I'll never truly understand why the rest of the world looks for America to provide global leadership and then complains of America's arrogance when we attempt to. I give up... I'm sure it is some cultural difference I just need to learn to accept. I don't think I've ever heard an American have such impossible expectations of leaders of other countries. It makes my head spin. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
It isn't a unipolar or bipolar global leadership structure anymore, and attitudes need to adjust to that reality.
One of the reasons I'm pleased to see the likes of Samantha Power around is because, aside from the obvious appeal of new blood in DC, I'd like to get some people in office who didn't come up during the Cold War (she was only 20 or 21 when the Wall came down), and who aren't damaged goods in that way.
I hope Obama will name her as his national security adviser. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Part of the process may be framing the Republican "I call it leadership when I bully and failure to follow when you object to consent to being bullies" as "lazy leadership" ... and framing "collaborating as an effective member of a group" as "principled leadership".
One advantage is y'all in Europe do not actually have to do it with wink and nods ... since American media largely ignores what most of y'all do and say, you can be quite open about "we'll let the Americans say they are leading on this as long as they behave in a reasonable manner behind closed doors".
But over the long term, it does require some more standing up to American politicians who think they can show "leadership" by bossing other countries around, and handing them enough foreign policy failures that the appeal of that line of grandstanding begins to fade. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I'd like to get some people in office who didn't come up during the Cold War (she was only 20 or 21 when the Wall came down), and who aren't damaged goods in that way.
I don't see experience of the cold war as necessarily negative. Bush's cold war warriers never learned from the experience. Others developed a deeper and more balanced perspective from the experience.
Personally I would love to see Samantha Power appointed to a senior role because she would be such a breath of fresh air compared to the current denizens of State and the National security apparatus. She is inexperienced at that level, however, and hopefully the hard nosed operators there won't be able to chew her up and convert her into one of them. Vote McCain for war without gain
The rest of the world doesn't look for America to provide global leadership anymore: it has given up on America. It's pretty much only Europe and Japan that still pine for responsible leadership from America. And the reason why they do isn't that hard to understand: cultural lag from the immediate post-World War II period.
the deepest problem is that, sixty years after the end of WW2, Europeans still see themselves as somehow dependent on the United States. For their elites, the reasons are clear and understandable, but the rest of us, including a big part of the Left, still put too much of our hopes in expecting the US population to elect a "good prince", as they have just done with Obama. We should determine our foreign policy, and our social model irrespective of American choices and we should not be afraid of talking with other countries, like Russia, China or Iran without worrying what Uncle Sam thinks. Europeans often view the United States as a model of democracy, but there can't be anything more undemocratic than for us to determine our policies in a way that depends on elections in which we do not participate. The US population elects its president, not the Master of the Universe. This seems to be understood nowadays in Russia, Asia, Latin America and the Muslim world. Only in Europe do we still need to decolonize our minds.
The US population elects its president, not the Master of the Universe. This seems to be understood nowadays in Russia, Asia, Latin America and the Muslim world. Only in Europe do we still need to decolonize our minds.
A View from Europe: Our Obama Problem A bomb, H bomb, Minuteman / The names get more attractive / The decisions are made by NATO / The press call it British opinion -- The Three Johns
I think you can add Africa to the list.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/10243 "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
On the one hand they "HATE" the US - on the other it's where most of them would want to emigrate.
The Iranian leadership wants two things: respect, and secure borders.
The Iranian people want the material liefstyle they see on their illegal satellite TV's. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Of course, much of the potential benefit of US leadership in Southern Africa is helping to keep US corporations on a shorter leash, and in order to be able to do that, its necessary to have a US Government that wants to keep US corporations on a shorter leash. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I have to laugh at you guys saying you're not into leaders having listened to you rant about Bush for so long. Why did you bother if global leadership doesn't matter? I'm probably as concerned with the cult of leadership as any of you - and some of the expectations for Obama on the US left are patently absurd. But short of re-writing the US constitution the US Presidency is a factor we all have to deal with - for good or ill - and having suffered the bad times please don't deny me the pleasure of hoping for some good. Vote McCain for war without gain
I just don't understand the cognitive dissonance I hear from a significant number of non-Americans about the role of American Presidents. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Many people recognise that for all its faults - it is better than the competing systems of Nazism and Stalinism it defeated. They are prepared to work with America but distraught that America has not been prepared to work with them. They bought into the ideology and failed to recognise the growing imperial reality. Democracy and Freedom meant American Democracy and Freedom - and their relative servitude. That system is changing now - largely due to the neoconservatives own hubris and over-reach. Obama would be making a mistake if he thinks it can be rebuilt.
