Obama’s world popularity: what difference does it make?
There was some discussion yesterday in the comments section about this recent quote from Joe Biden (remember him?):
[T]he last administration left us in a weaker posture than we’ve been any time since World War II: less regarded in the world, stretched more thinly than we ever have been in the past, two wars under way, virtually no respect in entire parts of the world. And so we’ve been about the business of repairing and strengthening those.
Biden’s remarks caught my attention because they reflect a number of discussions I’ve had recently with friends who are Obama supporters. The basic idea is this: they feel a sense of blessed relief that Obama is President.
This not only contrasts sharply with my own feelings on the subject, but it is puzzling because in some cases they simultaneously confess to being disturbed by some of his actual policies, particularly on the economy. In general, they admit they’re not paying attention to the details (understandable; most people are very busy). But although some of the details of which they are aware make them quite uneasy, they paradoxically retain a tremendous faith and trust in the man. Lest you think my friends unusual, this coincides with the results of many recent polls that place Obama’s favorability very high at the same time respondents disagree with many specifics of his proposals.
What’s going on here? When I question my friends more closely, or just listen to them speak amongst themselves, two things seem especially important in shaping their positive feelings about Obama: they are drawn to his personal style (especially in contrast to predecessor Bush, whom they uniformly detest), and they are happy that the world now likes us better.
It’s that latter idea that ties into the Biden remark. There is no question that polls in many countries indicate a renewed optimism about the US now that Obama is President. If our goal is to say, like Sally Field, “they like us, they really like us!” then I suppose that’s a good thing. But except for the warm glow, what difference does it really make?
It’s interesting to observe, as I did when I looked up that Sally Field quote, that what she really said was [emphasis mine], “You like me; right now, you like me!” The temporal and transitory nature of popularity that even Ms. Field managed to place in her sentence in the midst of her euphoria at winning an Oscar is a realistic and sobering note. This is at least as true in the world of geopolitics as in Oscar competitions.
How much does such a thing as popularity actually matter in the course of world affairs? And what does it really mean to be liked in such a way? What does it mean to be liked in countries that have their own interests in mind, when those interests conflict with ours? Could “optimism about the US” sometimes mean “optimism that we will now be able to control/exploit people instead of them?” And does the opinion of the average person have anything whatsoever to do with what the leaders of his/her country are likely to do, or with the power struggles of those leaders and countries on the world stage?
Several analysts have pointed out that, for all of Obama’s European rhetoric, bowing, and ‘umbleness about the role of America in the world, he gained nothing from his visit except personal adulation [emphasis mine]:
Warmly greeted by European leaders and the public alike as a welcome relief from his predecessor, Obama’s appeal hasn’t enabled to him to bridge differences on key economic and military issues with American allies.
Obama left the G-20 summit in London without securing any further commitment by individual countries to enact more stimulus spending. And Saturday he departs from NATO’s gathering in this French-German border town without a pledge by allies to send further combat troops to Afghanistan to bolster the American military surge there.
Note the highlighted sentence—exactly and precisely the sentiment of my friends. But the rest of the excerpt indicates how meaningless it all might be, except as window-dressing. Perhaps it might even be dangerous.
To learn why, one could do worse than to turn to Machiavelli, who noticed certain political truths some time ago (the following refers to rulers within a country, but I believe one could well extrapolate to having power in the world):
In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.”
Machiavelli, of course, is considered—well, Machiavellian. But he was a keen observer of the way things are rather than the way we might wish them to be.
Is Obama? Well, it depends on what you believe about Obama’s intent and motivations. If he is merely naive (or, as Mark Steyn wrote of Obama: “talking like a 14-year old who’s been up in his room listening to ‘Imagine’ for too long”), then his choice to be loved and not feared could be detrimental or even fatal to US security and interests in the world. But if you believe that loss of US power is his actual goal, then he may indeed be a very keen observer of realities.
neo-neocon: OOOOOOO! I’m getting a “Chris Mathews’ tingle in my leg! The world loves us, they really love us! But, the question is, “Will they respect us in the morning?”
