Now I know what it’s like to be blonde. Today I wore my moveon.org / Obama t-shirt around the 5th arrondissement of Paris. The reaction was extraordinary. Talk about turning heads. I hesitate to blog about this because for many Americans, the excitement Obama inspires in the rest of the world is a disqualification for the US presidency. But honestly, it would do your heart good to experience first hand the joy and enthusiasm and just plain old-fashioned hope people express when Obama is mentioned.
After too many years of Americans being unpopular abroad, now everyone wants to talk to them and wish them well. My first suitor was a Moroccan builder who flagged me down in the street. He wanted to know if I was American and could vote for Obama. I’m not, so we both fervently shared our hopes about the US election.
Later, in a bookstore, a young woman working there wished me the cheeriest hello I’ve ever received in a Parisian shop. I told her I’m not American and don’t have a vote there, but figured wearing a shirt was one way to say what I think. She said she wished you could get them in France. She asked what date the election was, and talked excitedly about how wonderful it is to see so many Americans walking around the 5th wearing ‘hope’ buttons.
I know there are many in the US who think the support of ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ is something you can do without. But much of what animated the French in opposition to Bush is their almost fan-boy type love for what they see as truly American; an open-hearted curiosity about the rest of the world, and the sometimes naïve desire to make it a better place. Often in France, you get the sense of an old, old culture made weary and cynical by its long experience. Today, on a beautiful autumn day in Paris, America’s hope made an old city feel young again.
{ 101 comments }
Jeff H. 10.27.08 at 1:59 pm
It’s the same in Germany. I actually worry about the excitement, because I see no way for Europe to have its expectations even close to being realized.
Emma 10.27.08 at 2:00 pm
I was recently in Scotland and got a similar reaction after I told them I was a democrat.
jacob 10.27.08 at 2:13 pm
I’m spending a few months in Japan and had to use my local library twice in the voting process–first to print out the form requesting my absentee ballot, and second to find a second witness to sign the back of my absentee ballot envelope. The librarians I dealt with in both cases were extremely excited to be helping me vote. It wasn’t explicit that they were excited about the prospect of Obama, but since I wasn’t shy about whom I was voting for, I bet it was part of their reactions. (In contrast, no one I’ve spoken to has shown the least bit of enthusiasm about the prospect of Japanese election, which may or may not come this fall.)
Would it be inappropriate to use this opportunity to remind any American ex-pats reading this that if they haven’t already mailed a ballot back to your local board of elections, you should mail a Federal Write-in Ballot right now?
Ethan 10.27.08 at 2:33 pm
That’s what I believe about my country, that’s what I love about it, that’s what I want it to become _again_. America is at its best when its the little brother of the world, pointing out things forgotten by its elders and asking questions–the excitement of men on the moon, things like that. But our strength is our weakness as well, for when we get angry we are the petulant child whose only thought is revenge.
It’s time to stop the tantrum.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 2:38 pm
On the other hand, I shudder to imagine the opposite reaction around the world should the Republicans somehow steal yet another election. Fortunately, this one looks out of reach. But I really won’t start breathing normally until it’s over.
David in NY 10.27.08 at 2:53 pm
Had a similar occasion right here in Brooklyn, taking a late train home after phone-banking for Obama. As a prize for that miserable work, I had gotten an Obama-UAW t-shirt and was holding it up for my wife to see. The fellow sitting next to me, whom I assumed to be African-American or a recent immigrant, was really taken with the shirt, which I eventually offered to him (and he accepted gratefully). I admonished him to be sure to vote, but he then told me he was a African artist (a prominent Ghanaian artist, it turned out) just visiting the US for a show, but would be happy to wear the shirt back home in Ghana. I must say that his palpable excitement met approving smiles from most others in the car, but he seemed pleased well beyond the feelings of the actual voters present.
Dan 10.27.08 at 3:03 pm
I really won’t start breathing normally until it’s over. (Steve LaBonne)
I’m exactly the same – finding it very hard to concentrate on anything else for more than about 2 minutes. I wonder how many people around the world are like this? It’s crazy. It really feels like, to steal a Pratchettism, the whole world’s sat in the crotch of the trousers of time, waiting to see which leg we’ll all go down.
But that’s just silly. It’s not an election for President of the World… right?
