious Obama's faux pas was."



"egregious": remakably bad, flagrant

No, I don't think so. Not in the larger scheme of things and especially when compared to truly egregious policies, actions, and faux of the previous administration.

You are absolutely right.

In the larger scheme of things, Obama's bow to the Emperor of Japan is certainly not as egregious a foreign policy faux pas as, say, Obama's announcing the abandonment of the missile defense project in Eastern Europe on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.

It was "simply" an egregious breach of long established rules of etiquette, both U.S. and Japanese. Just as egregious as his breaching U.S. and Saudi rules of etiquette by bowing to King Abdullah was.

The kind of thing that, as you yourself wrote, Presidents should not do.

I'm still not sure what in my post constitutes larding with right-wing epithets. Aside from a crack at shallow multiculturalism among liberals - a phenomenon that is empirically verifiable, that, in fact, I have seen nearly every day I've lived in coastal metro areas in the US - I simply use the language that the original poster herself used. I appreciate that some on the left here find my use of that language offensive; perhaps you have sufficient empathy to understand why those of us on the right found the original poster's comments so offensive. That, as JG graciously pointed out, was the primary goal of my choice of rhetoric.

I am happy to see that Jake Tapper, the reporter who's quickly becoming the dean of the White House Press Corps, has posted on his blog comments from an old Japan-hand that essentially confirm what I've written. This guy emphasizes that the act of bowing itself is not the problem, noting that Nixon also bowed to the Japanese emperor. But he also notes that Nixon's bow was proper (and as the photo Tapper links demonstrates, it was a conventional Japanese bow between social equals). Moreover, he explains:

"Obama's handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush's back-rub of Merkel.
Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs. The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

Many of my friends on the left got lots of mileage out of tormenting me and other Republicans with the admittedly embarrassing image of the buffoonish Bush feeling up Merkel. I'm not sure why you guys begrudge us the opportunity to do the same when your guy provides incontrovertible evidence that American buffoonery abroad is very much a bipartisan endeavor.

Richao, you've move the goal post, however, in at least this last comment. What you are saying here is that nothing is wrong with a bow but Obama bowed too deeply in a way that was socially awkward in the Japanese context. That's a fine argument. But here's what many other conservatives are saying, and I will just quote from Kathy's original post and the comments below it:

From Johnson: "He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world."

From Gordon: "President Obama goes abroad apologizing for the supposed sins of a country that defended and extended freedom around the world at a staggering cost in lives and treasure and then grovels before the man whose country has yet to apologize for the Rape of Nanking."

From "locomotive": "From Cairo to Copenhagen to Chicago, this president has made it a corner stone of his administration to pander, minimize & apologize to the oppressive theocracies and brutal thugacracies of the world."

From mwheinz "He announced that we are the Japanese emperor's subjects."

None of this shows a bit of concern about Japanese mores. No one in Japan thinks the U.S. is subservient to the Emperor in the least. These comments are all about the ongoing meme that Obama is weak and subservient, apologizing to others. It's a completely bogus talking point that just circles and circles in the rightwing blogosphere until thousands are just so so angry about it.

Sorry, but to add a bit more, again the criticisms being given are not teasing Obama about being buffoonish. They are as angry and ashamed as they can be about our President bowing to dictators.

Thanks for that link. I'm especially amused by this sentence, since right-wing critics of Obama as well as of the critical response to Obama's critics have emphasized the first part of this bolded phrase and ignored the second:

"If the person is higher status or older than you are, you should bow deeper and longer."

"RIPPED" by the New York Times? RIPPED? That's what that was? It seemed to me a light-hearted send-up of the difficulty Americans have in figuring out how to correctly do a bow or a curtsey, since they are so unfamiliar to our culture. I'd love to hear a consensus on that. I think you'd lose.

Looking at the video again it looks to me like the Emperor was expecting a handshake

I have no idea where you get that from. Maybe your already formed opinion is influencing your vision. At any rate, I'm with Spirasol on this one: I'd much rather have a president who tries to show respect for other countries' cultural customs, even if he does it imperfectly, than have a president who figuratively gives the rest of the world the middle finger whenever he even ventures into the rest of the world.

Actually, Richao, Obama is not the descendant of slaves. But I do understand that your larger purpose in using this turn of phrase is to put Obama down by likening him to a slave.

Actually, Richao, Obama is not the descendant of slaves. But I do understand that your larger purpose in using this turn of phrase is to put Obama down by likening him to a slave.

EDITED: Sorry, clicked the wrong reply button, Christine. Obviously, this was not meant for you.

Keep at it Heinz and if you are lucky your labor will pay off and
success in this case means turning a mole hill into a mountain. Kings,
queens, feudal lords -- all these old timey roles have been disempowered
and significantly diluted for many years now. They may hold some
symbolic power but that is all. Japan is a friend and an economic
partner not some feudal state. Take a chill pill, my friend, your
umbrage has no meaning.

