Random Post: 成長の壁突破を| RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
    •  

    Not Found

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. I should have old permalinks redirected shortly, but for now all the old posts are at least imported. You can search for a key phrase below if you'd like to hunt one down.

    The White Peril 白禍 » Page not found
       Random Post: Feels like home| RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
     

    Not Found

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. I should have old permalinks redirected shortly, but for now all the old posts are at least imported. You can search for a key phrase below if you'd like to hunt one down.

    The White Peril 白禍 » Page not found
       Random Post: Been running so fast / Right from the starting line| RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
    •  

    Not Found

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. I should have old permalinks redirected shortly, but for now all the old posts are at least imported. You can search for a key phrase below if you'd like to hunt one down.

    The White Peril 白禍 » Page not found
       Random Post: Cats and dogs playing together| RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
    •  

    Not Found

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. I should have old permalinks redirected shortly, but for now all the old posts are at least imported. You can search for a key phrase below if you'd like to hunt one down.

    候補者
    James Kirchik is hardly a lockstep liberal, but in this post, I think he does actually make a typical liberal mistake in typical liberal fashion. His conclusion is this:

    A top concern for voters in November will be a candidate's ability to raise American prestige. Rest assured that McCain will do just that.


    Given its origins, the word prestige sounds like a perfect fit for McCain to me. That aside, I think Kirchik is wrong about most voters. Most Americans don't care what people think in New York and San Francisco, for Pete's sake, let alone in Paris and Berlin.

    Or that's not entirely true. As one commenter puts it (nonmilagno posting Apr 2, 2008 - 4:30 pm), "It's not necessary that Europeans like us. However, it is important that they realise we have common interests." What worries Americans is not our lack of "prestige" but that we can't always rely on other Western countries to go to the mat for Western values. I think that if a presidential candidate convincingly demonstrated that he or she could get governments of other democracies to see why the WOT affects them, too, voters would care. But proportion of American voters who are hoping they'll be able to hold their heads higher among their European and Latin American friends at brunch on Sundays is small and very geographically restricted.

    Kirchik's argument about whether people care about rebuilding our reputation abroad is wrong on its own terms, but so is his assessment of how our reputation got where it is:

    The truth is that much of contemporary anti-Americanism is a manifestation of disgust with George W. Bush as an individual and will immediately dissipate as soon as a new president — Democrat or Republican — enters the Oval Office in 2009. Yet also keep in mind that a similar degree of anti-American sentiment is inherent and may take a generation to disappear. Yet also keep in mind that a similar degree of anti-American sentiment is inherent and may take a generation to disappear. French anti-Americanism, for instance, springs from economic inferiority and a lost empire, was flaunted as far back as 50 years ago when Charles de Gaulle was president and George W. Bush was but a little boy. Much of South America's anti-Americanism stems from 19th century American imperialism, something that no American president will be able to change.

    What the next president can do to reverse the popularity deficit is distinguish himself from the current administration's most unpopular policies. On this score, McCain already has much to his credit. He has long stood out for his proactive stance on global warming, his opposition to coercive interrogation practices of terrorism suspects, and his support for closing the prison on Guantanamo Bay, all things which anger people and governments overseas.


    Given the hedging in that first paragraph, it's hard to pin down how much anti-Americanism Kirchik expects to disappear magically on Inauguration Day. What proportion is attributable to anti-Bush sentiment? I'd say less than he thinks. Europeans and Asians loved the Clintons--they were lawyers with prestigious educations who talked a lot of big-government theory, which made them easy to identify with for a lot of elites there. And yet there was still plenty of bitching about America. Too prosperous, too confident militarily, too confident culturally, too friendly with Israel. They might like to see us hobble our economy with some drastic policies to combat global warming and stuff, but I don't think the basic attitude is likely to change soon, no matter who's president.