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 3:07 pm
Harry 10.27.08 at 3:16 pm
My (British, like me) dad tells me that this is the election about which he cares most about the outcome in his life (he’s 68). It can’t be true — he must have cared more about the outcome of the UK 1992 general election unless, like me, he had already given it up as a lost cause. But still. Even I, who have never cared much one way or the other, want him to win (and haven’t had any doubts about it since seeing Palin walk onto the Rep convention floor, I’ll add). My daughter (just turned 12) volunteers at the local Obama office, and organises her friends to go in. My guess is that it is one of only 2 election campaigns she’ll be involved in in her life in which I feel completely comfortable with what she’s doing.
Still, it’s worth for a moment realising that he cannot possibly realise the hopes invested in him, and that he will govern as a very moderate Democrat, at best. Non-Americans should get real about that, at least.
engels 10.27.08 at 3:17 pm
I can’t speak for the millions of jaded but young-at-heart Parisians into whose collective psyche Maria has been able to tune but from where I stand replacing the White House’s current gang of bat shit crazy far-right militarist plutocrats with a more reasonable cohort of thoughtful and articulate centre-right militarist plutocrats doesn’t seem like much of a reason to break out the Louis Roederer.
Don’t get me wrong: I want Obama to win and will be, frankly, scared shitless if he does not. But the sheer volume of schmalz in this post is a little bit hard to swallow.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 3:18 pm
Americans should too. But it’s still a hell of a lot better than the (shudder) alternative.
Sock Puppet of the Great Satan 10.27.08 at 3:32 pm
Even in San Francisco, I was surprised how many people gave me compliments on my Obama T-shirt. Given the political lean of my neighbourhood, it felt like being complimented for breathing oxygen.
Tristan McLeay 10.27.08 at 3:37 pm
I’m currently in Europe with a bunch of people from different countries. I’m an Australian, so obviously I can’t vote, but there is an American here, who doesn’t plan on voting. I find that hard enough to get my head around — maybe Americans need a good dose of compulsory voting — but as soon as he’d said he wouldn’t be voting, me and a European there told him he should just vote for Obama for us. Apparently that’s not the first time anyone’s ever said that too him, either . . .
Keith 10.27.08 at 3:39 pm
But that’s just silly. It’s not an election for President of the World… right?
That’s the funny thing about the American president. 30 years of globalization have turned him into the defacto President of Earth, for better or worse (usually worse). I’d like a more even distribution of global hegemony, but really don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, barring some massive collapse of US power.
Harry 10.27.08 at 3:52 pm
Oh, I disagree with Keith. Hegemony is slipping away fast. It is just going to take a very long time for politicians, policymakers, and the public, to understand what that means for them. (Compare with the post-war British establishment which really didn’t begin to get to grips with the reality of the end of empire till long after it was all gone — even Suez didn’t inject much of a dose of reality)
vavatch 10.27.08 at 3:58 pm
Here in Scotland, reality seems to be far different to in Paris. Nobody except a few internet types gives a damn about the election one way or the other, and those that do are a bit bemusing to the rest of us – who cares if Americans change one right wing president for another very slightly less right wing one? He’s not going to be governing us, and his policies really won’t be that different as regards foreign policy anyway. This is why he is enthusiastically supported by friendly imperialists like Nial Ferguson.
Maybe life is different when you are cocooned in academe? I don’t know. I can’t make out this “the rest of the world is yearning for freedom via the blessed God obama” stuff – it is exaggerated nonsense.
Oscott Local 10.27.08 at 3:59 pm
I suppose it goes to show what expectation is like for the rest of the world. We desperatly want Obama to win but given past experience know only too well that US elections are very hard to call. I, for one, am refusing to count any poultry untill the day after election day.
virgil xenophon 10.27.08 at 4:04 pm
I have to agree with my good friend engels on this one–only I would phrase it a little differently, as in : “Sickening enough to make even a Jackal wretch.”
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 4:07 pm
Oh, they’ll care soon enough if McCain somehow gets elected, because he’ll busy himself starting as many new wars as he can.
Iain Coleman 10.27.08 at 4:12 pm
I’m also in Scotland, and everyone I talk to about the election is terribly keen for Obama to win, from academics to people who work in call centres.
I don’t think people are under any great illusions that Obama will be anything other than a competent, moderate-right politician in the classic US mould. After eight years of Bush, that will be such a relief. My hopes about Obama are limited to my expectation that he will be much like Bill Clinton, but with a bit more political capital and fewer illicit blowjobs. If Obama can just achieve that much, I will be delighted.