I remember a fascinating documentary that compared footage of Reagan greeting Gorbachev at their first summit meeting (Reagan walked confidently out in the cold weather without an overcoat ...

That was a calculated power move on Reagan's part, meant to throw Gorbachev off and seize the psychological advantage. As for JFK's "disastrous" summit with Kruschev, it may or may not have been, but I can tell you it didn't affect relations between them. Kruschev had enormous respect for Kennedy as a head of state, and was reportedly genuinely fond of him as a person. When he was given the news of JFK's murder (this is from a book I read about Kennedy), Kruschev actually lost control of his emotions and started to sob.

I had forgotten about Bush and Merkel. That one was priceless. I didn't know that Nixon had bowed to the Japanese emperor, and that the issue with Obama was merely with the depth of his bow. I had always thought that American presidents didn't bow to royalty, especially the royalty of a country we conquered. That undercuts your argument considerably, as does your failure to disclose this originally. It seems as though every time I trust a right-winger, I later realize that my trust was misplaced.

Go back and read your postings with a dispassionate eye, if that's possible. They are full of the usual Fox News resentments and cliches. It's not that this stuff offends me, it's that it bores me and frustrates me. It's the equivalent of a starving child insisting on eating wallpaper paste instead of meat and potatoes. Your kind can't be reasoned with, because the idea of reasoning is increasingly foreign to you.

richao, you're a starving man. Go eat a reasonable dinner, then come join the grownups.

Kathy,

Yes. I was very aware that Obama is not the descendant of slaves. My post above that contains this comment consists of translations of representative comments in Japanese that I found on Japanese discussion boards, and anybody who's spent any time abroad realizes that ignorance of this sort about other countries is as common in foreign lands as it is in the United States. I thought the comment was interesting because it showed how, for some Japanese, the depth of Obama's bow confirmed their own racist stereotypes of black Americans. It's a disgusting sentiment, I agree; but it's no less real for being disgusting.

Ironically enough, given your clear disdain for anybody on the right, Obama's bow actually thrilled the Japanese right-wing, which makes our own Palinites look like Christian Democrats.

FrequentPoster,

I've gone back and perused my comments closely and again can see nothing but my copious use of the very term (yokel) that are host freely used in her original post. I should have expected as much, given the fact that you yourself have at no pointed identified any other language in my post (I myself highlighted the "multiculti lib" aside as perhaps excessive, and I tried to explain what I was getting at - and no one has contradicted the point I was trying to make). I think you're allowing your own overconsumption of MSNBC to color your views of what I've written (wow, these epithets are rather easy to throw around; thanks, frequentposter, for showing me how it's done): I don't watch TV; what I've seen of Fox News in the gym and elsewhere, I despise; my tastes run to NPR (though I have my own issues with their coverage of the issues), the Atlantic, and the Washington Post, when I do look for news and commentary on current events; but on the whole I prefer to spend my time with non-political media, and particularly in books (and, no, I've never read Ann Coulter and don't plan on buying either Going Rouge or Going Rogue).

I suspect that any vociferous, feisty, sarcastic response by somebody on the right sounds to your Rachel-Maddow-trained ears like Glenn Beck (another epithet; your model makes things too easy), and that's unfortunate. I can laugh at nearly all the Jon Stewart clips my left-of-center friends send me, even though - indeed, because - they make copious use of stereotype and oversimplification of the issues. Apparently, the proper response of somebody on the right to this kind of awful provocation from my left-of-center friends is to label him and them as no better than Michael Moore. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Kathy, you are getting far to much commenter response on your threads. STOP IT.

:-)

I have no idea where you get that from. Maybe your already formed opinion is influencing your vision.

Actually I got it from the video. It's pretty clear if you've seen it. Both the President and Emperor raise their hands to shake as the President approaches.

FrequentPoster:

I'm afraid that it would have been impossible for richao to have "withheld" the information about Nixon's bow, given that the Jake Tapper article that he cited didn't appear online until 2:53 PM Eastern, 6 hours AFTER richao began posting in this thread.

Unless, of course, you think that richao is Jake Tapper's "old Japan hand" source. In which case, that would be a sign of full-fledged paranoid fear, not just plain ole mistrust of right-wingers on your part.

Come to think of it, given that richao is clearly not a right-winger, your distrust and fear of imminent betrayal is directed at an imaginary entity. Part of the definition of paranoia.

Then again, perhaps you're just feigning outrage at richao's failure to disclose the Nixon info. That would fit in quite nicely with the nature of the rest of your post: just flinging stuff out there and seeing if anything sticks. Who cares if it's true or not, illuminating or not, civil or not, relevant or not, as long as it's directed at a right-winger, real or imagined.