Most Obama supporters will continue to support him for the time being. To do otherwise would be to admit to having been duped. And most people will want to wait some time before admitting that they are not as clever or prescient as they think they are.
And aren’t these countries feeding Obama’s own narcissism with their extravagant praise and adulation? Aren’t they simply softening him up, allowing him to get carried away on a ride of good feeling, so that they can more easily pick his pockets?
Its like the world wants us to take care of them like a parent, and simultaneously be their best friend.
And we all know how parents who bend over backwards to be their kids best friend turns out.
Neo:
My favorite Machiavelli quote…thank you.
M goes on further to state that your “admirers” soon start taking advantage of your love…they run roughshod over you and yours. They can’t help it; they’re only human…and you’re the patsy.
And catch what the result is!
Your Ruin
Stuart,
“These countries” have to be examined more carefully. There are the ignorant swooning masses, the pols who hope to hitch a ride on his popularity train (get on the A list if you will), pols who hope to win his support for their own game plan, those who may be a bit skeptical but don’t want to rile their own voters, and, possibly, those who are crossing their fingers and hoping for the best. All will put their own interests first. Anti-Americanism may be in remission now but it is a chronic illness on a pandemic scale. There is already some dissatisfaction in Germany over the entrance of Turkey in the EU.
Evidently, the world loved us on September 10– and, as you so pointedly ask, what good did that do us??
And, by the way, the countries we are so eager to gain the good opinion of– are they the same ones we’re afraid to send the Gitmo detainees to, lest they treat them too harshly? Or are they paragons of civil liberty too afraid to take them? Either way, why are we so solicitous of their opinion?
Our public’s addiction to Obonga’s deceptions reminds me of the lyrics of a song from Fleetwood Mac’s “Tango in the Night” album back in ’87: “Tell Me Lies” (“Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies…”)
Neo, within your profession you must have clinical language to describe this dynamic, do you not?
Obama doesn’t remind them of uncomfortable realities, so they relax around him.
A recent comment thread describes how little modern history Europeans actually know. Lullaby, and good night.
The implication is that being liked is of no benefit. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the slightest example, I read this blog, even though I do not agree with a fair amount of it, because I like the image I have of the person writing it. That liking translates out to a willingness to hear ideas and concepts that I would reject immediately were they to come from a more strident source. Thus, people who do support the general theology of this blog benefit in that some of their doctrine has been heard by one who would not normally hear it. Unless, of course, they prefer simply preaching to the converted, this is a good thing.
Kissinger once remarked that nations don’t have friends; they have interests. If friendship — even nothing more substantial than a visceral ‘liking’ — advances those interests, this is a good thing. It is a first step toward persuading them to act in concert with us. It is not the only possible first step, and there is no guarantee that they will move beyond that step. But it IS a first step. The prior occupant of the Oval Office had a talent for turning potential allies away. Should we not be pleased that we have one who does not?
bill: I appreciate the compliment, but I’m afraid that persons and nations are very different.
As Machiavelli said, it is better for heads of state to be both liked and feared. If Obama could be liked, and everyone could dialogue happilly together, and if this had no negative repercussions for this country on the world stage, that would be good. But to be liked and to be feared don’t usually go together, as Machiavelli also pointed out. The Kissinger quote you offer is very much in line with this observation.
JFK was a good example. He was liked round the world, but Khrushchev took the measure of the man and found him weak, and therefore tested him by building the Berlin Wall and during the Cuban missile crisis. Fortunately, Kennedy was a quick study (as the linked article demonstrates), and he was forthright about wanting America’s place in the world to remain strong and powerful. This seems quite different from what Obama wants, IMHO.
bill,
For all his bowing and scraping over there, he got nothing from them in terms of commitment to more troops and equipment for Afghanistan. Nada. He got nothing from them in terms of “stimulus” packages for their own economies. Normally, I don’t agree at all with a worldview such as his. However, I can cut him some slack if he got some results.