Sk 10.27.08 at 4:24 pm
“Maybe life is different when you are cocooned in academe?”
ding ding ding ding ding
Lex 10.27.08 at 4:29 pm
Sheesh, talk about the soft racism of low expectations. Isn’t it even possible that Americans will wake up next January to realise that they’ve been fools all along, and that what they really need is a social-insurance-based welfare state, so they can be more like Europeans?
Of course, if that miracle happens, we can all confidently expect the follow-up set of miracles, where Europeans, Americans and everyone else who can afford a decent place to live and three square meals a day realise that millions of people even in their own societies continue to be abused and marginalised, and that billions of others aren’t even THAT lucky, and that maybe, you know, people ought to be nice to each other for a change.
Because, like, the alternative is for everything to stay the same, and that’s shit.
David in NY 10.27.08 at 4:29 pm
” My hopes about Obama are limited to my expectation that he will be much like Bill Clinton, but with a bit more political capital and fewer illicit blowjobs. If Obama can just achieve that much, I will be delighted.”
Me too. Except that I think that “a bit more political capital” is a significant understatement of the situation. It is unlikely that Obama will stumble as badly as Clinton did at the outset — issuing a pro-gay executive order and screwing up the health care initiative, giving the Republicans the momentum for the next 6 years — and even if he does, his majorities in the House and Senate will be far greater than anything Clinton ever had. He will have substantially greater possibilities of enacting legislation that tilts to the left than Clinton ever had. Whether he will take any of these opportunities remains to be seen.
richard 10.27.08 at 5:07 pm
he’ll busy himself starting as many new wars as he can.
Syria?
Obamaphoria is fun, and I hope everyone enjoys it, no matter where they are. If he wins it’ll be interesting to graph the disillusion and backlash that will inevitably come, when he doesn’t turn out to be everyone’s personal saviour. In 3 or 4 years I hope we’ll see that dissipate, allowing his actual qualities (whatever they may be) to become visible. Overall, though, I hope he doesn’t turn out to be as massive and corrosive a disappointment as Blair. I fear I see something of the same pattern: for all that the right claim he’s a lefty in centrist clothing, he strikes me as quite authoritarian and economically flexible, in whatever direction the wind is blowing. The fact that you can’t put a price on hope makes me really worry about its meaning, as a political asset.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 5:13 pm
I think he’s exactly what he appears to be, Bill Clinton without the bimbos. Is that good enough? No. Is that the best our screwed-up political system can come up with right now? Yes. Baby steps.
Slocum 10.27.08 at 5:19 pm
Hmmm. Guess I’m going to get to see for myself in a few days. Better start practicing. Is “Oui, j’aime Obama l’homme mais je n’aime pas ses policies” proper French? Et, comment dit-on en Francais “Card Check” ou “Universal Voluntary National Service” ou “Corn Ethanol” ou “Joe Biden is the worst sort of drug warrior and also a buffoon”?
Or perhaps, “Ah, Oui, Obama” and a smile is the best strategy…
Not quite sure what the Europeans are so geeked about though. At this point, Iraq is winding down, and Obama is going to make very little difference there (which I think is a good thing), and I think he’s already indicated an intention to redouble efforts in Afghanistan and demand more resources and willingness to put troops in harm’s way on the part of the Europeans. Is that really going to be popular in France and Germany?
Delicious Pundit 10.27.08 at 5:21 pm
Now I know what it’s like to be blonde.
You just gave me an idea for a remake of The Defiant Ones.
Picador 10.27.08 at 5:35 pm
I second virgil and third engels above. “Sickening enough to make even a Jackal wretch”, indeed. I suppose it’s a bit of a comfort to be reminded that Parisians are as idiotic and uninformed as Texans, but really, this enthusiasm for Obama-Biden is about as sickening as the retrospective glorification of the Gore-Lieberman Lost Cause.
And Tristan: thanks for all your concern, buddy, but as another American expat who won’t bother casting my vote for one of the war criminals currently running for President, I have to say that I and those like me have good reasons for abstaining from the ongoing spectator sporting event known in the Serious National Media as “Ballot Bowl ’08”.
K Stedman 10.27.08 at 5:45 pm
But think for a minute beyond the “political clout” aspect of the presidency (which, to be fair, is significant). This is also about three generations of young Americans looking for any evidence that the political theatre is more than a lost cause composed of broken, stupid, hypocrical people and systems. They are tired of pasty white geriatric political PR, they’re longing for a public representative who will appeal to their intelligence and drop the bullshit. That’s what all this emotionally-saturated idolatry is about: a longing to participate without the bitter ironic aftertaste. If Obama gets progressive policies through and changes American infrastructure: great. If he fails to start wars: wonderful. But he can accomplish as much or more by convincing young America that it can get involved and stay that way. It would change the world’s expectations for American politics permanently.