    So I don't think Kirchik's argument in favor of McCain washes. Virginia Postrel has an intriguing and more convincing analysis of Barack Obama's glamour in The Atlantic:

    Obama's glamour gives him a powerful political advantage. But it also poses special problems for the candidate and, if he succeeds, for the country.

    ...

    To rely on illusions is to risk disillusionment. If Obama the dream candidate becomes Obama the real president, he'll be forced to pick sides, make compromises, and turn "hope" and "change" into policies some people like and some people don't. Or, like the movie star governor of California, he might choose instead to preserve his glamour by letting others set the agenda. Either way, his face won't make America's worries disappear, and his cool, polite manner won't eliminate political disagreements. Some of his supporters will feel disappointed, even betrayed. The result could be a backlash, heightened partisan conflict, and a failed presidency. George W. Bush ran as a uniter, and Jimmy Carter promised national renewal.


    Anne Applebaum wrote a column on a somewhat related issue last year. The headline was "What Presidents Don't Know," and her point was that some learning on the job is inevitable. Wonkish expertise and a ten-point plan for everything are less important than a realistic sense of what the candidate is getting into:

    In fact, there may be some sorts of experience that are actually detrimental to a potential president. I worry, for example, about Hillary Clinton's much-vaunted travels as first lady: She came, she made carefully prepared speeches, she received polite applause. It won't be like that if she's president, and I hope she doesn't think it will be.

    ...

    Other kinds of foreign connections could prove useful. Even aside from his specific beliefs, John McCain happens to be particularly good at speaking to (and arguing with) foreign audiences: The director of a German foundation recently complained to me that the U.S. presidential campaign was spoiling his transatlantic conferences because it meant McCain couldn't attend anymore. Meanwhile, Obama, with his African relatives and Indonesian childhood, would start his presidency riding an enormous wave of international goodwill. His differences from our current president -- he's young, black, with a more complicated background -- would win him a lot of points in a lot of places, whether or not he knows the name of the Pakistani president (and whether or not he would bomb that country, as he recently seemed to imply he would).


    I remember vividly when Ann Althouse linked Applebaum's column. A lot of her commenters seemed to take the above passage as an out-and-out endorsement of Obama--which gave me pause, because I hadn't. Applebaum seemed to me to be observing two things: that any new president will have expectations and a default way of reacting to new information, and that how other world leaders respond will be an important part of that new information. She appeared to be suggesting that Obama might be able to leverage his initial warm reception; Virginia says that his glamour won't be enough to save him if he gets into trouble but that he may have a realistic sense of its limits.
    Posted by Sean on 2008-04-04 22:07:58
    Internet Ronin:
    Reading between the lines of what Ann Althouse writes has become a cottage industry, so I'm not surprised you ran into that idea. Her comment section was once a delightful place to exchange thoughts but there are now so many people there lugging incredible towers of baggage before and after them that I think she could make some serious money by offering porterage services from one thread to the next. Pity, that.

    I think Virginia is basically right. Arnold is a good example, but he discarded his oft-stated political principles and adopted policies consistent with his opponents' views pretty early on. Obama, OTOH, gives no indication of doing that. He has been pretty consistent about offering traditional liberal solutions further down in his speeches, after repeating the professional sppechwriters' mantras about hope and change, and probably will continue to do so after election. There really doesn't seem to be anything "new" about him, except his race and his relative lack of experience. The difference is no one is paying attention when he references his actual solutions now. They will if he is elected. Obama's relations with the press that actually follow him are not particularly warm (it appears that the further the media person is from Obama the better they like him). This does not bode well for friendly coverage once in the White House.

    That said, I think Obama has the potential for muting the rampant anti-Americanism found among foreign elites, as Clinton did.
    4.4.2008 11:08pm
    Zak (mail) (www):
    As Machiavelli said, if you can't make them both fear and love you, then choose fear. That's the philosophy I take with my kids, and I think it should be America's going forward!

