Is There A Rhyme Or Reason To U.S. Foreign Policy?

That’s the question that Victor Davis Hanson is attempting to make sense of, at the Corner:

During the 2008 campaign, the Obama group argued that Bush & Co. were insensitive to allies and had acted in clumsy, unilateral fashion, permanently damaging our stature in the world. Given the first 15 months of foreign policy in the new administration, we can see now that Obama’s critique largely meant that we had damaged relations with supposed belligerents like Cuba, Iran, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela — inasmuch as right now, British, Colombian, Czech, German, Honduran, Indian, Israeli, Japanese, Polish, and South Korean leaders might privately prefer the good “bad” old days of the supposed cowboy Bush. All of which raises the question: Why Obama’s shift in foreign policy? I offer four alternatives, uncertain of the answer myself.

Meanwhile, on his Pajamas blog, VDH explores the deleterious impact of the Obama regime’s (as Chris Matthews would say) domestic policy.

And the blogger known as “the Rhetorican” explores the unusual way that Michael Moore’s old stomping grounds are gaming the Obasystem. Detroit temporarily benefited via Obama’s “Cash For Clunkers” program; its northern neighbor Flint is apparently trying the “Arson For Cash” approach.

To bring both foreign and domestic policies together, think of it as one big Man-Caused Disaster.