And your snarky comment about the “theology” on this blog did not pass unnoticed. I think the folks over at Kos are more your style and age group. I know, because I’ve gone over there and read the comments. Even back in my Leftist days (1977-1987) I would have been embarrassed to identify with that group over on those blogs.
Lots of people have taken advantage of the average American’s innumeracy–check at any establishment in America for illustrations–but I think that there are a few sets of basic budget numbers that people need to pay very close attention to, indeed, because they are very clearly spelling disaster for our economy and America; perhaps that is why a lot of people just don’t want to look at them, or try to understand just exactly what they mean.
To quote Dicken’s Mr Micawber:
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Before and during the campaign the Democrats and Obama complained endlessly about the Bush Administrations alleged profligate government spending, yet, according to the CBO, Obama’s 2009 Budget will so massively increase government spending that it will go from the 3% of GDP that it averaged in the 2nd Bush administration–the Bush budget deficit was a little over $400 billion in 2008, to $1.85 trillion dollars, an astronomical and reckless 13.1 % of GDP (http://tinyurl.com/crslff).
One consequence of such an astronomical increase in spending is a necessary astronomical increase in the money supply —one expert arguing that, when money in circulation overseas is counted, the U.S. money supply is going to be increased 15 fold (http://tinyurl.com/ccwwwe); a drastic decrease in the value of each dollar and a precursor to runaway inflation.
Moreover, while Obama’s budget projections show deficits declining to around 3% in later years (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/), the CBO estimates that these deficits will actually be between 4 and 6%, with the head of the CBO calling a deficits of 5% “unsustainable” http://tinyurl.com/cr3bzv). The CBO also projects that instead of deficit from 2010 through 2019 totalling the $7 trillion dollars that Obama’s budget projects, that figure will actually be $9.3 trillion.
How does the federal or any other government get the money it wants to spend, when it exceeds what it collects in taxes? It borrows i.e. issues things like government bonds and bills. Governments and individuals buy such financial instruments because they are safe–they protect their principal–and because, consistent with that safety, they return a good yield. But, such investors are not going to buy such debt instruments, especially those with a very low rate of return, if they think that the debtor i.e. the U.S., is not going to be able to make payment of that debt. If things go as badly as I think they can under an Obama budget, U.S. financial instruments may be headed into junk bond territory, and with the high interest rates junk bond command to compensate for their risk.
As an example of where we are headed under the Obama budget, I note that the basically bankrupt British government recently held an auction for various of its debt instruments, and, for once, they could not find buyers for all of the debt they wanted to sell. The other major problem with issuing such debt is that it puts you at the mercy of the holder of large quantities of that debt, and gives them power over you–in the case of the U.S.–that holder of large quantities of U.S. debt is the PRC. If the PRC were, for instance, to suddenly redeem in a large portion of our debt that it holds, we would be in extremely bad financial trouble.
Over the last 50 years government spending as a percentage of GDP has averaged 20%, Obama’s 2009 Budget will raise that to 27.2% (http://tinyurl.com/cr3bzv) ; in other words, if I am understanding this correctly, in 2009 the government will take close to 1/3 of the entire output of our country to spend as it sees fit on various projects.
None of these trends spells anything other than massive inflation, disaster, and possibly financial collapse down the road.
It all reminds me of something that we have probably all gone through. Wanting to be a good friend and likable we respond when a friend (even a casual friend)calls to help them out – say moving from one apartment to another (even though we may have to cancel an appointment or a date). After all this is the way we were raised.
However, when we need the same kind of help, we find the person we helped is not available – for the most feeble reason.
So not a problem. Where the problem arises is when we end up helping the next time they call. Indication of a psychological problem? You would know best Neo, but I always remember the old saw – “Fool me once – shame on you. Fool me twice – shame on me.”
