![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
What would an Obama presidency mean for America's brand around the world?
The symphony of praise that has been played for Senator Obama during this election season has certain recurring elements. He has been called a catalyst for change so often it has become folk wisdom that any deviation from the status quo is ipso facto beneficial. His purported empathy for the working class has made him, by brute repetition and little else, a "man of the people" who will guard the proletariat from the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.
A third melody of praise, and one no less Marxist in nature than the previous example, is Obama's putative ability to rehabilitate America's image overseas. The common narrative goes as follows. Eight years of the Bush administration have caused the world to view America as an isolated and imperialistic nation out of step with the global community. We need but elect Senator Obama and abracadabra, America will once again be seen as a paragon of liberal democracy.
Setting aside certain obvious flaws with this view – i.e. America's overwhelmingly positive perception in those former Soviet bloc nations that do not share Western Europe's inclination towards cultural suicide and the correlating contempt for societies that defend themselves, or the lack of evidence that Obama possesses the ability to perform such a complex task with such ease – we might ask ourselves, exactly what would an Obama presidency mean for America's brand around the world?
A few intimations are already clear. The first came during Obama's recent foreign junket, which was, to a large degree, an attempt to lend credence to the claim that Obama would be well received on the world stage. During a press conference with French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama warned Iran to engage in diplomacy now, because their prospects would not improve if they "wait for the next president."
Prima facie, Obama's warning may seem to be a tough stance on a difficult foreign policy issue. But scratch the surface and what do you see? His admonishment was a tacit acknowledgment that, after his promise to meet with Iran without preconditions, he would be viewed by the Iranians as an easier president to work with, or against, than McCain.
The most recent hint as to Obama's impact on America's image came in the form of a conspiracy theory put forth by Vladimir Putin. The Russian Prime Minister accused America of orchestrating the recent conflict in Georgia so as to influence the election, going so far as to claim Americans were actively involved with the fighting.
This is not the first time that the crisis in Georgia has been cited as a bonus for McCain come November. Indeed, many analysts have characterized Obama's selection of Biden for the V.P. slot as an attempt to compensate for his weakness on foreign affairs.
But, Putin's absurd accusation is an unmistakable sign of how president Obama would change the perception of America. Namely, the US would be seen as weak on defense. I can only pray that, in this instance at least, perception is not reality.
However, Obama's claim about changing the foreign perception of America for the better is not totally without merit. He was enthusiastically welcomed in much of Europe, and it is hard to believe that America's stock would fail to rise in the wake of Obama's success. But, how much of a boon would this really be?
With the notable exception of England, Western Europe has proven to be rather passive with regards to terrorism. One need look no further than the aftermath of the Spanish train bombings, the Parisian riots, or the dereliction of duty committed by European members of NATO in the Afghan theater of the War on Terrorism for proof. Do we gain by being better liked in those places where positive opinion brooks little substantial gain in the fight of our lives? If we disengage from Iraq, as Obama pledges to do if elected, are we any safer just because the intelligentsia in Oslo and Brussels have a more positive view of American use of power?
We need to throw our lot in with those who can still feel the yoke of oppression. In defense of their homeland, some 1,000 Georgian troops were redeployed from Iraq. Take a moment and think of that fact. Such a small nation making such a big contribution to the fight against Islamic fascism is not surprising when you realize how recently they themselves were oppressed. Perhaps the lessons of World Wars I & II are too distant from the European mind for them to be similarly motivated. But if that is the case, then perhaps being thought poorly of by those nations is not such a bad thing.
The argument that Obama will improve America’s standing in the world is based on the fact that the world, or at least that part of the world the Left wants to pander to, is informed by leftist sentiment and Lenin’s theory of imperialism. This part of the world sees Obama as one of its own and knows that a President Obama will pander to its delusion that American power is the principal cause of evil in the world (a view shared by the American Left, including Obama) rather than defend America against its foreign enemies. Obama and the American Left are like an adolescent girl who thinks she will gain popularity and respect by having sex with all the boys.
