The World Hopes for Its First President

[Pangloss]

Fascinating story in Newsweek out today, talking about how closely the rest of the world is watching our presidential race.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/166910

 

I no longer find this perplexing, but like many Americans I do find it somewhat troubling, and have a tendency to feel that they don't have any say in our elections just as we don't have any say in theirs (and kudos to our overseas SFN members for respecting our feelings in this regard). But I think it's important to understand how the world perceives us. We've been playing the game of world politics very badly of late. We're too insular, too unaware of what the world thinks of our actions and behaviors (even internal ones).

 

In some ways America is like Russel Crowe -- too popular to go bar-hopping on a Friday night without somebody recognizing us, and when they do, we get kinda pissy about it, thrashing around at the most convenient targets without too much concern about the consequences. Only later do we stop to think about how people will perceive our actions. It's not that we're bad guys, and people love us when we're doing the right thing. And there's just nothing we can do about the fact that people are watching -- we can't go hole-up somewhere and wait for our notoriety to pass. So we really need to be more aware of what is happening in the world and how we are being perceived.

 

With that in mind I think this article is really interesting, because it goes into a lot more detail than most of the similar pieces I've read. Here are a couple of quotes I found particularly interesting. This first one is a bit about how America is still looked-at as the land of opportunity and a role model for others, and the popularity of Obama reflects that view.

 

Somewhere along the road to the White House, Obama became the world's candidate—a reminder that for all the talk of America's decline, for all the visceral hatred of Bush, the rest of the world still looks upon the United States as a land of hope and opportunity. "The Obama adventure is what makes America magical," French State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Rama Yade, a Senegalese immigrant who is the only black member of Nicolas Sarkozy's government, recently told Le Parisien.

 

Even McCain fans should see the above as encouraging, IMO. It shows that it's concern, not hatred, that the world feels, and that it still sees us in a positive light.

 

This next bit talks about how the world relates to Obama because of his ethnic background. It was interesting to me mainly because I simply hadn't considered it before.

 

Outside of the United States, the election played large and transformational: a 21st-century man with whom the whole world can identify versus an old cold-warrior out of synch with the complex political and economic crises of our age. The election, it seemed, had morphed into a meta-election. If at home, especially as the election neared its end, Obama seemed to be playing down his blackness, his intellect, his eliteness and his progressive ideas, these were the qualities that more and more drew the rest of the world to him. The world loved the idea that a man named Barack Hussein Obama could become America's 44th president after a 200-year string of white guys named Washington and Jefferson, Clinton and Bush. Asia was trying to claim Obama for his Indonesian childhood, Africa for his Kenyan father, and the Middle East for his middle name, says Ahmed Benchemsi, who edits both of Morocco's leading newsweeklies, one in French, one in Arabic.

 

This next quote addresses the feelings of the world in terms of how the selection will impact them personally.

 

Now, to the rest of the world America's election is about change but not just at home. Jonathan Freedland, a columnist for The Guardian in London, says the past seven years have been a long, painful public education for the world in the importance of decisions made by the United States. "Two wars and a global financial crisis—those events, at least to some extent, had their origins in decisions taken in Washington." What's more, the connection between the world and the occupant of the Oval Office has become deeply personal, says Constanze Stelzenmüller, director of the Berlin office of the German Marshall Fund. "In a globalized world," she says, "America's president can shape lives worldwide. He is our president, too."

 

 

This next quote gets into how Obama is causing other countries to hold a mirror up to themselves and assess their own behavior. Fascinating -- I had no idea.

 

More than celebrity worship, the Obama phenomenon has already had a very real impact abroad, raising questions, for example, about the lack of progress by racial minorities in Europe. Europe's parliamentary democracies have done quite well by women in recent decades, but blacks and Asians have been left behind. "Searching for the French Barack Obama" was a headline in Le Monde last week. As part of that report, the Togolese-born former state secretary for social affairs and integration Kofi Yamgnane told the paper, "We have to admit that the American model works better than the French model." "We love Obama," wrote the columnist Claude Weill in Nouvel Observateur, because "we hate slavery, racial segregation, discrimination in all its forms—America's original sins." He concludes on a pessimistic note: "We are the country of human rights, no? But are we really listening to Obama?"