So as others here have mentioned – Obama may be liked around the world (though this does not translate to the US being liked any better than they were before), and it certainly has not translated to getting commitments to help us deal with Afghanistan – nor will that help be forthcoming the next time a situation arises.
Europe (including Turkey) are all victims (of their own choosing) of “creeping sharia”. I do not think now is the time to worry about being liked. At this point we are one of the few countries in the world that is capable of being totally self-sufficient. We might feel the pain for a while but we could make it. If, however, the current trend continues it will not be long before that is no longer possible.
In regards to your friends, there is the ‘stupid American’ meme / and smart leftist intellectual meme (even though the soft left reads dreck like Mike Moore).
Many Americans don’t mind American bashing because they think their lefty politics removes them from it (they are not one of the rubes being bashed; they’re smart!).
Anyway, I bet that’s at play with some of them… They didn’t vote for Bush! So when Obama throws the country under the rhetorical bus, he doesn’t mean THEM.
With some anti Americans they are probably right (only non lefty Amis are dumb) but with others it doesn’t matter to them.
The implication is that being liked is of no benefit.
bill — No, it’s a question. And the question is how much of a benefit being liked is versus the cost.
I habe been shocked by the blind support of friends and acquaintances for everything the man does. Had Bush fired CEOs and forced banks to take TARP money do you think they’d be cheering him on? I feel like I’m living the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. This guy is running around naked and no one I know can see it!
That’s funny. I’ve never cared one way or another how Europe felt about the USA.
I am not sure the public was anywhere near Obama or any of the other G20 people. By public you mean the media but that is losing its audience as fast as it is in the States. The general opinion in Britain was sod the G20, sod those demonstrators, and how much is it going to cost us. Drooling newspapers do not make up for that.
Oh and by the way we had the same phenomenon with Blair (who won far more handsomely in 1997): personal support but nobody liked anything he did. Lack of cognitive skills I suspect.
Bill wrote “The prior occupant of the Oval Office had a talent for turning potential allies away.”
I have to ask, who were these “potential allies” the prior occupant turned away? And what did they have to offer the U.S. that could be of any possible value?
The prior occupant may have ignored entities like Hamas as potential allies, but he did good strong foreign policy work with China and India, strengthened ties with Great Britain, and solidified a working relationship with the new elected leadership in France (Sarkozy) and Germany (Merkel.)
I lived in Europe from 2002-2005, and the public perception of Bush was indeed very low. He was a “cowboy” (not a compliment in Europe, believe me.) Like Cappy, I had no real concern about this. World politics is a tough, scrappy world. You start caring too much about warm fuzzy feelings and pretty soon you’ve given away the farm.
The public perception of Bush was formed by the pre-dominantly left wing MSM here and there.
When I was in Italy ,I read the International Herald and thought it was printed in Iran or Russia.What lousy propanganda.
They are enjoying O because for once the level of vitrol in the press against the Presidency has decreased.I think that they find it a pleasant to be in happy dreamland.
Japan and Germany would have loved us to death had we stayed out of ww2. I think i prefer the actual respect that came from securing our interest first, then pondering over whether they liked us as a side note conversation.
Being liked is of somewhere between little and no benefit. Consider the following statement in your second paragraph:
How are we to reconcile that with assertion in your first paragraph (block quoted above)? Is friendship/likeability a benefit, or isn’t it? The quote (which by the way was from Lord Acton, not Kissinger) clearly implies that “friendship” is of no account in international affairs: nations will pursue their interests regardless of how they feel about other parties.
Put another way, if friendship dictates one course of action, whereas national interests dictate another, which one do you think will prevail? And if friendship and interest coincide, then there’s no issue. Bottom line: friendship is superfluous where it is not irrelevant.
Same comment as above. Friendship doesn’t advance or retard pursuit of those interests, which are dispositive.