We now have an emerging multi-polar world order which will bring its own (and different) global problems. The last time we had a multi-polar world order, it lead to WW1. I hope we have learned a little in the meantime, but when I saw the neocons tearing down thew pillars of international law I began to despair. I'm not yet sure how different an Obama presidency will be. More competent, certainly, but how much wiser? Vote McCain for war without gain
Let me mention two things that bug me about "leadership", beyond my anti-Atlanticism and the bad allusions in German.
First, by praising leadership abilities, one forgets that in a democracy, leaders are supposed to get their power from the people. What politicians should have is not some magic ability to go ahead, but ideas, then we the people decide which is the best idea and give the guy powers to attempt to realise it.
Second, the present-day concept of leadership is very closely linked to, I would even say was introduced by, neoliberalism. What neoliberals understand under "leadership" is the ability to push through unpopular reforms -- in effect, stuff they have NOT been elected for -- best by getting people to accept it in the process. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What's your take on the long history of Leftist Authoritarian regimes? LOL.
But seriously, this is an oversimplification and does not really illustrate an appreciation for the relationship between people and their leaders outside the world of Hollywood cartoons. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Lefties on the other hand will always slam anyone in power - until they get into power themselves.
The system of global capitalism we live under - dominated by global corporations - is largely American in origin, ideology, design and control. Many people recognise that for all its faults - it is better than the competing systems of Nazism and Stalinism it defeated.
Many people recognise that for all its faults - it is better than the competing systems of Nazism and Stalinism it defeated.
And this is not a generalisation? poemless:
The election of Obama shows that people with left-leaning ideology are craving strong leadership.
Really? Obama got rather more than the votes of left leaning ideologists. Most wanted alternate leadership to McCain/Palin, and authoritarianism in an US context seems to be more characteristic of right wingers - left wingers often being called liberals with good reason.
And yes of course there are lots of generalisations in my diary. There always are in short pieces. If I want to write an academic piece I will do so in an academic context, and I won't try to write a history of the recent world in 20 paragraphs.
I'm sorry I didn't get to read your diary. I meant to and perhaps you present an alternate argument there. However even if I disagreed with it I promise I wouldn't accuse you of a Hollywood cartoon character level of understanding. I think it helps to be bit more careful and respectful in your criticisms. Vote McCain for war without gain
True. And, in that case, a new group of Lefties will slam the newly-empowered Lefties. It's part of our charm, amigo. ;)
I've always said: Liberals are the Mets fans of politics. When our team fucks up, we boo them and start throwing things. To the extent that it goes well beyond constructive criticism, and we only finally feel like we've fucked ourselves with our pants on after it's too late.
Which is why I've preached that folks need to calm down right now and not get worked up over the presence of Rahm Emanuel or someone like him unless there's something concrete that Obama does on policy to warrant getting worked up. It's of no use and without merit until then, so sit back, give'em a chance to prove themselves, and rule afterwards. Suspicion? Totally understandable. Endless OHNOEZICANHAZPANCAKEZ!@ diaries on Daily Kos? No, those folks need to get a grip.
I stopped worrying about Obama quite a while ago after coming to the conclusion that he'd consistently thought stuff out well ahead of how far ahead I'd thought stuff out. He assembled probably the greatest campaign staff in American history and took down two of the greatest names in American politics, the Clintons and John McCain. I'm not sure people appreciate how amazing a feat that truly is. I like to think of myself as someone who understands the mathematics of campaigns pretty well, but I'm not fit to shine these guys' shoes. Obama's earned a little leeway from me. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
The economic advisory board is a decent cast of characters, but he probably wasn't being given too much differing advice. There's been a unifying of the two wings of the Democratic Party's economic people over the last few years. Whereas under Clinton, you had two camps --the Public Investors/Economic Activists (Reich, Krugman, Stiglitz) and the Budget Hawks (Summers, Rubin) -- you now have a group that largely agrees and fits more with the former category. Summers has talked a great deal about fighting wage stagnation. Rubin has 'fessed to Reich being right about public investment.
So, on the economic front, I'm optimistic. I think there's plenty of agreement on the critical stuff. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
I don't deny you the pleasure of hoping for good outcomes at all. I'm enjoying the same thing. And I've no doubt we'll get some good outcomes. The next four to eight years will be much, much better than the past eight. We'll get some not-so-good ones too, of course. That's life. I'm just saying that I think there needs to be a re-balancing of perception, especially here in the states, about how leadership across the globe should work in the 21st Century. We need new thinking, or at least old thinking that isn't mired in Cold-Warriorism. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Mind you, all of these people drove across the country to work on his campaign. LOL.