Ms. Kattenburg would be proud.

That was a calculated power move on Reagan's part, meant to throw Gorbachev off and seize the psychological advantage.
Yes, I'm aware of that, and that was actually my point- that the body language is important enough that it generally is orchestrated.

I don't know much about the personal feelings of Kruschev toward Kennedy, but this was about their first meeting. JFK himself told a confidante immediately afterward that it had gone very badly, and most historians agree that the Soviets took their measure of Kennedy from that meeting and that resulted in the Cuban missile challenge.

JG: Thanks. In all fairness, my politics are right-of-center (though with a strong libertarian streak on both social and economic issues), and I gather that many on this board would label anything to the right of Nancy Pelosi as notoriously right wing.

What I find amusing about FrequentPoster's complaint re the Nixon update is that not only was Tapper's piece posted after I had made my initial comments, but I was the one who actually introduced it into discussion in this thread, despite the fact that the Japan hand he quotes offered evidence (of Nixon's bow) that suggested I had gone too far in staking out my initial position. Rather than praising me for having the integrity to post new information that was not entirely consistent with my own initial reaction to Obama's bow, he berates me for springing the Tapper piece on him and "moving the goalposts."

In my view, vigorous political discussion - even when spiced with generous amounts of sarcasm, as I believed appropriate in light of the original poster's tone - offers the opportunity to the participants to stake out initial claims and then modify those in the light of new information, whether that information comes from other participants in the discussion or from outside sources. I could understand FrequentPoster's rage if one of his ideological allies in this discussion had introduced the Tapper piece, suggesting that I had concealed it. But it's mystifying to me why my posting of the piece (immediately after I found it, no less; admittedly, I didn't include a link, figuring that anybody could Google "Political Punch" or "Jake Tapper") reveals me to be a goalpost-moving right-wing Fox-News-watching ideologue.

Incidentally, I also find it amusing that FrequentPoster saved the Fox-News-watching epithet until after I had called Bush a buffoon. I don't know much about Fox News, but if what my liberal friends say is true, I suspect that view would make me persona non grata on the network.

richao, you wrote: "Incidentally, I also find it amusing that FrequentPoster saved the Fox-News-watching epithet until after I had called Bush a buffoon. I don't know much about Fox News, but if what my liberal friends say is true, I suspect that view would make me persona non grata on the network."

On most FOX News shows, you would get a few raised eyebrows, and asked to explain why you had flung such an epithet into the mix. And rightly so. But then again, the same would happen if you described Obama that way. On most shows. Hannity and Beck would likely just let it slip by. But O'Reilly wouldn't. Neither would Shepard Smith. Nor would you be likely to have that go unnoticed on Special Report.

On MSNBC, however, you'd get a green room party thrown in your honor and perhaps even an offer to be a "frequent flier" guest host on Olbermann's and Maddow's shows in the case of Bush. In the case of Obama, however, ... I can see it now ... your getting mau-mau-ed by Keith Olbermann and Bob Herbert on the basis that your epithet exposes you as a latent racist, since "buffoon" sounds ever so similar to "baboon".

Not a pretty picture.

"the depth of the bow (which, contrary to the yokel that made the original post, is far from common in Japan, being limited to deep apologies"


so........................................... Obama was apologizing, on behalf of the US people, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki after all?

Or .......................... Obama received the wrong instructions from the staff responsible for such things, who perhaps mistranslated the Japanese bowing etiquette instructions booklet, in similar fashion to the way in which, a while ago, the word "reset" was mistranslated as "overcharge" on the button that our SecState presented to her Russian counterpart.

Of such stuff diplomatic faux pas are made.

I am not "raging" about anything, richao. I am lamenting the inability to have a relatively even-handed conversation from opposing points on the political compass.

When I saw the right-wing complaints about Obama's bow, I was receptive to them because I don't think American presidents should bow to anyone for anything at any time. Really, I don't. I especially don't think they ought to be bowing to the Japanese. I've been to Japan twice, and love the place. It is one of my favorite countries of the 25 I've visited, but I don't think an American president should bow to their emperor. We conquered Japan in 1945, and for good reason.

As an aside, I have argued, and I suppose I will argue in the future, that Truman did the right thing by ordering the atomic bombings. I put them in the "necessary evil" category, with equal emphasis on both words. Last year I visited Hiroshima, and was impressed that the museum there did not overlook Japan's guilt in its actions in Southeast Asia. Similarly, I don't think Americans should ever overlook the horror that the atomic bombings unleashed. And I don't think American presidents should bow to foreign royalty, least of all Japan's.