No, not really. What did Obama get from his European trip? Bupkis. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nichts. Goose egg. Very clear consomme. Flowery words, but that’s it. I expect that that will continue, and so should you. At this point, Obama is at the height of his popularity; it’s going to be all downhill from here, most likely, and yet even now he comes home empty-handed. Take the hint: Europeans are not going to help us out. Not now, not ever. And even if they wanted to, they’re generally too weak to do so.
So European friendship/respect/regard is of little or no import in a real world, practical sense, but for some reason many seem to experience a gnawing anxiety that others may not like us. For my part, I’m with my estimable colleague Cappy: I couldn’t care less what Europeans think, and I lived in Europe for many years (and didn’t care then, either; believe me, they couldn’t care less what Americans think). I’ve never understood why our friends on the left crave social approval (from Europeans and liberal Americans) to an extent that makes high school girls look secure and self-validated by comparison.
Thanks Walla Dalbo for the excellent comments!
Bill says: “The prior occupant of the Oval Office had a talent for turning potential allies away. Should we not be pleased that we have one who does not?”
What a (pathetic) laugh, Obama’s antics are a shallow facade grounded in appeasement and pandering to many whose fundamental interests range from the strictly parasitical to the acquiescence, even enthusiastic cheerleading of America’s destruction as a super power which has long been the leading champion of human rights and democratic values in the world.
The liberal ideal seems to have a knack for putting the cart before the horse. We see it on a fundamental level in their quest to foster self esteem in kids before the kid accomplishes anything to warrant it
Foreign policy is no different for them. If we simply kiss and makeup before disputes get hashed out there will be no hash. Not really. You only allow disputes to fester longer (think Palestinian) and end up in a war reminiscent of an old growth forest fire thats been lovingly protected by liberals from controlled burns.
Read how well European left intellectuals liked us 2 days after 9/11:
http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=12869c56-03f7-4507-874d-41d8b4e3cebf
It is a post by Henryk Broder on 4/1/09 at New Majority. Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred linked to it last week.
The link doesn’t work, but do a google for New Majority and work your way back to the 4/1 posts.
Try Henryk Broder.
Expat said “There is already some dissatisfaction in Germany over the entrance of Turkey in the EU.”
I dont care if the US supports that, it does not seem like a good idea to me. As an American, I would not take that as Anti-American for the Europeans to oppose Turkeys entrance into the EU.
Feet of clay and iron, a strange desendent of the Roman Empire is what is being built I think. The French President a while back pushing for a Mediteranean Union. Look at a map, it will look suspiciously similiar, though not exactly, like the borders of the Roman Empire. Much of the heart of it anyway.
Recent events suggest that the Somali pirates who attacked an American ship and took an American hostage don’t fear Obama. This also supports the view that Obama will be like Jimmy Carter on steroids.
I believe that what will be the out come of observing Mr. Obama is that those who have been deceived by his boyish charm will continue to be, but those who have not will discover that down deep what make;’s Obama tick is his egocentricism.
. It will finally be revealed that Obama after all is not really very intelligent, but rather what he lacks in intelligence he makes up for with ambition. Obama does not retain any deep seated leftist philosophical knowledge but instead uses his short term memory to win battles not wars. What he is, is rhetorical rather than respectful and in the end his goal in nothing more than being all about himself with his leftist methodology a mere reflection of his adolescent rebellion, not unlike that of his mother. Some might even call it a severe case of arrested emotional development on a grand scale.
Obama is what he appears to be, or did appear to be when Joe Biden first addressed the issue running against him for the presidency.”An articulate and bright “(my emphasis not so bright)and clean and a nice looking guy” . A somewhat out of the ordinary and usual stereotypical black man. (At least as white folks may think of blacks) I am sure the image Biden had in mind as comparison was much the same image as Obama’s grandmother housed.
He has been practicing to survive in a white mans world all of his life and by god he has gotten to the top.