 

 

And just to end on a humorous note:

In Brazil, flattery knows no bounds: at least eight candidates in recent elections simply borrowed Barack Obama's name and put it on the ballot instead of their own.

 

(grin) Anyway, it's a great piece, check it out. And I'd like to invite our international members, even those who may have withheld commenting in other threads, to comment in this thread about how they view the election and what thoughts they might have about this in general.

[ecoli]

Even the headline of this piece speaks to how interventionist our foriegn policy has become. It's nice to be the world economic leaders, but I don't think that the founding fathers ever expected or wanted a president of the united states to be "president of the world." I don't want that either.

[Realitycheck]

Down boy, down boy. Just who do you think you are, little doggie?

 

Chief Weapons Inspector and U.N. Secretary declared Iraq invasion illegal and we get an alternate United Nations out of the deal. I don't think we're getting a whole lot of respect right now.

Edited November 1, 2008 by agentchange

[jackson33]

It's good most of the World is looking at Americans and our election, but I don't think its new or would be of more interest than for the same reasons Americans are more interested. Historically its been quite a change from the 'all old white males', for some reason Americans have alway chose. We had a strong lady in Ms. Clinton get dissed by her party, who happened to be the wife of another 'said' worldwide loved American President, then a Black man becoming the candidate and now have added another lady. Today the world can be involved, with the same TV 24/7/365 news channels, literally watching every move.

 

However the 'said' worlds disenchantment with our politics has come from a President who led his Nation, made decisions and has changed the world. Most of those Nations have had a rather good 6 years of prosperity and standards of living increasing, along with reasonable peaceful conditions and most certainly have benefited in keeping terrorism at bay. They have and we have benefited in a doubling of Capitalist Activity, even in societies that had before rejected any notion of the system. China/Dubai and Iraq this day just a few examples. Oil has flowed and the engines that drive these advancements has continued in the midst of chaos and threatening leaders tied to their own agenda and interest, opposed to their people.

 

What they don't fear along with many Americans, is the probability of what and how ANY one person, much less Mr Obama can do to continue these beneficial aspects to the World Community. If Obama is elected, taking office in January of 2009, will change nothing over the short period. Some that have been held back may test the man, cause problems that may not have happened if McCain had won maintaining some status quo, and others will be expecting changes (in the world & US) that cannot occur. More important to all the investors around the world that to this day invest in the potential future of a Nation, will be holding back, to wait and see or out of direct fear.

Leader of Government know the closest thing to a true 'Free Market Capitalist' society exist only in the US and that system will be tested to the limits of our constitution. Those leaders have depended on the US system for years as their societies have suffered the consequences of socialism and the bleeding of their investment class, which has been held up only by the American Market System where those investors have turned and where most all Industry is based or depend on for sales/service.

 

It's no secret Obama desire to influence world affairs, much more than GWB or any previous US government. No doubt he will push for all government to increase spending in 3rd world Nations, increase spending on their already over taxed population and cut off partial relations or penalize any Nation who disagrees. Maybe it would have been best, if in their enthusiasm with our system and the outcome, they considered how an American President can disrupt their day to day life, and Americans to understand that intentional attitude.

[YT2095]

Fascinating story in Newsweek out today, talking about how closely the rest of the world is watching our presidential race.

 

perhaps because it has little choice with all the spam it`s been getting about it!

[Pangloss]

Really? You guys get a lot of Obama/McCain spam overseas?

[iNow]

Ecoli - I find your isolationist tendencies in these threads a bit dated, jingoistic, and out of touch. Our economy and our planet will never again be split by cartographers or waterways as it was in the past. We are truly one planet, one humanity, all sharing the same issues and problems together. That is one of the biggest impacts from this information age through which we're currently living...

 

The interconnection of people and ideas across vast distances and eclectic backgrounds.

 

 

 

This sentiment seems to apply to Jackson's post as well.

[SkepticLance]

Speaking as a non-American, I have a passing interest in who gets elected. This is because of the power wielded and the impact on non-American parts of the world. The USA has done some wonderful things. In particular from my personally biased science loving view, it has advanced space exploration, and invested enough in science in general to advance the whole field. In addition, I love much of what comes out of Hollywood.