So you throw in a couple of Latin phrases, and that makes you an 'intellectual' conservative? I think not. Your writing is as pompous as Buckley's but not nearly as well thought out. You say "Obama's putative ability to rehabilitate America's image overseas" is Marxist in nature – I say "How so?" Hyperbole is not intellectual – though it certainly often passes for conservativism. Raising our status abroad – without necessarily using our superior military – should be the goal of any American, no matter his stripe.
Also, could you please clue me in to what seems like a giant leap of logic tying distant memories of WWI/WWII to the conflict in Iraq? How are the ideas of al-Qaeda 'facist'? You have a great facility in using inflammatory language, but do not clearly illustrate a firm grasp of creating a rational argument. I fear, prima facie, that you'd have a tough time getting through Poli Sci 101 at Indiana U's online course.
For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions – but they are so poorly argued as to be unconvincing. You are the 'preacher' to your readers' 'choir', but the apostate in the back row is unconvinced.
Wow, what a hard hitting piece. Obama a Marxist. Indeed, Obama a Communist sympathizer. If elected he will hand America over to the Communists.
Yes, a hard hitting piece. Too bad it is devoid of any fact. Even Karl Rove would state that you have gone beyond the boundaries of the plausible with this one (just as he has done with Sen. McCain's recent ads).
Please, even our current President (although they will never admit it) is moving our nation's overseas policy closer to the positions that Sen. Obama has been has been suggesting for over a year. These positions include, sitting down for discussions with our 'enemies' (North Korea, Iran), setting a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq, deploying more troops into Afghanistan, attacking terrorist positions in Pakistan without first obtaining permission from the Pakistani government.
These facts do not square with the premise of your article here. Perhaps you should go back to the drawing board and try a new angle of attack.
The article as well as the previous poster ignore the fact that the world is made up of more than Western Europe and former Soviet states through which oil flows west. There's the Arab World, Latin America, the Indian subcontinent, Africa, the Far East. In all of these places, American prestige will triple the day Obama takes office for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the accurate perception that Obama actually understands what's going on in the world enough to make intelligent decisions. Secondly, is the perception, admittedly untested in a truly rigorous fashion, that Obama is less a prisoner of ideology and prejudice. Third, Obama will be seen, correctly, as representing those Americans who opposed war in Iraq from the start. The major reason prestige will triple, though, has nothing to do with Obama. It is the fact that his election will be seen as a repudiation by the American people of the disastrous and ill-informed policies of George Bush. The sense throughout the world will be something like, 'I was really hoping the Americans weren't REALLY so stupid. Glad to find out they're not–they're not such a bad bunch after all.' They will then proceed to remember all the reasons they used to like America but have repressed in recent years. I write this as a US citizen who has been living in Turkey for the last 8 years. When I moved here in 2000, beautiful young Turks proudly walked up and down the street with US flag T-shirts, and we were the most liked foreign nation on earth. We are now the least-liked and least respected. I have seen terror first-hand, and I'm not naive and am offended to be called a panderer, but I am supporting Obama all the way based solely on foreign policy considerations. Let's not forget that winning the hearts and minds is more than just a catch-phrase or throwing a few candies out to kids in the war zones. There's an underlying reality that the current administration has completely ignored-I'd argue it's about 60-80 percent of the whole equation- and it's why we've made so little progress in the war on terror to date.
One clarification if I might—I was referring to the first poster, not the previous one…
An aside to "Thorninside" -
In many people's living memory, the use of Latin was perfectly normal, and in fact one of many hallmarks of a solid education. Do you on occasion say, "QED?" Congratulations, you too have used Latin. Sniping at someone for the use of a Latin phrase is, IMO, a specious talking point.
And a humorous minor link between your username and the Clintons: years ago, I worked at a financial trust company that coincidently managed the Clinton's trusts. This was right around when HRC was running for her NY Senatorial office.
To keep other staff from prying into these sensitive documents, my Boss had them hidden under code names. Hillary was "Rose," Chelsea was "Petal." And Bill (Biilllllll)?