DC 10.27.08 at 5:53 pm
Obama is already a war criminal?
DC 10.27.08 at 5:58 pm
Interestingly enough, this article from today’s Le Monde on the ongoing “state of emergency” in the banlieu suggests that an Obama victory will be seen as an inditement of France’s failure to achieve any such integration of the excluded into the political system:
“…la vision d’un Barack Obama aux portes de la Maison Blanche : si ce dernier devait être élu, sa victoire serait perçue comme une nouvelle démonstration du décalage entre les idéaux républicains et la réalité des pratiques en France.”
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/10/27/banlieue-l-etat-d-urgence-demeure-par-luc-bronner_1111424_3232.html
Lena 10.27.08 at 6:09 pm
Jackals, turn your heads.
Obamanauts enjoy.
MarkUp 10.27.08 at 6:20 pm
”an Obama victory will be seen as an inditement”
Here yesterday JMc guaranteed victory. One that will happen late at night at that. The last time the Phillies won the World Series we were given a Republican president; they lead the series 3-1 ….
notsneaky 10.27.08 at 6:28 pm
“Bill Clinton without the bimbos”
You know I think that’s actually my bliss point.
Anyway. This past summer in Poland, old Polish ladies on the bus from Brzesko to Krakow, head kerchiefs and eggs baskets and all that talking about Obama and how he’s going to win and “how handsome he is” and then giggling like two school girls with a starry eyed crush.
Alex 10.27.08 at 6:28 pm
I have to say that I and those like me have good reasons for abstaining from the ongoing spectator sporting event known in the Serious National Media as “Ballot Bowl ‘08â€.
Notably, smugness and self-satisfaction?
MQ 10.27.08 at 6:31 pm
Hmmm. Guess I’m going to get to see for myself in a few days. Better start practicing. Is “Oui, j’aime Obama l’homme mais je n’aime pas ses policies†proper French? Et, comment dit-on en Francais “Card Check†ou “Universal Voluntary National Service†ou “Corn Ethanol†ou “Joe Biden is the worst sort of drug warrior and also a buffoon�
Slocum, just be honest and tell them you’re one of the Americans responsible for the last eight years of George Bush.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 6:36 pm
If they weren’t capable of learning anything from the 2000 election and the ensuing 8 years, arguing with such people is hopeless.
Slocum 10.27.08 at 6:45 pm
Ah, there we go — a perfect talking point for anyone in France who asks about Obama, “Alors, je suis d’accord avec Le Monde. Ils dit que sa victoire serait perçue comme une nouvelle démonstration du décalage entre les idéaux républicains et la réalité des pratiques en France.” I’m sure that would be a popular sentiment coming from an American ;)
Slocum 10.27.08 at 6:46 pm
Slocum, just be honest and tell them you’re one of the Americans responsible for the last eight years of George Bush.
No — I voted for Gore, actually (in the end, I couldn’t make myself pull the trigger for Kerry, though).
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 6:46 pm
As, no doubt, would following MQ’s suggestion. ;)
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 6:50 pm
See, I could easily understand the other way around, but this I really DON’T get. The utter shambling incompetence of the Bush Administration was fully on display well before 2004. What was it about continuing that horror show which seemed to you a good idea, given that you were flexible enough to compromise on ideology and vote the other way the first time?
Jumperface 10.27.08 at 6:57 pm
One of the more twistedly amusing aspects of this election campaign has been encountering fairly solidly right-wing Brits who decry the “stupidity” of Americans who love Palin and believe the Barack “Muslim” nonsense. I can’t decide if we just have genuinely better-informed wingnuts (unlikely) or if the opportunity for cheap, national-chauvinistic, one-upmanship overrides their natural impulse to fear dark-skinned types.
P.S. DC, thanks for linking to that great article.
Marc 10.27.08 at 7:04 pm
The arrogant cynicism on this thread is far more vomit-inducing to me than any degree of gushing about Obama. It’s pretty ridiculous to assume that Obama will do nothing before we’ve even had an election, let alone before he’s had a chance to do anything. The exception, I suppose, is for people who need a telescope to see the USA political spectrum.