However, the sad fact is that Obama's bow wasn't unprecedented. Nixon had done it too. At issue now is the depth of Obama's bow, which apparently was corrected on a subsequent meeting. All of this renders it a venial sin, not the outrage that's been presented by the overheated right wingers, who regrettably include you. As I've written before, I'm not offended by this crap. I am bored by it, and disheartened that rational discussion with conservatives has become virtually impossible because rationality itself seems increasingly offensive to them.

Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped. Not on here, not on the air waves. (e.g., Limbaugh vs. Hartmann)

Funny. I'm probably to the left of FrequentPoster on the Truman question, though I admit to being conflicted about it. I grew up in a gung ho military family, but I've heard enough stories - including from my own in-laws - during my 16 years in Japan of the horrors of American firebombing to wonder whether we needed to go as far as we went. It's also interesting that they've apparently made changes at the Hiroshima museum; I haven't been in nearly 20 years, and back in the day, I found the decontextualizing of the bombings rather dissonant. Though I'd not conclude from this that Japan has truly exorcised the demons of its conduct in that war: The textbooks are still largely an exercise in whitewashing, and I have dear friends who can break your heart with stories of their ceaseless activism on behalf of comfort women and other victims of Japan's wartime aggression, activism that is generally met with stony silence and complete lack of interest from politician, public, and media alike.

I'm still not sure what you mean by my "right-wing toy soldier collection" (heck, I don't even have a coffee table). It would be helpful if you could point out precisely what in my posts so offended you, but you don't seem interested in doing so. Had I responded to the original poster as you have responded to me, my post would have consisted of something about MSNBC talking points and whatever the left-wing equivalent of a toy soldier collection consists of (something more pacific, I assume) rather than what I actually offered: A multi-point explication of the reasons I believed she was wrong, written in precisely the same condescending tone the original poster had herself adopted. As I and others have pointed out, it's telling that a willful slander of nearly half your fellow citizens as "yokels" doesn't bother you in the least but criticism of poseurs that promulgate this slander in similar terms raises your ire to an impressive degree.

... and most historians agree that the Soviets took their measure of Kennedy from that meeting and that resulted in the Cuban missile challenge.

A challenge Kennedy used to redeem himself -- by resisting the pressure from military hawks in the Pentagon and C.I.A. to launch a full-scale invasion of Cuba and using back-channel negotiations to peacefully resolve the stand-off.

I wasn't arguing about Kennedy's legacy, Kathy. It was a discussion about the way that body language affects diplomacy, and the specific example of Kennedy and Kruschev's first meeting.

Any commentary about the atomic bombing of Japan is useless without placing the events in their historic context. First, the concern about mass casualties arising from a land invasion was not some fig leaf. In the late winter and spring of 1945, the U.S. and its allies took horrendous casualties in Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The fears of hundreds of thousands of casualties on our side, and millions on theirs, were rational.

Second, the Japanese military had shown itself to be utterly barbaric, not just to P.O.W.s but to themselves in the form of suicidal tactics up to and including massacres of civilian populations. There was every reason to believe that they would not shrink from placing millions of their own civilians directly in harm's way.

Third, the atomic bomb was rationally (and, it turns out, correctly) seen as a game changer. It was a "shock and awe" device before the term was ever invented. This is saying a lot, given the depths to which everyone had sunk by 1945.

In retrospect, the decision looks even better than it did at the time, for two reasons. One is that, unbeknownst to the allies at the time, the Japanese had perfected the use of plague as a weapon. They killed a quarter-million Chinese peasants doing it, and had developed ceramic bombs containing plague-infected fleas, and large submarines that could hold airplanes capable of delivering the bombs. If the U.S. had mounted a conventional invasion, the Japanese probably would have had time to use the weapon against the West Coast.

Also, there is considerable evidence that Japan had a nuclear program of its own, and may well have exploded a nuclear device in what is now North Korea on Aug. 12, 1945. By then the central government had surrendered, but if there had been a conventional invasion the Japanese might have had the time to deliver a nuclear device in San Francisco.

Therefore, while the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil, I think they were necessary. There will likely be debate about that forever, but the reality is that all decisions are surrounded by some degree of uncertainty. We can never know for sure what "would have" happened. Still, when compared to other allied actions of World War II, such as the destruction of Dresden, I think the atomic bombings hold up pretty well.

It is understandable that many Japanese would be tempted to omit "historic context" when examining the bombings. Their horror was extreme. Historians don't get that luxury.

"Any commentary about the atomic bombing of Japan is useless without placing the events in their historic context."

That would require actual thinking and reasoning among those who routinely bash nukes and the USA.

Great post, FrequentPoster.

Here's another poignant indication of what we were expecting in case the invasion of the Japanese mainland were to become unavoidable:

About half a million Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the invasion of Japan. Thankfully, they weren't needed. 60 years or so later, thankfully again, we are still nowhere near running out of them.

