[QUOTE=Barry From Eastenders]
I read an Op-Ed in the Washington Post called Obama’s First 100 Days
Obama’s 100-day agenda would be designed, in part, to improve America’s global image. But there is something worse than being unpopular in the world – and that is being a pleading, panting joke. By simultaneously embracing appeasement, protectionism and retreat, President Obama would manage to make Jimmy Carter look like Teddy Roosevelt.
Of course Michael Gerson does lean a little to the right.
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Gerson might want to stick to bloviating on events that have already happened, instead of reporting on his dreams.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
I thought, before I saw your post, that Americans are such assholes they would think the approval of the rest of the world would be a detriment… that they are all our enemies, or something.
Of course, not ALL Americans are assholes like that. Just some.
[/QUOTE]
Apparently you don’t read entire threads before replying either.
What I see in the original post, not following any links, is that the world would consider Obama’s election to be the biggest change in American policy.
The OP then goes on to presume that this change would a) Be good, and b) Furthermore, be a change in a good direction.
Hell, I could have told you without any polls that Obama’s election would be a huge change in our image, simply off his voting record. When was the last President with a political ideology so sweeping? FDR? Teddy and his breaking of the trusts and Boss Tweed’s NY machine?
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What’s this lumping Clinton in with Bush? Clinton was the anti-Bush, world-respect wise. He was probably our most admired former president on the world stage in the past generation or two. They’re polar opposites in that regard.
I don’t have a cite. Just my own (maybe flawed) opinion. I of course never spent the time to determine which president was the most popular abroad. So maybe it’s Bush for all I know (altho I doubt that). I do seem to recall him being popular overseas based on news reports I saw. And I think he was more popular than Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and Johnson. Not sure about Carter.
If I was out of place to make the observation, I’m sorry. I probably shouldn’t have said that…
Reagan was generally popular (ending the Cold War!), as was George W- I believe George W. was the most popular during his presidency worldwide for how he conducted the Gulf War (actually acting like the US was a partner in the UN, and collecting worldwide consensus! Gasp! How un-American!), although he might actually not be #1. Nixon I had thought was quite well-regard worldwide, especially since he withdrew from 'Nam and “opened” China, although recent generations don’t look at the times the way they were. Carter made major efforts at peace in the MidEast.
Clinton, however, did the Bosnian hokey-pokey, launched missile strikes into South Africa, and bullied Haiti. The Clinton years weren’t the utopia people want to revise them to- I presume you’re both a Democrat and young, 26 or younger? Don’t wear rose-colored glasses about the Clinton years just because they preceded the “hated, evilz Bush” years. The economy was showing rock from the dot-com bubble burst before Clinton left office.
Clinton may be looked upon relatively fondly by the world now, simply because GW has done as he has. This doesn’t mean he was favorably regarded during his term, especially to the point of being the tops in the last couple of generations.
[QUOTE=BrainFireBob]
Reagan was generally popular (ending the Cold War!),
[/QUOTE]
I seem to remember Reagan being quite unpopular at the time. Of course I was very young, so I’m probably wrong there too. Was Reagan more popular than Clinton? I’d have thought Clinton was at the time of their presidencies. Well, I’m not going to make out of my ass observations anymore, as I’m obviously wrong here. But I’d be interested to see what those who do know about this have to say about it.
Really, I think Reagan had the biggest shifts in world opinion during his term I’m aware of, from low to high. Then again, GW Bush had the highest approval ratings ever right after the Gulf War and still managed to lose the election in the following year. Clinton was absolutely brilliant at selling himself.
I currently have visitors from Germany.
They told me that recently on German television, there was a special broadcast that had a team go to Obama’s father’s village in Africa and interview Obama’s grandmother! She was very gracious and gave her best wishes to everybody watching the show in Germany.
Sounds to me like the rest of the world is indeed somewhat interested.
But being popular with other nations- particularly since a lot of other nations don’t like us- is not a good indicator of competence for the presidency.
I mean, really, introducing the issue smacks of peer pressure. “Britain will think we’re cool if we elect Obama, they might even let us smoke with them and France behind the UN building and ditch Security Council meetings.”
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Except we rely on the world for our standard of living… China and Gulf States buying our debt so that we can spend more than we have… not to mention selling us oil in dollars… watch out if they reset things into Euros.
Which is relevent only if China and the Gulf States will buy less debt if Obama’s not elected and more if he is, and there’s no connection between that and what the original poster brought up.
[QUOTE=zuma]
Since Reagan and the first Bush were so popular overseas mean that McCain should be the obvious preference of the rest of the world? Why Obama?
[/QUOTE]
Well McCain would simply look like all the rest of the presidents. Obama, obviously, not so much. Human perception is very important in the judgement and decision making process. Look how divided the dems are with a black man and a white woman. But of course that all only has to do with their respective personalities.
As a rule I see this as a non-starter. We vote for President based on if they can improve our lot in life - or harm it least. At this point, I do think that the good will of the world would help, but a President who is overly occupied with keeping them happy… might not be listening to the electorate. It nets to 0.
And I did vote for Obama and hope to in November. I don’t like the argument that the world likes him and I think it plays horribly to the masses.
Most of the world is dark skinned. Even in America many are a little embarrassed by the rich white guys running our country ,over and over. Obama would show the world that we can esteem black people. They are aware of our history. From slavery to violence against those who sought equal rights, our anti black story is known.
Obama as president would help temper our perceived hypocrisy.
What I see in the original post, not following any links, is that the world would consider Obama’s election to be the biggest change in American policy.
The OP then goes on to presume that this change would a) Be good, and b) Furthermore, be a change in a good direction.
Hell, I could have told you without any polls that Obama’s election would be a huge change in our image, simply off his voting record. When was the last President with a political ideology so sweeping? FDR? Teddy and his breaking of the trusts and Boss Tweed’s NY machine?
[/QUOTE]
Obama’s ambitions are quite modest compared to the nation building agenda of the neocons.
As for international popularity. GHWB and Clinton were about the same. Poppy was much better at foreign policy than domestic and (unlike his idiot son) viewed the international community as important. That’s why he built a real colition before GWI (as opposed to Jr’s paper “coalition of the willing”), and why he didn’t invade Iraq.
Clinton brokered at least some temporary peace initiatives in Israel, deposed a brutal Hatian dictatorship without firing a shot, lost no casualties in Kosovo and and (for whatever its worth) signed NAFTA.
Poppy and Bubba both were pretty well-liked during their terms. It’s really GWB who’s taken the image of the US as essentially good guys to being aggressive, arrogant, warmongering, torturing, hypocritical bullies.