David in NY 10.27.08 at 7:14 pm
” It’s pretty ridiculous to assume that Obama will do nothing before we’ve even had an election …”
Yes, and look at the Congress he’ll have. 55-60 Dems in the Senate, 250+ in the House. Probably enough in the latter to enact legislation without the most conservative wing of his party, if necessary. Particularly given the current economic crisis, the odds that he’ll do more than nothing are quite good. Perhaps like Clinton, but without a lot of the “end welfare as we know it” and “expedite the death penalty” stuff.
blah 10.27.08 at 7:17 pm
I predict that Obama will surpass expectations among liberals. Of course rightwingers and grumpy leftists will be impossible to satisfy, but for the rest of us he will establish himself as a thoughful leader – committed to the rule of law, increasing the role of government in support of more egalitarian social outcomes, and creating a rational foreign policy based on cooperation and multilateral instiutions. He will easily replace Bill Clinton as the best president of the past 40 years.
Harry 10.27.08 at 7:19 pm
Steve: I completely agree with you about Bush in 2004. But Kerry looked like a truly awful candidate, and in 2004 it seemed that the Iraq war was something that could get much worse with a really lousy and indecisive President. I can see someone staying out of that given the actual candidate the Democrats landed themselves with.
Of course, the Iraq war got worse with a really lousy and decisive president. I thought Kerry would be better than Bush (a very, very low bar), but I can understand someone not thinking that. Funnily enough, I’d take either of these two over either of those two. And there is one of the reasons I despise McCain. If he put country first he’d have run as an independent in 2o00 and in 2004. He put his small chance of becoming president first.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 7:20 pm
I’m not a huge Kerry fan by any means, but that really is a bit harsh.
Harry 10.27.08 at 7:24 pm
And, just to add, as a grumpy grumpy leftist, I am easy to please. There is no way that a left wing candidate is going to be elected in the foreseeable future, and I’d be delighted with a president who was thoughtful, competent, and refrained from using his power to cause harm in the world and screw the poor domestically. I hope Obama will be that; my early point was just that I am dismayed to see people expecting more.
novakant 10.27.08 at 7:40 pm
Well, I’m skeptical (Kennedy anyone?), but let’s first give him a chance to do something.
Also, I’ll hold anybody not voting for him personally responsible if McCain gets elected and starts a war with Iran – we’ve been through this before, no?
Slocum 10.27.08 at 7:55 pm
See, I could easily understand the other way around, but this I really DON’T get. The utter shambling incompetence of the Bush Administration was fully on display well before 2004. What was it about continuing that horror show which seemed to you a good idea, given that you were flexible enough to compromise on ideology and vote the other way the first time?
Well, you have to understand that for somebody with libertarian tendencies, it’s always a choice between the giant douche or the turd sandwich. I voted for Gore out of hopes for a continuation of the policies of Clinton (whom I voted for with as much enthusiasm as I ever do for any president) despite Gore’s inexplicable, red-faced, vein-throbbing populism (Fight the power? WTF are you talking about? Dumbass — you are the power). I wasn’t any happier with the choices in 2004, but I think it ultimately came down to Iraq. I thought the Democrats would abandon Iraqis to the Saigon, 1975 ending that the Democrats all though was inevitable and that Bush, because it was ‘his’ war, would not. And in 2004, I thought the Iraqi people deserved not to be abandoned to civil war and genocide. I also thought that the idea that Iraq was not the main front in the war with Al Queda but rather a distraction was absurd (Al Queda certainly thought it was the main front and poured resources and man-power into the fight accordingly).
Still don’t know who I’ll vote for this time. Michigan is a lock for Obama, so it doesn’t really matter. A protest vote? But the Libertarian Party is nuts. I dunno.
Henry 10.27.08 at 8:00 pm
Harry – the one area where I do think a more unqualified class of enthusiasm is appropriate is race. A USA where everyone knows that a black man with a foreign-sounding name can be elected president is, I think, a different country in some quite important ways from a USA where everyone presumes that he can’t. Not that this will magically remove persistent racial inequalities etc – but I do think that it is likely to very significantly hasten along an important process of political integration etc.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 8:07 pm
Which is exactly what you have in common with us left-liberals / social democrats. So believe me, I undertand this.