Everything you say is absolutely correct, FrequentPoster, and I would never attempt to take the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki out of context. I would also never label Truman a war criminal. I also believe that these two bombings were probably no more morally problematic than the firebombing of Japanese cities (or Dresden, for that matter): The death toll from firebombing was certainly greater and the destruction much more widespread and indiscriminate.

My ambivalent attitude about the atomic bombings springs, I think, from three sources. First is simply affinity: I know too many Japanese and have had too much exposure to Japanese media to consider the historical events from a purely objective standpoint; at this point, my life is bound up with that of family and friends there, and the mythology of the bombs is now part of my own story in a weird sort of way. (I don't consider this a virtue; I'm just trying to describe the lens through which I view this historical event.)

Second, something at the back of my mind nags at me: Would we have done the same to the Germans had we had the opportunity? I honestly have no idea; I consider myself only moderately well informed about WWII history (i.e., I can provide significant dates and identify major campaigns, but don't have a detailed knowledge of any single aspect of the war), and perhaps work has been done on this that I haven't read. But I wonder whether there wasn't a special animus, whether driven by Japanese atrocities in the Pacific and China, by Pearl Harbor, or by racism, that made the bombing palatable to Truman and others in the chain of command. If so, how does this weigh in the moral calculus?

Finally, and perhaps in some tension with the first two points, I think it's unquestionable that one effect of the bombs was to allow Japan to perceive itself as the victim after the war, retarding its ability to come to terms with its own horrific acts during the first half of the 20th century and, in many ways, stultifying the nation psychologically. Many of my friends express envy with Germany's apparent ability to address the atrocities of Nazism and become a responsible, "adult" member of the community of nations with decent relationships with its neighbors. And I tend to agree: It's hard to overstate the way the bombs permeate every discussion about war or national security or foreign policy - there's a veritable cult of the bomb that demands fealty from every commentator in the Japanese media, and the sheer mindlessness of what one might call "utopian victimhood" is stultifying. (This of course must be compared with (a) the potential loss of life if an invasion had been necessary and (b) a likely very different post-war era if the bombs had not been dropped. I don't profess to know how this nets out.)

There is nothing for the United States of American to apoligize for and I don't believe we play a holier than thou attitude. We have had our bad situations and have embarrased ourselves more than once, but every country has had it's moments. We need to shrug off these incidents and move on. I don't think our President, no matter who it is, should be bowing to any world leader. If our President needs to bow, then bow before God. A handshake is fine and almost every world leader extends their hand as a means of respect for each other. It is what it is.

I can't blame the Japanese for a failure to be "objective" about the atomic bombings. They were shocking then, and they haven't grown any less so. The fact that they were, in my view anyway, necessary, does not lessen their shock. The fact that they caused Japan to surrender unconditionally is testament to how shocking they were. Again, consider the context. Literally overnight, Japan went from being in the grip of a suicidal death cult to complete surrender. It's too much to demand "objectivity."

I do think the Japanese should still go further to acknowledge, fully, their guilt for their actions in Southeast Asia. The Japanese military was arguably the most barbaric fighting force in many centuries, which is saying a lot given what Stalin and Hitler did. The acknowledgement at Hiroshima impressed me, but Japan should follow through by altering their history texts taught in schools. I agree with that criticism of them.

But still, regardless of their guilt, the Japanese were victims of the atomic bombs, which were evil. Necessary, yes. Evil, yes. Those bombings were uniquely horrific, just as the German holocaust of the Jews was uniquely horrific, albeit in a different way. It's not merely a matter of numbers of casualties. After all, in the early 1930s, the Soviets starved 6 million Ukrainians to death. What made the Nazi holocaust uniquely horrific was its industrial nature; what made the atomic bombings uniquely horrific was the sheer power of the instrument.

When I went to the Hiroshima museum, I couldn't help but be shocked by what I saw, in spite of having been well acquainted with the historical reality before my visit. The fact that the displays are now placed in historic context helped greatly, in my view. Yet, I don't think Japan is obligated to tell the world, "We deserved it."

I think the museum at Hiroshima has struck exactly the right tone, by appealing for peace. Hard boiled realists will smirk at the naivete of it, but not me. If anyone ought to be able to simply plead for peace, I think the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ought to be able to do it.

Would the allies have nuked Germany? It's an impossible question, because it's devoid of historical context. It was a different situation. The allies had landed at Normandy, and Germany was being squeezed from two sides. Nuking Germany in 1945 would have been unnecessary. It would have been an act of utter barbarity, and would have placed the allies right down at Hitler's level. I am thankful that it was never considered, at least as far as I know.