Think about it. His grandmother has been accused of being a racist. Here you are in the middle of white America and one day your hippie, college aged, narcissist daughter actually presents you with the anthems of Spencer Tracey’s role, in the box office hit. “Guess who’s coming to dinner”, in the flesh.
Of course behind closed doors as most older Americans would have practiced back then you rant and rave why this just can’t be happening, and try to explain all the consequences of events that might transpire as a result of the relationship, based on your culmination of lifetime experience But daughter is not buying it. and just to prove your wrong she gets pregnant with a love child to spite you. In the end she realizes her big mistake and dumps her responsibility upon you put of shear denial. After all it IS your fault that she is the way she is.
As a parent you reconcile that you have failed somewhere along the line and repentantly seek the strength of your spiritual foundation to do the right thing. So you embark on raising this now abandoned child.
Yeah mom does now and then appear back on the scene but only for unmentioned self serving purposes.(sound familiar?). She puts on the facade of attempting to play the roll, but down deep she holds a certain resentment for dad and child alike.
So rather than wholeheartedly take it out on this kinda cute anomaly, she plays the grandparents by keeping them in suspense as to what she might do with him because of her present crisis oriented life style. Thus pushing baby Barry back on grandma and grandpa and freeing herself once again of the maturation of responsibility while she goes off looking for bigger fish to fry (mainly her egocentric lifestyle) {again sound familiar ?}. After all it IS there fault for the way that she turned out. Its not like they ever said “I told you so”.
So here we have it. An unwanted child being raised by resentful but repentant gran elders, who by the silence of their words say nothing but by the radiation of that silence say a lifetime prejudice.
As a result Obama the child, like a puppy with its master senses what really drives them, and swears to himself that he will prove how wrong they are about him. Only what he never realizes is the model that he will follow in the preceding years to come is the one played out before him by his mother and his grandparents combined.
In the end Obama is out for Obama, and how he will run his presidency he judges by public response through a system in place before his arrival. But what he lacks in knowledge about that system is the true sense of its reality . As far as he is concerned, it provides him sufficient enough information for reinforcement of his dysfunctional narcissism, which is the model system he has lived all his life.
Obama parrots to elicit response and then runs to see how high the television is turned up. The content of the parroting is not as important to him as is the volume at which it is put out at. The more people that hear his message of platitude the better. He believes that if he can shotgun it out there far enough that is what is most important and by osmosis his message of how important he is, is the only thing that counts.
He feels that if he can hear it (like a boomerang) coming back at him in perfect prose, and harmony then he is perfect and successful. Because of his not so high cognitive level he rationalizes that he has succeeded, when what he says is all over the news not whether it is believed or not. What Obama misses on point is, if a boomerang comes back it has missed its target.
Obama has no vision for America’s future, no more so than Jeremiah Wright’s ranting and raving is the vision for salvation. Both men are out for the ringing of change in their pocket. They merely have the ability to utter attention getting phrases, that touch on the emotion rather than the reason of thought.
For this and a bit more I believe there is no agenda for the future ,nor agenda to heal the past. The only agenda is the agenda of self embellishment for Barry and those who want to conditionally come along for the ride.
When you clear your eyes, “What you see is what you get”..”An articulate and bright (my emphasis, not so bright) and clean and a nice looking guy” . So I guess this means that I’ve earned the privilege to be called a racist.
Occam’s Beard will appreciate this: European media try to delegitimize ANY world leader who is serious and right of center. Reagan, Thatcher and Berlusconi got the same treatment. They hated Chirac, as I recall, until he went all out against the Great Satan. They hate Sarkozy (“Sarko l’americain”).
It’s not personal. Just business.
On that basis, I reckon Mr. Bush deserves some respect.
I was at a dinner in Kuala Lumpur, and a Swedish colleague was ranting about American unilateralism. I asked him, “Just hypothetically, could Americans count on any European to run any risk or make any sacrifice to defend American lives or property?” He got very quiet and said, “No.” And then he stopped talking about American unilateralism.