I thought the Democrats would abandon Iraqis to the Saigon, 1975 ending that the Democrats all though was inevitable and that Bush, because it was ‘his’ war, would not.With respect, I think you misunderstand the situation rather badly. Iraq is as much a mess, fundamentally, as any time since the invasion. The ugly denouement is only being postponed by our presence, not prevented. And that would be true if we stayed there for another 100 years. We do not have the power, nor the understanding of the country nor any significant political leverage within it, to change that. There was no justification for still being there in 2004 and there is even less now.
fifi 10.27.08 at 8:08 pm
I’m not cynical, I think the crazies are basically correct that some Wright rubbed off on him. I hope a lot.
Martin James 10.27.08 at 8:29 pm
Get real. If Obama gets elected and the USA has another 9/11 and Obama doesn’t kill more Muslims than Bush, the bat shits will have his ass. Count on it.
Harry 10.27.08 at 8:34 pm
Ah, so I had a different view from slocum about Kerry. I did NOT think kerry would abandon Iraq (and agreed, then, with slocum’s view about the wrongness of abandoning Iraq) but thought the Dems would refrain from doing what should be done to reach a settlement which would allow the US to get out with any honor. I thought that Bush would also continue to screw things up. So Iraq seemed a non issue for me in the election.
Henry — yes, I agree with that completely. I suspect it explains most of my enthusiasm, such as it is.
Slocum 10.27.08 at 8:36 pm
Iraq is as much a mess, fundamentally, as any time since the invasion. The ugly denouement is only being postponed by our presence, not prevented.
But I don’t believe that — and certainly just not because you assert it. Deferring genocide is always preferable to allowing genocide to proceed just because you think it is ‘going to happen sooner or later’.
We do not have the power, nor the understanding of the country nor any significant political leverage within it, to change that.
But it has already changed dramatically from 18 months ago, and U.S. military power was critical in making that change possible. It has changed to the point that most Iraqis are feeling confident enough to want the U.S. to start packing up — and good for them. It has changed to the point, where I don’t think the differences between Obama vs McCain’s policies will really matter too much. And, in the process, Al Queda has suffered a humiliating defeat in Iraq and has been reduced to a small rump hiding out in Mosul. Support for Al Queda, Bin Laden, and suicide bombing has dropped precipitously in the Muslim world. I don’t think there’s much of any reason to think Iraq after a 2010 U.S. withdrawal will be anything like it would have been after a hypothetical 2007 withdrawal.
John Quiggin 10.27.08 at 8:39 pm
As several commentators have said, there’s a fair chance that circumstances will both permit and compel Obama to move much more to the left than anyone (including Obama) would have expected a few months ago.
But I don’t think overseas euphoria is mainly attributable to the prospects of a national health scheme, or a hope that the US will follow a European lead in international affairs, or even of the US electing an appealing black candidate. At the core of it is the fact that Obama has taken on and comprehensively beaten everything that’s worst in the US (essentially the Republican party and its supporting circles). By contrast, Clinton and the DLC compromised with and emboldened these people.
MQ 10.27.08 at 8:44 pm
And in 2004, I thought the Iraqi people deserved not to be abandoned to civil war and genocide.
This is bullshit. The civil war and massacres occurred from 2005 to 2007. 2008 is less violent than those years, but still on track to be markedly more violent than 2004, when the U.S. election debate was taking place. My guess is that Kerry’s policy would have had a better chance of averting this outcome and been a win for both the U.S. and the people of Iraq — he would have done much more to involve the surrounding countries and the international community, and a responsible pullout would have put pressure on internal parties for a political settlement. Most likely we would have found our way sooner to the strategy of bribing the Sunnis to take on AQ, rather than fighting the Sunnis as “insurgents”.
Certainly I have at least as much evidence for my view as you do for the complacent attitude toward the horrific violence our policies unleashed in Iraq over 2005-2007, not to mention the implicit self-congratulation over our current policies, which have not brought peace to that country.
klajsdhf 10.27.08 at 8:50 pm
Helena Cobban
” ‘Bipartisan’ group urges US escalation vs. Iran”
From one of the linked pieces:
“Simply obtaining the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent and drastically multiply its influence in Iraq and the region.”
Iran therefore should not be allowed to defend itself.
Obama’s status as bi-racial (though everyone refers to him as black) is a milestone for this country and for the “western” portion of the northern hemisphere, and the choice between the two candidates is obvious, which is why responsible republicans are crossing party lines to vote for him. Charles Fried resigned from the McCain campaign[!] and endorsed him. I’ll be relieved if he wins and I’ll be impressed that the country has chosen an intelligent man with dark skin over an light skinned idiot but that’s it.