I have also visited the concentration camp at Dachau. It is without doubt the ugliest place I have ever visited. I am of German descent, and I can tell you without exaggeration that I spent the afternoon walking around the ruins with my fists clenched in anger at Germany. I didn't feel any guilt over my ethnic background, I felt intense anger. Probably as much anger as I've ever felt, owing to the systematic nature of it. It was a shocking place at so many levels. It was located in a residential community; you round a bend in a quiet suburb, and there you are. I credit the Germans with preserving it. I recall wanting to leave almost right away, and then telling myself no, you have to stay here because you should see this.

And Dachau was far from the worst of it. The place was a concentration camp, not a death camp. Those were mostly in Poland, and I have yet to visit Poland. If I go there, I will visit Auschwitz. People should see this. I can say this much: When the tea parties who have captured the bulk of the Republican Party held up signs showing corpses at Dachau in their protest of Obama's health care package, I thought it was offensive. It trivialized what should never be trivialized. I think it was craven and inexcusable for the Republicans -- including, of all people, Cantor, a Jew -- not to loudly, vigorously, and universally condemn that ugly little stunt simply because they are afraid of taking the wind out of the sails of a few of their yokels, which is exactly what they are.

I sound like I am forever shocked. I am not. But the details of the atomic bombings, and of Nazi atrocities, and of Stalin's, and of Mao's, and of Pol Pot's, and of the deliberate and premeditated use of torture by the American military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba on orders from the Bush administration, are shocking. Not simply because of the numbers involved -- especially with the torture, which really didn't involve very many people -- but because each of these things, in their historical context, represented descents into barbarity.

Oddly enough, as horrific as Saddam's conduct was, or as horrific as the routine slaughers in Africa are, they don't shock me in the same way. It's not that I somehow sympathize with any of it. Maybe I expect it. To shock me, I think something has to represent a massive descent. Hitler industrialized death. So did we with the atom bombs. Stalin and Mao, but especially Stalin, took genocide to a new level. Pot Pot slaughtered 40% of his population in service of some nostalgic theory about the purity of the countryside. Bush and Cheney decided that 200 years of American advocacy of universal human rights could be tossed away. Saddam? Bad guy, but these are the Assyrians, and they've been boiling each other in oil for thousands of years. The Africans? Same deal. Not that I like it, but can anyone be surprised? We, on the other hand, are Americans. We are better, or damn well ought to be. Call it naivete, so be it.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue to condemn barbarity (including Saddam's by the way), but unfortunately it often is. That's very, very unfortunate.

Nukes ought to be "bashed." Nuclear weapons are evil. No one should ever do anything other than bash nuclear weapons.

The United States should apologize for its use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba. It is a horrendous stain on our national honor. The Americans who ordered the use of torture are traitors to everything this country stands for. They are war criminals, and should be dealt with as the other war criminals were dealt with after WWII. This will never happen, but it should.

FrequentPoster, you wrote:"When the tea parties who have captured the bulk of the Republican Party held up signs showing corpses at Dachau in their protest of Obama's health care package, I thought it was offensive."

The people who held up that execrable sign (singular) were LaRouche PAC miscreants, the same people who held up signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache with the caption "I'VE CHANGED" at various other tea party rallies. These deranged attention whores are mindless and rabid followers of Lyndon LaRouche, who ran for President as a U.S. Labor candidate once, and as a Democratic candidate seven times since the 70s.

From Wikipedia:
"2009: LaRouche on Obama

In 2009, during discussion of U.S. health care reform, LaRouche said he supported a single-payer health care policy, as opposed to the plan proposed by President Barack Obama. LaRouche compared Obama to Adolf Hitler, and the proposed health-insurance reform to Hitler's Action T4 euthanasia program.[147] He said Americans must "quickly and suddenly change the behavior of this president ... for no lesser reason than that your sister might not end up in somebody's gas oven."[148]"

And here's the link to the LaRouche PAC "Health Care" page:
http://www.larouchepac.com/health

I hope that you will now find it much easier to resist the temptation to paint the millions of your fellow Americans who have shown up at tea parties and town hall meetings to register their intense displeasure with and distrust of this administration's and Congress's current policies and future plans with the LaRouche brush. That, after all, would be as grossly unfair and insulting as my painting the millions of my fellow Americans who have been protesting against the Iraq War with the brush with which I (and, hopefully, you) would paint the chap who, at one of those rallies, defecated on the American flag. Or my painting all Democratic Presidential candidates since the 70s with the LaRouche brush would be. Or my painting all supporters of a single-payer health care plan with the LaRouche brush would be.

Fair enough?

If the LaRouche people were the ones with the Dachau banner, that still doesn't account for the Republican Party's cowardly response. The practical reality on that front is that Republican leaders are scared to death of the teaparty yokels. And the yokels themselves are mere pawns. The driving force behind the teaparties is a rich, far-right winger from Oklahoma, David Koch, who has bankrolled "Americans for Prosperity."