We know him. We know what to expect from him. In some way, we know that it is a good thing that he wont pander to us. We know NO politician is going to please us. But we also know he is smart, looks at the big picture, is highly disciplined, and very effective. Which is what we need right now. And that to elect a black urban intellectual in the political climate of the last 8 years is nothing short of a coup. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
Which means that in 2012 they will vote for the other guy or gal, who will, undoubtedly, be far worse as a president.
Obama didn't win this time because he was black or because people liked his policies. He won because enthusiasm for a change mobilised volunteers on a scale that has never been seen before in US politics.
His political chances are completely dependent on those volunteers, and he can't afford to lose even 20% of them. His usual 'I realise we're going to disagree about some things' spiel is only going to take him so far - people are going to be expecting real improvements in their security and living standards.
If they get to 2012 and look back thinking 'Actually - that was kind of a Blair experience' he's toast, and the supposed massive national realignment and permanent Democratic majority will evaporate into nothing.
Barack Obama is an establishment politician. I know, I know people do not want to hear that, but he is. He always has been. People can believe what they choose, but the facts are undeniable. Non-establishment politicians are not surrounded by the David Axelrods and Rahm Emmanuels of the world. Obama is an exceptional establishment politician. But he's not grassroots. I'm sorry. He has used the grassroots community every step of the way to achieve his goals, but he's never shown any kind of tribalism or loyalty to them. His entire history is one of disappointing people who thought he was the champion of their cause. He did it at the Harvard Law Review. I have a friend who wrote policy papers for him during his Senate race, and after Obama won, was replaced with Daschle's people.
Also, this support base you speak of is mythical. There is not one base of support. It should be clear from looking at the electoral maps that his support is heterogeneous. It includes leftist progressives and Rockefeller Republicans, the GLBT community, and a homophobic African American constituent, it is grassroots citizens and Washington insiders. He's a human Rorschach test. Everyone except McCain supporters believes they are his base. Now, if you are Barack Obama, how do you please your base? Because your base does not even agree with itself! So instead of cherry-picking ideological tribes to pander to, I think he should make decisions based on his own wisdom and how effectively they will make America a more safe, prosperous and just nation. And that's all he's promised. And that is all I expect from him. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
What matters is that if he doesn't live up to at least some of his promise in an obvious way, his support will crumble and the next cycle will go to whatever foetid creeping thing crawls out from the far right.
He may have screwed over supporters before, but the country as a whole is too big to screw over, and he doesn't have the luxury of doing that again. His charisma buys him some breathing space, but there has to be some delivery and pay off too - he's not going to be able to fool all of the people all of the time.
As for trusting his wisdom - why? Things will get better or they won't. Wisdom isn't the issue - results are.
That said, he owes the GLBT community. His failure to come out more clearly against Prop 8, among other problems, allowed the Mormons and their allies to prey on ignorance of the legislation in minority communities, especially among black folks (and to a lesser extent Latinos). There's clearly an issue of homophobia among them. We've known that for years, and leaders who are minorities have talked at length about it for a long time.
They need to step up and make this the civil rights issue it so clearly should be, so that we can throw this stupid ban out in two years. Obama, Jesse Jack Jr, Bill Richardson, the mayor of Los Angeles, Cory Booker -- they all need to fix this. Starting, like, now. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Warning : story has about 2000 comments. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
If blacks had voted against it in the same proportion as Latinos (53%) or even whites (50%), it still would've failed. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Obama will do more or less exactly the same things as Bush, except he'll look better and he might do them in a cleverer fashion. That actually makes Obama much worse for the rest of the world than Bush would have been. At least Bush was driving the US right over a cliff twenty years before true imperial decline was scheduled to take the country down.
While I largely agree with the premise, I disagree vehemently with the conclusion. I'd much, much rather have a smart emperor running a nuclear power than a drooling moron. "Desperate, flailing implosion" is not a qualifier that's designed to make me sleep soundly when applied to empires with enough megatons to scorch every major city on the planet five times over.
I think the US just got rid of a Yeltsin and replaced him with a Putin. Yes, it means that the US will be more powerful, just as Putin has made Russia more powerful. But I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that humanity is worse off with Putin than with Yeltsin.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But I don't think he'll be making life miserable for quite as many people.
Obviously, the world would be a better place without emperors. But until that happy day, I'd much prefer smart emperors over stupid ones.
