This morning on NPR’s “On Point” Several scholars and journalists from around the world including Parag Khanna, geopolitical scholar and advisor, and author of the new book “The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order” and Ricardo Lessa, in Sao Paulo, a journalist with GloboNews and Tugba Kalafatoglu, in Istanbul, founder of Tugba Kalafatoglu and Associates, a global management and political consulting firm - all spoke about the US presidential election and what factors in peoples views from around the world matter the most.
They all spoke about perception and image as being highly valuable, and what will the new POTUS do for the US and our image among other nations. I was amazed at what our image is and how much our “leader” plays an important role in it. It wasn’t so much surprising as it was a little depressing.
Back to the point. The consensus among other nations in these guys view was that Obama would be the one to change our image the most, and would be the one who *other nations * would look at as being the best change for our current image. They cite his presidency as being a turning point for the United States away from the Dynastic years of Bush and Clinton and into a new frontier of new ideas and positive growth. They cite McCain as being a Bush-like in his approach to war and Iraq…
What do other posters from around the world think, those hopefully from outside our continent. Would Obama seem the best fit as a real identity shift for the US to a more positive light or not?
Actually, you’ve just given me the first good reason NOT to vote for Obama. What “the world” thinks is immaterial, and if we start gearing our vote to world opinion, we’re in a huge world of trouble.
I’d disagree with your last premise, I didn’t post it because I thought anyone would gear their vote because of what other countries thought. I posted it because looking at the US through a different lense is beneficial even if it is only to see others opinions from different cultures and beliefs. It sheds light on what peoples perceptions are, and that sheds light on what those cultures are thinking. You don’t have to agree that that is beneficial, but from a sociological prospective I see it as highly beneficial.
Well that’s a bit contrarian, isn’t it? If what the world thinks is immaterial, then what they think shouldn’t be a reason to vote for or against the guy. What you’ve said is that you actually do care what the world thinks, and you’re inclined to vote against world opinion.
(don’t get me wrong, I also think that what someone in another country thinks has little if anything to do with whether or not I’m going to vote for someone).
Yes, I’m ashamed to say it, but I would like Obama to win mainly for the reason that his presidency would have the greater impact on America’s image abroad.
Dark-skinned guy, Hussain middle name, prepared to meet rogue leaders. It’s huge, it could change a lot.
Notice I didn’t mention pulling out of Iraq – it’s because I honestly think the image change would have a greater effect on popular opinion in the middle east than a withdrawal, which could simply be written off as a retreat.
Whereas different ethnicity can be seen even by the illiterate and uneducated.
Image shouldn’t matter in politics, but it definitely does.
If it didn’t, then elections would be very cheap affairs. There’d be no need for advertising – the voter registration forms could simply include web addresses of the competing parties manifestos. Job done.
I agree, partly. I’ll vote for the person I think is best for the country. World opinion may be a consideration, as a good opinion of our President could be a useful diplomatic tool, but it won’t be much of one.
(But if you won’t vote for him because of world opinion, then aren’t you gearing your vote to it?)
I remind you all that this sort of thing has been discussed in the past.
The Guardian, during the 2004 election, sought to have its readership write voters in a swing county in Ohio to express their opinion on their upcoming vote. The result was rather predictable:
The world (including America) pokes and pries and opines on elections all over the bloody place. It’s hardly shocking to find someone, somewhere trying to determine which US president would align closest with their countries interests.
I just hope to god that no idiot UK paper starts trying to get Cornish housewives to call Americans to help elect someone. I mean what idiotic paper would do that?
Interesting underlining. Were these guys all guys (males)? I wonder if more female perspective would have changed the flavor at all.
PS. I support Obama over Clinton because I see him as the greater repudiation of the Bush era. The outside world’s view can be seen as a factor in that, if you wish.
I’m sure that even if they were interested in the result, they wouldn’t bother, since most people here wouldn’t have the faintest idea that elections were being held in France, let alone who they would prefer. That’s if they were aware that France was a country to begin with.
I think the issue is a little more subtle than you’re giving it credit for. On one hand, obviously what you’re saying (well, if we ignore the idea that you’re going to be influenced by world opinion to do the OPPOSITE of what world opinion wants, just out of apparent spite) is clearly true. France or Belgium or Dubai does or does not like one of our candidates? Who gives a rat’s ass?
However, the world is a complicated and interrelated place. If there were two presidential candidates who were otherwise fairly equivalent, but one of them was absolutely loved and respected by all the other nations of the world, and that candidate’s election would cause those nations to like the US a lot more, which would quite possibly translate to increased trade, easier relations, more trust, more working-together-against-terror, etc., well… those things all matter. We should elect the person who can do the best job, and someone who has the respect and trust of lots of other people might well be able to do a better job purely because of that respect and trust, at least when it comes to international issues.
I would never, ever advocate for voting for someone because someone in another country thought they would be the best bet. However, MaxTheVool puts it wonderfully here:
It matters. Its not at the very tip top, but it matters. I already lean Obama, partly viscerally and partly politically (been at the Change Bar for a loooong time and I’m getting a mite tired of 3.2 beer…)
But if both candidates were equal in all other respects (Hillary is a better dancer, Obama gives a better blowjob, that sort of balance…) then I would accept that international factor as a deciderer. We have a lot of work to do repairing our reputation abroad. Hooo, doggies, a *lot * of work.
First and biggest step is to do what we do best: change our minds, and then change our government. Its a privilege and a milracle that we can, and its damned impressive to the one who can’t. Its starts them to thinking.
And its image, of course. The bellicose mouth-breathing cowboy replaced by a black guy with a somewhat ME name. It matters, especially to the unsophisticated and simplistic, the very people terrorism preys upon for recruits. Don’t think so? Ask yourself how many ordinary Arab-types had heard of Kareem Abdul Jabbar who hadn’t the foggist notion what basketball was?
Its a happy coincidence, a bonus toy in our Cracker Jacks. It wouldn’t be nearly enough if I already didn’t think that Obama Wan Kenobi would make a good President, but it is a very nice iceing for the cake.