Your yokels are pure idiots. There aren't "millions" of them, and they are easily played for the fools that they are. You think it serves your interests. I wouldn't be so sure. Herds have a way of changing direction without notice.

Usually we are not so aware or even have the capacity to judge how
others perceive us. American narcissism has been on display for several
decades if not longer, but if you want to know don't ask us, ask the
other countries. They will tell you, if they are allowed to speak
freely. So that is a matter of fact. As for the rest it is a matter of
opinion. You choose to put yourself in the group that takes great
umbrage in the President's behavior. I do not. In fact, facts would
tell you that American presidents are pretty famous for making minor
faux pais (es). As you say, it is what is, something small, insignificant.

Oh, how easily the mask of civility comes off.

"Yokels" ... "yokels" (so nice it's worth using twice, eh?) ... "mere pawns" ... "yokels" again (Ms. Kattenburg would be so proud) ... "pure idiots" ... "fools" ... "herds".

What was it that set you off, FrequentPoster? Could it possibly be your having to face the truth that it wasn't evil gun-totin' bible-clutchin' right-winger "yokels", but the "true believer" supporters of many times Democratic candidate for President and advocate of single-payer health care Lyndon LaRouche who were behind the Dachau and ObamaHitler placards?

Or is it that there are two of you using the same nic? A civil, well reasoned FrequentPoster, the author of such posts as the one about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And another, the "In your face, you winger yokel!" FrequentPoster.

Can't help but wonder.

The teaparty crowd is indeed a bunch of frothing yokels, and they've pretty much taken over the Republican Party. Those Republicans who are left who weren't part of their movement have been cowed into submission for fear of being ousted in the 2010 and 2012 primaries. As a result, as it concerns the Republicans, the lunatics are running the asylum. The Dachau poster is a great example. The Republicans were either totally silent about it, or offered perfunctory scoldings in the softest of tones.

So, Kathy, are you planning on posting the CNN survey that shows that 2/3 of Americans are against this plan? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16...

richao:

About the Nixon bow mentioned in the Jake Tapper article?

I am having second thoughts about it. It actually looks like Nixon's "bow" is probably his leaning forward attentively to hear what the shorter Hirohito, whose "bow" looks more like a 70 year old man leaning forward to speak, is saying to to him.

The main reason why I'm beginning to question the Nixon "bow" is the following photo, taken when Nixon first met Hirohito in the 50s:
http://www.corbisimages.com/images/U1239085INP....

And here's another photo from the 1971 meeting in Alaska, while I'm at it:
http://narademo.umiacs.umd.edu/cgi-bin/isadg/ge...

Thoughts?

And now, for a bit of jocularity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLYtHHxTTmc

Is it a nod? Or a bow?

bogopogo, "And, again, if protocol - why did Obama not bow to the Queen of England?"

Because the Japanese bow to people in greetings and Westerners shake hands. That's the whole point of the controversy, people not understanding that the Japanese culture is different than American (and Western) culture.

I think it's great the Japanese are civil enough to acknowledge the fact that many Westerners don't bother to learn their culture and will accept a handshake in lieu of a bow. Too bad more Westerners don't show such graciousness.

So, according to you, it is all those OTHER heads of both Western and non-Western states who had met Emperor Akihito who got the protocol wrong? It is THEY who didn't bother to learn Japanese customs and consequently didn't manage to display the appropriate amount of graciousness?

And then, one day, Obama arrived and showed everyone, both Western and non-Western, the proper way to greet the Emperor of Japan, right?

JG,

I'm not sure what Nixon was doing in the photo from the 1971 meeting. It could be a bow; it could be leaning in to better hear the Emperor; it could be something else altogether.

At the risk of being labeled a right-wing-Fox-watching ideologue again by FP, I will say that, after thinking about it some more, I would phrase my initial position a little differently (and would have done so perhaps more temperately, had I not been infuriated by the original poster's slander of half the citizenry). Namely, I think that Obama's bow was either reprehensible (if intentional) or slightly buffoonish (if negligent) primarily because of its depth and because it would not be - and Obama knew or should have known that it would not be - reciprocated. I think that the WH protocol that presidents should not bow to foreign heads of state - particularly if royalty - is an important symbolism that should be preserved. But in cultures where a bow can just be a greeting and will be reciprocated with the same degree of bowing, it may not be inappropriate, any more than greeting a foreign leader from Continental Europe or the Middle East with a kiss on the cheek is inappropriate (even if he is the Saudi king).

In other words, where the bow is a symbol of obeisance or obsequiousness (and this is usually indicated by the failure of the other person to reciprocate; although I've not observed these greetings closely, I don't recall ever seeing, e.g., British royalty bowing/curtsying to our President or to their own subjects; in that context, bowing clearly implies that one occupies a lower social level), the president should not bow. Where the right kind of bow can be a mere greeting and will be reciprocated (and this may require advance arrangements by protocol officers) by a bow of equal depth, my tentative position now is that it should not be seen to signify anything but a greeting.