 

However, the US administration has a well deserved international reputation for arrogance. This comes from its tendency to rush in to try to control the fate of other nations. The number of nations it has invaded since WWII is staggering. Even where it failed to apply military force, the US administration has frequently applied other forms of force to coerce results that are in the interests of the US administration, rather than in the interests of the sovereign, independent nations so affected. None of us living in other nations consider this desirable. We want to control our own destinies, free of American self interest.

 

It has been said that with great power comes great responsibility. Few in the world outside the USA would say that the US administration has been particularly responsible in the way it has exercised that power outside the USA.

 

For this reason, we have a strong interest in the outcome of the presidential election, in the hope that someone will come to power who will respect our independence and national sovereignty.

[ecoli]

Ecoli - I find your isolationist tendencies in these threads a bit dated, jingoistic, and out of touch. Our economy and our planet will never again be split by cartographers or waterways as it was in the past. We are truly one planet, one humanity, all sharing the same issues and problems together. That is one of the biggest impacts from this information age through which we're currently living...

 

whoa.. since when did non-interventionism mean isolationism? Trade with all, initiate agression with none, is what I say... if that's out of touch, then I say we need more people who are "out of touch" in politics.

 

We are one planet, but we do not yet have a world nation, and I would like to keep it that way. We can and should have trade and interaction with all nations, but we don't have to change our constitution to make room for some notion of "global law."

 

The arrogance that skepticlance speaks of in the above post is the result of American political leaders thinking we have the ability, the method and imperative to solve "humanity's" problems. It's a global "white man's burden."

 

Yes, there are global humanitarian issues we would all love to solve, but has American foreign policy really made a dent? For every "good" thing our government has done, I bet you could find 2, 3 or a hundred bad things we've done, oversees; with the stated goal of benefiting mankind, but with the true intent of protecting American and western interests (which, if nothing else, can simply be seen by where we choose to help).

 

If we really want to do the rest of the world some good, we'd continue trading openly with all, but stop meddling in the political and economic affairs of other nations... I'd be willing to bet the farm that the majority of people we've "helped" over the years would agree.

 

So maybe it's dated not to want to waste time and money trying to fix other nation's problems in a so-called expansive foreign policy. I just think it speaks volumes that this type of foreign policy is now so mainstream that we can't even fathom what it would be like without troops stationed in 144 countries. I think there's another, and a better, way.

 

Realistically, the world has no geographical boundaries to us, but functionally, we can't afford to heal the world's hurts. Especially not right now. If you want to mischaracterize that as isolationism, I frankly don't care very much, because our politicians (and most of our citizens) are so arrogant and egotistical, that they think we have an imperative to baptize, westernize and democratize the world.. so I realize that nothing I say is going to change anything.

[SkepticLance]

ecoli is so right.

Trade is good, and aid is good. Interventionism is bad.

[Severian]

Really? You guys get a lot of Obama/McCain spam overseas?

 

Just count the number of US election stories at http://news.bbc.co.uk/. We probably get spammed more than you guys.

[iNow]

Realistically, the world has no geographical boundaries to us, but functionally, we can't afford to heal the world's hurts.

 

I agree with the first part of your sentence, but not the second. Not only have you given up on solving our problems before starting, but the entire essence of your argument boils down to, "We've screwed up a bit in the past, so we should never try again." I'm not picking up what you're throwing down here. Nope. I'm not buyin' what you're sellin'.

[ecoli]

ecoli is so right.

Trade is good, and aid is good. Interventionism is bad.

 

I would even venture to say that Aid is bad (though in practice, not necesarily in principle). More often than not, we use our money to keep political cronies in power (benevolent dictatorship is better than communism, right?) or by selectively granting aid to promote stability in oil rich regions.

 

I don't think we can afford this type of aid anymore, juding by the state of the national deficit, among other things.

 

Stiglitz has a good book about how the IMF uses its power to force other nations to conform their economies to western standards... whether or not it's good for them and whether or not they want to. This is not how aid is supposed to work... but this is what inevitably happens. We try to protect our own interests under the guise of aid (military, financial, whatever) and wind up doing much more harm then good.