For the rest I’ll cross my fingers.
MQ 10.27.08 at 8:51 pm
At the core of it is the fact that Obama has taken on and comprehensively beaten everything that’s worst in the US (essentially the Republican party and its supporting circles). By contrast, Clinton and the DLC compromised with and emboldened these people.
Really unfair assessment of the difference between Obama and Clinton. Clinton was driven reeling into retreat by the strength of right-wing reactionary forces in the 1990s, and actually fought a valiant rear-guard effort. Except for a few hundred votes in Florida, he would have succeeded in keeping the right out of the White House completely — a possibility that looked incredibly unlikely after the devastating 1994 midterms.
In contrast, Obama is being pulled gradually toward the left by a massive groundswell driven by events that have comprehensively discredited the Republicans. The right-wing power base is weakened greatly, the scandal machinery they used to mount what was basically a legal coup against Clinton no longer functions, and they have not found a lever that works against Obama. However, Obama’s policy playbook and rhetoric and many of his general election advisors all come from the Clintons, and he is massively aided by the economic credibility Clinton built up for the Democratic party in the 90s.
Basically, you’re ascribing historical trends and currents to personalities. This is an exciting time all right, but it’s not because Obama’s a bold reformer while Clinton was a cautious conservative. It’s because the times demand reform now but mainly permitted incremental caution then.
aarn 10.27.08 at 9:40 pm
Europeans are excited about Obama because a) he’s not Bush and b) he seems like a smart, internationally-oriented leader. It certainly will be exciting that the leader of the most powerful nation in the world could also be considered one of the “best” leaders in the world (all the European heads of state I can think of have larger flaws).
As an American, I feel that international criticism of the American “center” seems a little silly. Every country has a specific set of government policies that determine the “center” of the political debate. The positions of many European countries on immigration and farm subsidies are just as reactionary, if not more so, than the US’s. Gay marriage may be legal for a majority of the American population before it is legal in many European countries, and civil liberties are better protected. I would argue that these differences are as much the result of history as cultural differences between America and Europe, and so while my views put me on the left of the European political spectrum as well I don’t feel disappointed that Obama is really only “center-right” or some other flippant categorization.
However, one cross-atlantic issue that I think is interesting in this campaign is race, because racism exists in the US and Europe in very different forms. To start, I’d argue that most Europeans, and even European sociologists, don’t understand the dynamics of race in America. A several months ago I was surprised to find that many of the Europeans I knew assumed that Obama wouldn’t have a chance in the elections because Americans “weren’t ready to elect a black president”. At first, I assumed that this assumption indicated that racism in Europe is worse than in America, and maybe it is (I would be surprised to see a second-generation African or Turk become the leader of any European state), but now I feel that the post-colonial and anti-immigrant racism in Europe is simply different, but that the candidacy of Obama speaks to the hopes of people on both sides of the atlantic to deal with this problem in their countries.
This post is appropriately titled because European views on Obama are inextricably tied to his race.
Steve LaBonne 10.27.08 at 10:02 pm
Stuff and nonsense, that’s an illusion created by totally inadequate reporting in the US. You still have the same fundamental situation- a government not even most Shia regard as legitimate, a complete absence of anything resembling a durable political settlement (which will never happen as long as our troops are there), and lots of armed men with scores to settle just biding their time until US troops aren’t there to keep the lid on. We are accomplishing precisely nothing of value.
Coldtype 10.27.08 at 10:05 pm
“But honestly, it would do your heart good to experience first hand the joy and enthusiasm and just plain old-fashioned hope people express when Obama is mentioned”
-Maria
I’m somewhat shocked to be perfectly frank. I had held out faint hope that at the very least the foreign press offered a more accurate portrait of Obama’s actual positions on critical issues as opposed to the impressive myths that have coalesced around the man. For example, how many of your interlocutors are aware that Obama fully supports America’s continued criminal occupation of decimated Iraq, and calls to increase American troop levels in Afghanistan? Obama’s belligerent posture regarding Pakistan is a significant development as well. What I fear is that many around the world–like many of his native supporters–have projected their hopes and dreams upon Obama which bear no reflection on his stated objectives. The maintenance and indeed the expansion of the American empire, a decades-long bipartisan affair, will be very much on the Team Obama agenda.
