How much does it matter that the rest of the world overwhelmingly supports Obama. Hardline nationalists might say that we shouldn’t care at all, it’s America’s choice who leads. But if likeability abroad influences diplomatic success (and there’s reason to believe it does), it seems the a candidate who has near majority support globally will have better chances of restoring the prestige of the US abroad.
Foreign leaders will listen to their people. If their people hate the US, the leaders will have more pressure to avoid entering treaties with us, to avoid joining coalitions with us, to avoid engaging with us to the fullest degree of a friendly relationship. Having support abroad is important. It boosts our econcomy, it boosts our military, and it decreases the odds of violence against us.
The flip side is in the reasons why foreigners would think that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Obama. Policies that benefit the rest of the world don’t necessarily benefit the US, and there’s the potential worry about the president’s priorities. There’s a suspicion, I think, a sort of “what do they know that I don’t?” mentality, that makes Americans wary of global support.
It may come down to whether you see the rest of the world as ‘against us’ or ‘with us’. If they’re against us, then their support should be counted as a negative. If they’re with us (and by and large I think they are), then we should find global support reassuring and should count it as a positive.
I think a huge reason why Obama is so popular on a global scale is because of his foreign policy on meeting with foreign leaders. Opening the lines of communication is so vital, I think people find it refreshing that the President would meet with those even considered the “enemy” without any preconditions, just to get a discussion going again.
Dorky,
I agree, and I think that’s a policy that will benefit the US. If you look at the way business are run, newtworking is vital. The connections it creates stimulate business and opportunity. similarly, connections between global leaders are bound to create opportunities for trade, and trade has a strong pacifying effect.
Imp,
What about presidential candidates and global populations? Since no one’s running on the Socialist-Totalitarian party ticket, they aren’t really relevant.
This applies far better to the Repubs, my friend. The most glaring thing that applies to the Dems is personality cults, and that’s recent and not exclusive; Dubya won on his down-home persona, and Palin is largely a personality unqualified to lead.
But:
-As you demonstrate regularly(by reference, not personally), Republicans are master propagandists (e.g. lippygate);
-They’re all about censorship (gotta’ appease those religios);
-Patriot act? Wire-tapping?;
-GW, global terrorist, condones torture, uses fear to rally support, etc. (see also, recently McCain ad you linked, exaggerating the impact of the conflict in Georgia).
Who’s lying and calling themselves what? I’d be happy if you want to say this election is the socialists vs. the totalitarians. . .
With Palin threatening Europe’s energy supplies by suggesting sanctions against Russia (who would retaliate by cutting off oil and natural gas supplies) why wouldn’t Obama look better internationally? We have two dipshits rattling sabres, talking about “wars of freedom” (OUR version) and seemingly more than willing to continue the legacy of the go-it-alone disasters of the Bush years. Internationally, McLame/Palin is the world’s worst nightmare.
Condi Rice has been below the radar for the last six months, with a little blurb here and there about the Midddle East and Libya. Why? Because the international community knows that diplomacy isn’t a high priority right now.The international community is looking for ANY change and Obama represents that change.
Bush is largely adopting Obama’s long-time Iraq policy: time-table for withdrawal, redeployment to Afganistan. Whatever experience Obama may lack, recent history has shown him to be a prescient decision maker. What does a long-haul pro-surge candidate like McCain do when the Obama docterine gets adopted before he’s even won? Lippygate. . .
He does what everyone does when caught behind the curve: Me too! He’ll still claim he was right to support the surge and Obama was wrong. The surge may have helped, but it was the Sunni tribes that tired of the slaughter of their own people by the terror organizations and our willingness to throw cash at them that was the real success. But they’ll twist it in whatever way they need to ingratiate themselves with the extreme right.
I saw a Bill Oreilly interview with Obama in which he posed a question about the surge. It was something like, “are you ready to admit that you were wrong about the surge, and McCain was right”. I saw at that moment that it is impossible for Obama to explain why he wasn’t wrong to not support the surge, or more importantly, for America to understand it. The point being, the right doesn’t have to twist the surge to have it flow to McCain, Obama would have to twist it for the truth of the matter to be known.
Consider a line of question
Reporter: Did the surge work?
Obama: Well it did, in conjunction with the anbar awakening
R: So you were wrong not to support it.
O: No, I was right
R: You just said it worked
O: Look, the Anbar awakening is what precipitated the change in Iraq, the Surge was accidental to this success.
Next days Headline: Obama denies role of troops in Iraqi success.
Obama campaign press release: Goddamn idiots.
What I expect him to do about this Surge business, is wait for it to come to a climax of anti-Obamaness, and then give a one line phrase that diffuses the entire situation instantly. Something like: Ofcourse the surge worked, how could sending more troops to the region not help it, but that’s no reason to start a draft,stay there for 100 years, nor spend hundreds of billions of dollars.
The surge is a classic case of moving goalposts. It absolutely failed in what it originally set out to accomplish, but it was successful at curbing the violence in certain areas in Iraq. Sorta like how the war against Iraq was originally about WMDs and became about “spreading democracy”.
All you need is a good PR department. Results are incidental . . .
“The presence of additional coalition forces would allow the Iraqi government to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own: impose its rule throughout the country,” McCain
Iraq is no closer to that than it was before the surge. Just slightly less violent in certain areas.
He’ll still claim he was right to support the surge and Obama was wrong. The surge may have helped, but it was the Sunni tribes that tired of the slaughter of their own people by the terror organizations and our willingness to throw cash at them that was the real success. But they’ll twist it in whatever way they need to ingratiate themselves with the extreme right.