 

OF course, our own citizens buy into it, just by the very nature of the vocabulary we use. Afterall, who wouldn't support giving "aid"?

[iNow]

Here are the top 3 issues playing into my "we're one planet" concept:

 

• Global Warming
  
• Human population growth
  
• Carl Sagan
  

 

[ecoli]

I agree with the first part of your sentence, but not the second. Not only have you given up on solving our problems before starting, but the entire essence of your argument boils down to, "We've screwed up a bit in the past, so we should never try again." I'm not picking up what you're throwing down here. Nope. I'm not buyin' what you're sellin'.

I'm saying that history has demonstrated our utter incompetence at solving the world's problems.

 

Furthermore, I don't think most politicians and leaders actually want to solve the world's problems, but rather protect their own financial interests.

 

Frankly, I think you comments are a bit niave, because you seem to think we can trust politicians to actually use taxpayer funds like they claim they will, instead taking advantage our american egotism and misdirected goodwill in order to further take advantage of people in developing nations.

 

If you think goodwill under any national banner is ever going to do longterm, widespread good, then I believe you're mislead about the realities of how political leaders behave.

 

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that foreign intervention has never or can never do any good. But, the reality is, many problems in developing nations were caused, directly and indirectly by western meddling. More meddling is not going to solve these problems because we haven't shedded our egos just yet.

 

Here are the top 3 issues playing into my "we're one planet" concept:

 

• Global Warming
  
• Human population growth
  
• Carl Sagan
  

 

 

We can't even get our own country to tackle these issues responsibly, and you think we can get other nations to do it?

 

We're on one planet, but we are still a soverign nation, and I'll damn anyone who thinks we need to sell our constitution for a carbon credit.

[Pangloss]

Ecoli I think the author's point was not so much that the world sees Obama as their first actual president, but rather that they recognize the very real impact that every American president has on their lives and therefore feel at least somewhat invested in the choice that's being made. It's actually pretty hard not to see them as stakeholders.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have almost a visceral, gut-level negative reaction to that notion. And I think it's one that everyone can empathize with -- who would like the notion of a foreign citizenry taking an active role in their election? It's anathema!

 

But in this increasingly interconnected and homogenized world, every action has its "ripple effect". And when it comes to elections there is no bigger ripple effect than that which comes from the choice of US president. That's just the way it is.

 

We have a pretty clear choice here:

1) Ignore it.

2) Embrace it.

 

#1 accomplishes nothing and events are going to run their course without our input. How's that working out so far?

 

#2 allows us to have some say in the matter. If we can better understand how we're being perceived, then not only can we rebuild our reputation but we can also have a positive impact on world events AND defend and benefit ourselves in the process.

[iNow]

Ecoli, I'm telling you, mate. These ideas of sovereign nations will very soon be old-fashioned remnants of our history. We're not there yet, I understand, but we're heading there.

 

Further, if you were interpreting my points accurately, you would realize that my proposal is not for the US to solve all of the worlds problems... to "go it alone." My suggestion is that since we're one planet, we all can do it together.

 

Naive? Maybe, doesn't mean I'm wrong nor that it's not exactly where we're heading (if we manage to survive the mass extinction event taking place, that is).

[ecoli]

Ecoli, I'm telling you, mate. These ideas of sovereign nations will very soon be old-fashioned remnants of our history. We're not there yet, I understand, but we're heading there.

I'll rue the day when "international law" trumps the US constitution in a US court. That's when I seriously consider this option:

 

Further, if you were interpreting my points accurately, you would realize that my proposal is not for the US to solve all of the worlds problems... to "go it alone." My suggestion is that since we're one planet, we all can do it together.

Sure... maybe we can get some African nations to help bailout wall street too.

 

Realistically, we don't really partner with developing nations to solve problems. Usually, we just manipulate or buy up their sovereignty for our own benefit. And by "us" I really mean our belovedly elected politicians.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'll rue the day when "international law" trumps the US constitution in a US court. That's when I seriously consider this option:

 

Wow! That almost makes me want to move to New Hampshire. The only suspicious thing mentioned there is that state house representatives only earn $100 a year. Brings to mind some historical figure who turned down someone offering to serve as judge for free, saying, "I don't think my people can afford that."

