Daniel Larison makes a very strong point: the world does not like the US because of its policies, and the symbolism of an Obama presidency will do little to heal the rifts and unavoidable tensions with the rest of the world:
As I have said before there is scarcely a more disrespectful, condescending attitude towards the rest of the world than the assumption that they can be bought off or won over with something as superficial as a U.S. President with a mixed racial background. If the Obama fans actually believe their candidate has some legitimate policy changes to introduce, that might be a reason for other nations to respond favorably to him, but on the whole the changes on offer are, like so much else in this campaign, symbolic and aesthetic. In the end, Obama fans project their own fantasies about “racial reconciliation” into the international sphere, implicitly likening the majority of the world to our minority populations, which is to belittle them a second time. This relieves them of the obligation to critique seriously U.S. foreign policy, which is the source of some significant part of anti-U.S. animus, since they have already concluded that America’s reputation can be repaired in some measure simply through the election of one man.
It sure doesn’t help that Obama knows he’s weak on foreign policy and sometimes plays the hawk, like an in-over-his-head manager playing the tyrant to rattle and silence his subordinates. His appearance and background will do little to help him with counterparts ranging from China to Pakistan to Russia, and his lack of experience and interest in foreign affairs will provide an additional burden if he becomes the President. George W. Bush is a good example of this problem in action: he could care less about world affairs before he became President, he’s been unduly influenced by idealistic-sounding idiots like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, mucking things up mightily because his ability to think critically about the sometimes conflicting advice he’s getting is severely compromised.
13 May 2008 at 5:19 pm
Where Obama’s election will help us is in our relations with Western Europe, because its political elites think like our political elites. In fact, our elites have more in common with European elites than they do with the majority of Democratic voters.
Of course only so much incompetence can be forgiven, and Obama may manage to undo any improvements in the relationship through incompetence. After all, Carter managed to make the Europeans dislike him.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/5076.html
But for at least for a year or so after Obama’s election, you can expect lots of warm feelings, a rise in European travel to U.S., and a rash of articles by Europeans describing America’s growing maturity and its break from its sordid, war-mongering, racist Republican past.
The last is reason enough to oppose him.
13 May 2008 at 5:26 pm
It’s funny, I said something very similar over at Danie’s post on Takimag.com.
13 May 2008 at 6:49 pm
I worry deeply for a nation of people who willingly overlook Obama’s desire to dismantle our military leaving us vulnerable to World powers and who at the same time wants to take away our ability as individuals to protect ourselves by taking away our guns. (This is my personal record for run-on sentence)
I know I will be labeled as a right-wing gun-toten lunatic. But, I will never vote for a man would lead us into a life of submission.
13 May 2008 at 8:02 pm
Obama is the chemotherapy for the republican party and/or the “conservative” movement.
We must make ourselves ill in order to kill the cancerous growth inside us that is the neocons.
And Actually, I like Europeans coming over to the US as much as possible. The are naive, but they are still European.
Who would you rather have who come over?
13 May 2008 at 8:31 pm
I like Europeans and I like Europe. I also like it when they spend money here. That’s why I said “the last is reason enough to oppose him”, not “these are all reasons to oppose him.”
My analogy would be different. The cancer is terminal, but the end is a long way off. Why speed up the process with risky, obtrusive, painful treatments that are likely to just result in a quicker death?
13 May 2008 at 8:53 pm
“My analogy would be different. The cancer is terminal, but the end is a long way off. Why speed up the process with risky, obtrusive, painful treatments that are likely to just result in a quicker death?”
Because without a speedy termination of the current charade there will be an ever diminishing chance of a healthy rebirth. A genuine crisis, not a stage-managed media event, would alert people to the fact that the good times are over and they should see to their own welfare. Putting an over-hyped, hard-left, neophyte such as Obama into office increases the chance of uncontrolled happenings and perhaps moves events off the path the current script dictates.
14 May 2008 at 3:40 pm
Nobody knows whether he will fail as a politician. He may do incalculable damage yet still prove popular and only accelerate our descent.
If you think about it, Bush has been a blessing for the conservative movement in many ways. 10 years ago, the fault lines within conservatism were much less clearly defined than they are now. We don’t know that a McCain presidency wouldn’t actually do more to re-invigorate a real conservative movement than an Obama presidency would. We also don’t know that an Obama presidency wouldn’t just paper over disagreements on the Right, creating a false unity and preventing the development of a coherent philosophy.
The only thing we do know with much certainty is that Obama would be a very, very bad president, and considerably worse than McCain.
14 May 2008 at 5:08 pm
You make a good point on the papering-over thing; consider how the obsession with Clinton and his sexual follies undermined serious conservative philosophy and discussions of policy in the 90s.
14 May 2008 at 5:13 pm
I’m telling you, Obama is as much of a false hope for paleo-conservatives as he is for everybody else.
16 May 2008 at 3:56 pm
“Daniel Larison makes a very strong point: the world does not like the US because of its policies”
Wrong, flat out wrong.
The world doesn’t dislike the US. Larison has no evidence for this.
Third World losers hate the US – there’s plenty of evidence for that. They hate the US because the US is the dominant power.
Tough.
As for the US changing its policies because a bunch of third world losers hate us, fuck that.
18 May 2008 at 1:54 pm
Jsilverheels,
the US should change its policies because its policies put America last and global corporations first.
It is politically disadvantageous for the US to work among foreign states that oppose it.
However, it would seem both in the best interests of US foreign relations and US interests in general for the US to cease supporting the rest of the world with free trade, subsidies, and foreign bases.
America should defend its border, defend its industries, and defend its people.
1 Apr 2009 at 5:51 am
[...] has never apparently thought much about foreign policy before becoming President. His passions were personal and domestic: inner-city black power politics. To the extent he [...]
12 Sep 2009 at 4:31 am
[...] stance on this subject was always unserious, a campaign prop, and his diffident refusal to either increase forces and rally Americans for the [...]
13 Sep 2009 at 6:01 pm
[...] stance on this subject was always unserious, a campaign prop, and his diffident refusal to either increase forces and rally Americans for the [...]