"Thorn."
Haha – Last Angry Man, are you leaning so far to the right that you're taking out mailboxes when you drive? Haha. A guy uses a common phrase from a Pauline epistle – thorn in one's side – and you can't help but think of a left-wing conspiracy – hahaha. Now I understand why RNC/McCain is so upset about the lipstick on a pig remark! I hope that doesn't offend you – just enjoying a belly laugh!
You missed my point with the Latin phrases, and I'm sorry if it was unclear – my criticism was not a cheap shot – it was that using highbrow language alone does not equate intellectualism. I'm all for using Latin, Greek, Old French, Russian, Arabic, Chinese, and even Thai – all languages I've studied at one time or another. I don't like the 'conventional wisdom' that liberals are over-deducated 'elites' and that conservatives all have to sound like Foghorn Leghorn / Fred Thompson or risk alienating their constituency.
No matter where you stand politically, you shouldn't try to cover up huge gaps in logic by using foreign words. I'm a big fan of Wm. F. Buckley's writing, even though I didn't agreee with everything he wrote. I thought he was especially off-base in his twilight. But his conclusions were always supported with more than sophisticated language – they contained logical arguments. Some mimic his tone, but can't compete with his content. Only the 'online Indiana U' was meant to be a cheap shot.
I believe in a solid education that includes the study of ancient language – but let's pick up the weightiness of the ancient writers as well, and stop trying to pass off sophomoric arugments as rational thought.
Hmm.
1. Where did I self-declare as, "leaning so far to the right as to take out mailboxes?"
2. Where did I state a word of "left-wing conspiracies?"
3. Where did I state anything about the nature or accuracy of the article proper?
4. Where did I attempt to "cover up huge gaps in logic?"
In point of fact, I merely stated that I felt that attempting to address those "gaps in logic" contained within the article via the use of common Latin terms was specious. That is all I said.
Please get it right next time. I will take hits based on my own commentary here, but will simply not do so when someone accuses me of things I didn't say or imply.
There are other faults in Mr. Shepherd's essay. He worries that Mr. Obama sends the wrong message to Europe – what message does today's business news send to Europe? I'd say the message that we can't handle our own affairs, that no one has been minding the store for quite some time. Mr. Shepherd seems to fear Marxism – what century is he living in? I half expect his next essay to be about the Bolsheviks!
How has Europe been more 'passive' on terrorism than the US? Because they don't fight in Iraq? I travelled by train in the US about 15 months after the horror of 9-11. No one scanned my huge black bag or asked for photo ID. The train left Newport News and arrived in Boston – passing directly underneath Madison Square Garden, Union Station and many critical government buildings in DC. Is that not passive? Again, Mr. Shepherd, you are likely to convince only those who agree with you already with such inaccurate languge. Those who do not agree find no meat in your argument. Those who do agree but are hung up on silly things like logic – are disappointed.
Again, Last Angry Man, I fail to make myself clear – at least to you. I hope others reading our comments follow me. Your points 1 and 2 – I said 'no offense', just having a laugh. I wasn't being accusatory, nor was I criticizing your comments, just noting that some people hear 'thorn in side' and think of the Apostle Paul, others of Bill and Hillary – you fall into tha latter. Didn't mean to get off on the wrong foot.
As to your points 3 and 4 — I wasn't directing at you, but at Mr. Shepherd — I thought that was the purpose of this sort of thing, to comment on what the writer had to say. I think if you'll look at my comments in that context, you'll agree!
OK, no problem.
Needless to say, it's a part of the Internet experience that cues about when a conversation has switched from commenting to an individual to that of the original article can be vague at best. As the Russians would say, Nichevo – "It can't be helped."
Moving right along…
I personally don't think our politics should really care one whit about what others in the world think of us. Truly, they will think what they will regardless, despite any opinions to the contrary. At times stretching points all out of true to do so.