But as justified as America would be to act unilaterally, the truth is, the charge of “unilateralism” over the last eight years was a lie. The reality of Bush’s record in international relations has been systematically misrepresented to meet the common political requirements of a cabal of International Socialists (in Europe and America) and third world National Socialists.
Oblio,
My point in my very brief post way above this one: Hardly anyone seems to care about truth these days. They just want to hear what feels right, which is why we have Obonga now functioning as their pied piper. People want those sweet little lies. Just keep ’em coming…
I remember the most shocking thing about my college experience decades ago, even if I was a Leftist back then, was discovering that most people don’t really give a crap about the internal consistency and veracity of ideas. They lead unexamined lives and are perfectly content to be that way. I wasn’t. But for me the journey has been very interesting, as I’ve traversed the spectrum.
Ah yes, Fred, but I don’t accept that the the opinions of the left wing European press represent all mankind, much as I don’t think that “The People of the United States” is some homogeneous collective that all believes the same thing.
You are of course right to note that some combination of complacency and willful self-deception is part of the universal human experience and pervasive in all cultures and among all peoples. That’s not a political point.
And I don’t like Fleetwood Mac. The Clintons ruined them for me. And they remind me of the 70’s.
Oblio,
Sorry for the musical taste. I merely brought them up because it seemed a propos.
The Seventies were not a real good time for me, and I’m not nostalgic for them although among a lot of folks that decade seems to be having a kind of revival. While they’re at it, I hope the next four years ring a bell.
For me, one of the low points was a certain evening in April of 1975, when I was a Sp4 in the Army at Fort Lee, VA. I was over at a sergeant friend’s on-post housing. His wife was Vietnamese; he met her when she was a widow of a killed ARVN major when he was stationed at Cam Rahn Bay in ’71. We were watching the news film footage of the Soviet-made tanks rolling into the suburbs of Saigon. An (her first name) was weeping, because she was very worried about her family and friends over there. I felt badly for her, and her husband, Al, and I were thinking about all the men who died trying to save a nation that was now being betrayed by the U.S.
Neo – the link you set up to the 44 countries where Obama’s polling is higher doesn’t go to the actual poll
Regardless, the question is whether our enemies and potential adversaries are dissuaded from doing us harm. For example, the Iranian people (most of them, anyway) may love Obama but this matter little if the mad mullahs are still building the bomb and are still behind terrorism. And as you point out, all that European love hasn’t translated into any meaningful help in Afghanistan, much less anywhere else.
No problem, Fred, I don’t dislike Fleetwood Mac that much.
It seems to me that the lives of nations are like our own lives in this way: there are some really rotten parts that you just have to survive. And maybe some people never get over the rotten parts, and some people never want to get over them.
I’m not for forgetting. We can’t change history and we can’t live outside of it, rotten parts and all. But we live now and we have to do the best we can, now. That’s how you live productively for the future. The cultural socialists can’t seem to understand this, and that is what makes them so irresponsible and unrealistic.
Oblio,
Yes, producers like you and I get on with the business at hand, while trying to also keep our minds aware of what is happening around us. I am intensely interested in political and economic events because of my work as an analyst of equities. Even if I am a “bottom up,” Graham-Dodd investor I still take stock of the macro environment.
And also trying to find fun things to do as well, although at work these days none of us are exactly feeling celebratory. My wife works in health care as an OT, and even in the hospital and the rehab clinic she works for there have been layoffs and stress. It has been a winter and spring of discontent so far.
Me, I think I just want to grab my fly rod, waders, and box and head out for some trout.
does the opinion of the average person have anything whatsoever to do with what the leaders of his/her country are likely to do, or with the power struggles of those leaders and countries on the world stage? I’ve bening thinking about this too.
…answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” The notion of a supreme personal love is the only thing that’s pulled off the love me and fear me thing.