[Pangloss]

I'll rue the day when "international law" trumps the US constitution in a US court.

 

Well look at it this way: What if the rest of the world adopted our laws outright? Would you have the same objection to world government then? I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world should adopt our laws, I'm just saying that if we all looked at things the same way then we probably wouldn't be as uncomfortable with the concept of world government. And by "the same way" that doesn't mean that everyone would agree on all the issues either -- it just means that everyone would be operating within the same legal and moral framework.

 

I think if you look at 20th century history, it's not hard to see the world moving in that general direction. So is a world government really that hard to imagine?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'll rue the day when "international law" trumps the US constitution in a US court. That's when I seriously consider this option:

 

From one of their pages (warning, pdf)

#18 New Hampshire offers the critical

advantage of allowing fusion

candidates. A fusion candidate is

defined as one who has been nominated by two or more

parties, and appears on the general ballot with all parties

noted.

The advantage is absolutely critical to the political success of

FSP members. It means the ability to run as a Libertarian-

Republican or even as a Libertarian-Republican-Democrat,

capturing all of the straight-ticket votes.

How successful is this strategy in New Hampshire? In the

2002 election, 59 seats of 400, or 15% of the House, was

won with fusion! Every single fusion candidate on the

general ballot won! In 1992, 2 Libertarians won seats using

just this method.

 

This is one of the things I was mentioning, about how the voting system has a huge effect on the winners. While it is not the ideal system, I think this is better than most of the rest of the US.

[jackson33]

In the US; City law rules to the limitation of the County, County law rules to the limits of the State and the State Law rules to the limits of the Federal. Like it or not (i prefer not) we already bow to many International Laws, pertaining to folks while in the US (diplomats), process in conducting war/attacks, interpretations of treaty and to some degree use the same laws ourselves. Additionally trade agreement are acceptance of current laws in countries involved and Green/Environmental/Human Rights are considered on an international level. We already accept our limitations under International Law and to some extent this may not be a bad thing...but international law should be limited to an acceptable interest of ALL Nations.

[SkepticLance]

To jackson

 

The fact that the US fails to conform to many international laws and treaties is a very sore point to non Americans. Outside the US, we see this as another example of the unbelievable arrogance of the US administration.

 

For example : land mines are a dreadful weapon which kills and maims thousands of innocents around the world each year. There is a comprehensive land mine ban to which all civilised nations have signed. The conspicuous absense is the USA. Is this because the US military wants to continue to use this dreadful and indescriminate weapon and continue to kill and maim innocents each year? Is it because they are arrogant and callous? Is it some kind of ridiculous gesture towards independent choice of action? In any event, it is reprehensible that the world's largest military power refuses to sign that treaty.

 

The world, like it or not, is shrinking. Because of instantaneous communication, and rapid transport, no nation is an island any more. Trade and trans-cultural influences bring us all closer. We all have to work together and try to form a harmonious world cooperative. Nations that refuse to cooperate are a pain in the arse!

[Pangloss]

Yyyyeeeahhhh... that's not gonna work, Lance. Guilting us into world government, I mean. First, because it's unfair -- there are many counterpoints to the arguments you make above, and second because people just don't like it when you constantly tell them that they are wrong and bad.

 

I'm not saying that's right, but it is an emotional issue as much as a realistic one. You can beat your head against the wall or you can recognize that Americans have valid points in this area as well, find some common ground, and move forward over time.

 

Or you can launch your nukes. Oh yeah that's right, you don't have any.

[Mr Skeptic]

The fact that the US fails to conform to many international laws and treaties is a very sore point to non Americans. Outside the US, we see this as another example of the unbelievable arrogance of the US administration.

 

For example : land mines are a dreadful weapon which kills and maims thousands of innocents around the world each year. There is a comprehensive land mine ban to which all civilised nations have signed. The conspicuous absense is the USA.

 

Looks like someone doesn't like the idea of sovereign nations. Why should the US be required to abide by laws that they have not agreed on? We haven't agreed on how to choose a world government either, nor agreed to be part of one. Why not instead complain that the world doesn't always do what the US tells it to? Why shouldn't the world abide by US laws?

 

[...]Nations that refuse to cooperate are a pain in the arse!

 

Freedom can be such an annoying thing.