I was in an online debate with a Brit I know recently. He went on and on about the actions of the US in Iraq and other parts of the world. So I simply responded that much of what we are doing and where we are doing it was at least in part resolving long-standing issues left by the sudden retreat of the British Empire, as when they left, they did so leaving nations that were artificially fabricated entities with groups mixed together that truly hate each other.
His responses were a constant stream of denials and fabrications about the former Empire, it's meaning, what they did and how they did it, and who benefitted – to the extent that he even represented that everything they had done was always and solely for the benefit of the native inhabitants, and that the British Empire had benefitted not one iota.
And then proceeded to return to his "America bad" screed.
So it's really ultimately pointless to worry about other nations and their opinions of us. We don't choose a President to benefit or accomodate *them* – we do so for *us*.
Just want to note as an addendum to my other comments – conservative/libertarian thought, as it is historically conceptualized (and by historically, I mean pre-Bush administration) places extreme limits on involvement in foreign wars, and would certainly not embrace the poorly conceived 'Bush Doctrine', a bastard in any of its incarnations. Therefore, touting involvement in Iraq would seem to me as 'mainstream conservativism', and therefore not appropriate for the pages of 'intellectual conservative'. Just a thought.
Last Angry Man – I agree. Much of the %&*! we are involved in around the world – Israel, Iraq, etc. – is just grappling with the mess that England and France left behind from the century before. Whether we should be involved in such rot is up for debate (I'm on the firm 'no way!' side), but I agree it's not fair for other countries to criticize when we are, in some ways at least, just cleaning up the mess.
Exactly.
I always found it ironic that no less than Adolph Hitler – a warped, murderous madman – said something early on during the war that was so spot-on, the British had no real response to.
There had been commentary by the British about being the "Champions of Democracy." Hitler simply responded about the sheer irony of a nation that held 400 million people in thrall around the world would have the nerve to refer to itself in that way. He further noted the large wellspring of racism in their dual view of the world, in that what the British did to a black man in Rhodesia (for example) was vastly different than the same type of action against a white man in Europe.
We are the biggest guy on the block, and we are surely resented for it. Who we elect as President will likely have little bearing on other nation's opinions of us. And if the best we can do is obsess about what they think about us – as if it's of supreme importance to be "popular" – then we're lost anyways.
In order to shape/repair the world there must be cooperation with other nations. Forcing change doesn't seem to work very well. When a person is liked,admired or even "popular" around the world there would be a high degree of probability that this admired person would have influence.
Barak Obama does appear to have this ability to convince other nations to follow his lead with his impassioned speeches. If George W. had this ability of influence than the tiny nation of Georgia wouldn't have to commit troops that were needed elsewhere. Instead there would be an overflow of nations willing to help.
The ability to convince others is arguably one of the most important abilities of a leader.
Influence, you are mistaking working in cooperation with other nations, and being "popular." There is a vast difference.
You misunderstand. There is a higher degree of probability that cooperation will occur when people like each other.
If what our government is doing in the Middle East is cleaning up the disastrous manipulations of post-WW I, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, I'd hate to see what a profound, strategical blunder would look like.
Having discussions with our 'enemies' used to be considered an appropriate and essential part of foreign policy. How else can problems be solved? To say we in America do not need the rest of the world is ludicrous.
War is obsolete. It doesn't work. Senator Obama knows this and Senator McCain does not.
Before anyone takes Suzanne seriously and responds to her drivel, see her comments in “Gunning for Palin”. She’s a bit of an airhead who never responds to any substantive challenges to her platitudes. All she does is drop in with silly, pseudo-meaningful observations like “war is obsolete”. Ask her about Georgia defending itself against Russian aggression, the US action in Afghanistan (which even Obama supports and wants to escalate), Israel’s defense of its borders, etc., and she’ll respond with something about birds chirping and warm summer nights.
She’s not serious about exchanging ideas, just sprinkling us with her torpid thoughts. If you take her seriously and react, you’ll just get a series of meaningless exchanges.
On my way out of town for a couple of weeks. Don’t say I didn’t warn you