    ...Just kidding. :)
    4.5.2008 1:51pm
    Sean Kinsell (mail) (www):
    Internet Ronin:
    "Reading between the lines of what Ann Althouse writes has become a cottage industry, so I'm not surprised you ran into that idea."

    Well, what they were actually overreacting to was what Anne Applebaum had written; IIRC, people weren't flipping out on Althouse herself, for once. Unless what you're saying is that it shouldn't be surprising they did it to Applebaum given that they do it to Althouse.

    And yes, I think that if Obama is elected, in a lot of places, the elites will feel duty-bound to show how racially tolerant and accepting they are by giving him the extra-warm embrace and the extra-wide smile.

    At first.

    But while he's been admirably unflappable thus far, it's not yet clear that he has the steel needed to deal with serious partisan differences effectively. I'm not saying I don't think he does; we just don't know.

    Zak, I can't wait to see the piercings and tatts your children have in fifteen years. :)
    4.5.2008 5:11pm
    Portia (mail):
    "The truth is that much of contemporary anti-Americanism is a manifestation of disgust with George W. Bush as an individual and will immediately dissipate as soon as a new president — Democrat or Republican — enters the Oval Office in 2009."

    You are correct, this is nonsense. I was in Europe -- as an European -- as a late adollescent at the end of Carter's presidency and moved in (All My Sins Remembered) "intellectual" circles. The anti-americanism might not have been as public or in your face as it is now (after all, if the Sov Union came marching in we'd need the US.) The things you heard about the US then were exactly the same as we hear now. "Too big" "Too Powerful" "Must be taught a lesson." Etc. The underlaying feeling was a desire to rub the US's face in the dirt. The US UNDER CARTER!

    Why? I don't know. Possibly because the US isn't "respectful" enough of Europe. Possibly because at some level they view us (Yes, aculturation successfully accomplished) as a "mongrel people." (My mom whom I never suspected of racist tendencies -- nor does she seem to have them in contact with other races as such -- wrinkled her nose during a drive on her second week in the US and said what bothered her was that there wasn't a national "look." That Americans looked like "anything." [The answer "yes, isn't it wonderful?" is probably responsible for her never coming to visit again.])

    I could speculate on many other reasons for them to resent us, but all I can attest to is that it was going on 20 years before Bush. And will go on twenty years after. And I wish our politicians KNEW that. Making them love us is a lost cause. Europe is only going to return our chocolates and spit on our flowers. They'll work with us if they have to, but the rest of the time they're best ignored. (Or casually watched in case they get weird again.)

    P.
    4.8.2008 8:18am
    Sean Kinsell (mail) (www):
    Interesting that you should say that, Portia. Bruce Bawer and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both talk about experiencing that in Europe: the idea that each of us has a culture that is determined by place of origin and that there's something inauthentic about assimilating into a new place when you immigrate. You don't become Norwegian or Dutch.

    Of course, that's not restricted to Europeans. Japanese people have sometimes asked me exactly where the source of pride in being American is because we're not all related by clan. Once I had to say, "I can't believe I have to say this as an American to a Japanese, but what you don't understand is that we all think alike." I mean, of course, in terms of valuing initiative, personal responsibility for your own destiny, and the freedom to choose community with those of like mind. And then there's the fact that most of us have ancestors who made major efforts to get to America; those who don't usually have ancestors that worked hard at building the country up when it was still pre-industrial.

    Anyway, I do think that most of our politicians do get that they're representing American interests, actually. It's mostly from academics and media figures that you get the feeling they're bothered that the cool kids don't like us.
    4.8.2008 5:32pm

    Post as: [Register] [Log In]

    Account:
    Password:
    Link B I Strike Block Quote
    Remember info?
    The White Peril 白禍 » Page not found
       Random Post: Free xone| RSS .92| RSS 2.0| ATOM 0.3
  • Home
  • About
    •  

    Not Found

    Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. I should have old permalinks redirected shortly, but for now all the old posts are at least imported. You can search for a key phrase below if you'd like to hunt one down.