This does not change my opinion of Obama's bow or of the folks who pontificated, based on their uninformed "cosmopolitanism", that this bow was culturally appropriate. It was not appropriate by any measure: In the taxonomy of Japanese bowing, it was a sign of deep apology or subservience and was thus inappropriate in the circumstances in Japanese terms; and in terms of WH precedent, it was a dramatic deviation from historic protocol

Thank you for your reply, richao.

I'm in full agreement with your concluding thoughts.

Which leaves the question: "Why Obama would do that?"

I don't think it was a slip up. He's a very self-controlled man, it seems to me. At least in public. I very much doubt we would ever see him giving Merkel a playful shoulder rub, for instance.

Neither do I really think it was a Office of Protocol bungle. I suspect they've been in "belt and suspenders" mode ever since the "reset" button kerfuffle.

So, then, why? Why would Obama go for a move like that?

Apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Nope. Underlining to the Chinese that it's Japan with whom the U.S. has a REALLY special relationship? Nope. Neither these, nor any other explanations and theories I've heard or read have struck me as satisfactory.

And then, a couple of days ago, during a conversation with some relatives, one of them proposed the following:

The last time there was a big kerfuffle about a bow was when Obama bowed (just about identically in terms of depth, it bears mentioning) to the Saudi King, a Muslim monarch. Obama bowed to Akihito, a non-Muslim monarch, as a way of saying "See? It's not about any kind of latent Muslim/Islam sympathies."

Now THAT one I can just about accept as the real reason behind Obama's latest bow.

Thoughts?

I'd like to know the story behind Obama's bow, which after all of the huffing and puffing I think was inappropriate but not a mortal sin. I have no doubt that there is a story, and that we won't hear it in its entirety until after he's out of office.

JG, that thought actually crossed my mind, and it's possible that some on the right might have attacked him for bowing to the odious Saudi monarch and not the rather harmless Japanese monarch. But I'm not sure many folks would even have recalled that had there been no bow at all; I don't recall hearing any such carping after his meeting with - and presumably non-bowing to - the queen of England. So that explanation doesn't entirely satisfy.

I'm more inclined to believe that either Obama believed that a deep bow was consistent with the new, improved "humble" foreign policy that he's trying to project or that he just - as so many non-Japanese do - confused the many instructions he had received on proper etiquette. My Obama-supporting friends and I disagree about the appropriateness of Obama's approach to foreign policy, but in my view, the former interpretation does in fact fit with much of his rhetoric abroad. Unfortunately, if this was his motivation, I don't think he thought through things very carefully: The deviation from historical practice was bound to attract more intention than the gesture warranted; the Emperor was obviously not prepared for the bow; the Japanese media appears to have been embarrassed by it; and the Japan-US relationship presents a number of thorny issues, compromise on which would have been a far better expression of a less "arrogant" foreign policy. It's as if he wanted to replace the Bush swagger with something less in-your-face and decided that it would be appropriate to go barefoot, thinking it an unremarkable sign of humility. Just off-key in so many ways.

I generally consider the Bushes to be America's most elegant white trash family. The grandfather was a Nazi sympathizer. The father was a well-mannered dolt. The son a ne'er-do-well frat boy who will go down as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. And I haven't even started on Barbara. Kitty Kelly got it right about that twisted clan.

But Bush Sr. did one thing right. Probably only one thing, but it was one thing. He took a trip to Japan to attend a funeral of some sort, and the Japanese assigned him a seat in the second row of the room where it was held. Bush Sr. had none of it. He summarily ignored the seating chart and sat in the front row. The incident got no attention whatsoever; I learned about it from an insider who was there.

I am in favor of Obama's efforts to extend olive branches around the world. It is the right thing to do after the many disasters of the prior eight years of insolent frat-boyism. But I think that his deep bow to the emperor was a mistake -- one that I will note was corrected on the second go-'round. No one outside of the bubble knows why he did it. The speculation tells much more about the speculators than about the thing being speculated upon.

It'll be a great story whenever it's told.

StockBoySF - so you're telling me people don't bow to the Queen of England? Seriously?

And do Saudi's bow to each other as a greeting?

And - acting like Obama meeting the Japanese Emperor is no different than any American meeting any Japanese is just silly.

Furthering Obama's embarrassment is the fact that the emperor came out with his hand extended for a hand shake - so clearly he was expecting a handshake and not a bow.

Then it was compounded when he didn't return Obama's bow.

And I'd be willing to bet that being emperor for 21 years, the Japanese emperor has a pretty good grasp on protocol.