You'll notice that I have't argued that Putin was worse than Yeltsin for the majority of the citizens of Russia, or even for EU-Russia relations. Indeed I do not think so. But I won't draw a general conclusion from this specific example. I brought up Hitler and Mussolini to counter JakeS's general claim. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Putin and Obama, I would argue are realists by comparison. They have a more sober appreciation of the limits of their own power and the reasons why others might oppose them. They are more amenable to negotiated solutions taking both their interests and those of their competing powers into account. They can build on common interests rather than polarising situations to such a degree that only extreme force - on either side - can resolve the conflict of interest.
Obama may not be a starry eyed idealist who will bring peace in our time overnight. But neither would he start stupid wars, and or re-polarise situations that are starting to find a relative level of stability. That is huge improvement on where we have been, and I will take it for the moment. notes from no w here
OTOH, while being smart does not guarantee that one is not delusional, there is a point where dumb and delusional become virtually indistinguishable.
I think - and at this point a guess is all we have - that Obama has greater mental flexibility than Bush/McCain on the subject of foreign policy. Read: He'll be able to understand and more or less accept when a country has clearly and unequivocally left the US sphere of interest.
Bush/McCain seemed to have no willingness to concede loss of territory. And if you have a major power trying to enforce its will on what is clearly another major power's turf... Bad Things Happen. Think Georgia or Lebanon. Or a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, for that matter.
Yes, a US empire that flails out desperately at a variety of lost causes would weaken itself faster than a US empire that cuts its losses and manages more or less orderly retreats from its former colonies... But flailing about would hurt a lot of people on the way.
See, the rest of the world doesn't want a competent imperial manager for the US. We want an incompetent one, because such people are easier to beat. Bush, being a fool, did immense damage to the US imperium. I hate the US imperium, and I hope to live long enough to see the US itself reduced to the point where it is accorded the same international interest and respect as, say, New Zealand (i.e. pretty much none.
By the logic of this argument, we should all have been rooting for a Palin Presidency. The problem is that if the US is reduced to the influence of a New Zealand, the likelihood is not that we will have lots of New Zealand type countries in the world living in peace and harmony with one another, but a world dominated by China, Russia, Islamic countries or multinational corporations of no particular national loyalty - something which may be happening anyway.
A uni-polar world order leads to unparalleled hubris and arrogance, and I a glad that era is drawing to a close. But a multi-polar world order -in the absence of strong International legal institutions - could be even more unstable. We have to be careful about what we build to prepare the unipolar system - and the cataclysmic decline of the US is not guaranteed to give us a better world. notes from no w here
Agreed. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
I'd never even heard about the guy before he started campaigning, and I always take election campaigns with a largish grain of salt, so I don't think I'm qualified to comment on how much of his program he's actually serious about.
He might surprise us and turn out to be a Gorbachev. He might disappoint us and turn out to be a Bliar. But right now, I think he looks like a Putin.
That is, the USG leading on an issue makes progress possible because the USG is not then working day and night to stymie progress on the issue.
The annoyance with the not infrequent USG arrogance on issues that the USG has decided to "lead" on is, of course, entirely independent of whether someone wants the USG to lead or not ... I can want someone to take a position as head coach of the Cincinatti Bengals or Columbus Crew and at the same time not want him to be an arrogant prick about it. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
the USA has built itself the largest economy in the world, has more military bases worldwide than any other nation, and has since the turn of the 20th century inserted itself into other nations' affairs more than any country. It has used it's power to largely dictate most global systems. It was and remains the world's first and largest super-power.
So big surprise when there's a 900lb gorilla in the room that people spend a lot of time looking to that gorilla's behaviour, good and bad.
At it's worst, like Bush, the world suffers through the USA's influence and tries to get by, and/or ameliorate the damage. At it's best, the USA's global power has meant it can set a compelling example - ie that influence has been used for 'good'. Both circumstances have resulted from which driver has the head of the gorilla.
In Obama, the world hopes and craves for that good compelling example.
Short version - the USA has a lot of power, therefore the world 'looks' to how it uses it, via your leaders. In return for the power and the blathering on about a light on the hill, we expect a raising of the bar. "This can't possibly get more disturbing!" - Willow
The rest of the world has often got little choice as to how to react to US power. For instance the Irish Government acquiesced to rendition flights through Shannon despite the vehement opposition of the overwhelming majority of the people. The serious people tm in the elite calculate that the consequences of pissing the US off are worse than pissing off their own electorates, and democracy be damned. notes from no w here