…but if you believe that loss of US power is his (Obama’s) actual goal, then he may indeed be a very keen observer of realities. It’s something he’s toying with no doubt, I hope he’s not going to judge Israel as a terror state for taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities/personnel. Or feel sorry for Somali pirates … and even though he’s said he’d go into Pakistan to root out Taliban forces in Pakistan, his attitude towards the liberation of Iraq/removal of Saddam regime is still contemptible. But the quality i most like in Obama is his seeming willingness to grow, learn — when Palin was incapable, willful or not, for such a n attribute, and for McCain, well, elderly and glassy, unpredictable, aloof, it is and was slipping away from him.
We have the best the Party’s gave us.
A lot of Americans are scared to death of what O’Dumbo is doing to the country and some of them are taking action. In the past week several have killed the ones they don’t like or the ones they love and don’t want to grow up in an O’Dumbo created hell hole and then killed themselves. One week, almost 50 deaths. All the blood is on O’Dumbo’s hands but that’s small compared to what the democrats have from Vietnam and what will come in the near future (millions of deaths) under O’Dumbo.
Scrapiron: Obama may be responsible for many things, but not for those deaths. Your suggestion is over the top.
You know, maybe Obama is reaching out to keep his “enemies closer”. I believe that’s what some of the Republicans thought of his bipartisanship attempts.
A leader must be “serene and inscrutable” and capable of comprehending “unfathomable plans”. (thanks to wiki for that one)
Hmm, maybe what he is reading is some Sun Tzu.
Well, there are betters at the conspiracy meme here than me, so I leave all that to them.
You know, maybe Obama is reaching out to keep his “enemies closer”.
Logern — If you wish to argue that, do so — but don’t apply that thinking to us in your sneering way.
I don’t think Obama is that clever. He hasn’t thought this stuff through. He is simply acting on half-digested leftist views he absorbed in school and as a Chicago community organizer.
Jon Baker,
I didn’t mean that Germany’s different opinion on Turkish EU membership had anything to do with anti-Americanism. They resented specifically Obama’s public lecturing tone, which was obnoxious, especially since he seems to know nothing of the situation. Germany has Turkish people who are sophisticated Attaturk types, completely comfortable with a secular state, and it has far larger numbers of immgrants from rural areas whose thinking is more tribal and who don’t want to assimilate. These people and their children are poorly educated and especially susceptible to radical influences. Opening the borders to more immigraion would be a disaster.
Germany has finally woken up to the problems this situation poses and are trying to address them. It is not easy. I was personally appalled at Obama’s glib lecture. I used this example to indicate that some Germans are beginning to detect that Obama talks big about issues without knowing what he’s talking about. Sorry that my meaning was unclear.
Pingback:House of Eratosthenes
Although uraniun enrichment requires an incredible amount of equipment (witness Oak Ridge) why would Iran need 7,000 centrifuges unless the end plan were to have nukes on the order of the U.S. or Russia?
Perhaps Obama needs to invoke the “liar liar, pants on fire” offensive technique at this juncture.
Estrogen, to be specific.
Occam’s Beard: hey, not estrogen. I take offense!
Maybe Quaaludes. Mellow and chill.
Sorry, neo. But estrogen is a steroid, whereas Quaaludes are not…/g
Okay, Occam’s Beard, I guess if we’re required to stick to the category “steroids…”
Yup.
“People call me ‘pedantic,’ but they won’t say exactly why and define their terms, with references.”
Even without Bush, doesn’t mean we liberals won’t have bewildering comments from the Right to amaze us.
observe
V
V
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/brown-asian-names/
Bewilderment comes naturally to those of meager intellectual complement.
neo-neocon Says:
“Scrapiron: Obama may be responsible for many things, but not for those deaths. Your suggestion is over the top.”
Probably a lefty baiting us. 🙂
Since we are all insane haters and such…