Paul Street, a leading left critic of Obama, has done more than any other to date in exploring Obama’s faux-progressive credentials. Furthermore, Obama’s choice of Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, as his chief economic advisor is hardly encouraging when one recalls Rubin’s instrumental role in repealing Glass-Stegall. Furthermore, Both Obama and McCain were a united front on the 700 billion dollar (now 2.5 trillion) Bailout/Giveaway Plan to the wealthiest and most reckless people in history.
I am consistently astounded by those who profess admiration for Obama yet ignore his voting record in the Senate and hawkish public statements. Let us not forget that Obama is on record for support of the Patriot Acts, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the FISA legislation giving retroactive immunity to the telecom giants who assisted the Bush administration in its illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. Finally, no one should ignore the fact that Senator Obama, along with the Democratic leadership of both houses of Congress, has never failed to vote for the multi-billion dollar Team Bush appropriation requests to pursue the mass-murderous occupation of Iraq. Does this portend change we can believe in?
Those expecting systemic, fundamental change in US foreign and domestic policy with an Obama presidency are bound to be extremely disappointed.
Slocum 10.27.08 at 10:11 pm
My guess is that Kerry’s policy would have had a better chance of averting this outcome and been a win for both the U.S. and the people of Iraq—he would have done much more to involve the surrounding countries and the international community, and a responsible pullout would have put pressure on internal parties for a political settlement.
I think that was naive wishful thinking at the time — the idea that Al Queda would abandon its efforts in Iraq if the U.S. withdrew or that the surrounding countries would have played a constructive role rather than picking sides and engaging in a proxy war. I think that not only would the violence during the last four years have been much more severe, but also the end-point would have been much worse, with Al Queda plausibly claiming a great victory and using tactics of terror to impose severe Islamic rule over at least the Sunni portions of Iraq. Likewise, the unconstrained fighting would have strengthened the Shiite extremists as well. Instead of government forces evicting militias from Basra, we’d have seen the government in Baghdad falling to those militias (if the Wahhabi forces didn’t get there first, that is).
But obviously there’s no way we’re going to resolve an argument about what would have happened had the U.S. withdrawn after the 2004 election–Steve LaBonne asked how I could have voted for Gore but not Kerry, and I explained, that’s all.
Coldtype 10.27.08 at 10:16 pm
“Also, I’ll hold anybody not voting for him personally responsible if McCain gets elected and starts a war with Iran – we’ve been through this before, no?”
-novakant
Who in McCain’s camp has a bigger hard-on for Iran than Dennis Ross, Obama’s foreign policy “advisor”?
Harry 10.27.08 at 10:21 pm
MQ, Clinton came into the Whitehouse promising to “end welfare as we know it”. He and his wife made it a precondition of any health care plan that it be acceptable to big insurers. He was a leader of a DNC that had as its raison d’etre smashing what it saw as the left in the party. He returned to Little Rock during the campaign to preside over the state execution of a man with the mental age of a 5 year old. He cosied up to Wall Street from day minus 365. He was well on the right of the Democratic party on every non-identity-politics issue. How big a difference there is in his fundamental political commitments from Obama we’ve yet to see of course, and certainly a groundswell is pushing slightly to the left right now, and this would give someone who wanted to do serious redistribution and government regulation a good deal of political space. I’m sceptical that Obama is that person, which is fine by me as I say above. I hope JQ etc are right and I’m wrong about Obama. I had no doubt who Clinton was, and nor did he (Clinton, that is).
DRR 10.27.08 at 10:32 pm
Agreed with MQ. Clinton may not have been all that progressive to begin with, but of the plans the Clinton administration did have to make this a fairer & more decent nation were crushed in 1994. Clinton erred in not being able to imagine an American politics not dominated by the conservative movement in the future, and it can be faithfully argued that he conceded too much ground in Defense post-1994 but in general I consider his Presidency a commendable rear-guard action against Reaganism.
As for Obama, I’m sympathetic to the view that from a non-American nation’s perspective, an Obama presidency means little change. Although I have a tough time believing that those cynical about an Obama foreign policy actually come from areas that are imperial victims of the United States rather than, imperial rivals in Europe. But from a domestic interests perspective, it really is a no brainer.
Keith 10.27.08 at 10:40 pm
He will easily replace Bill Clinton as the best president of the past 40 years.
Jesus, that’s a low bar. I expect him to do that so long as all he’s managed by 2012 is to keep breathing.
Keith 10.27.08 at 10:48 pm
Who in McCain’s camp has a bigger hard-on for Iran than Dennis Ross, Obama’s foreign policy “advisor�
Well, McCain for one, Palin for another. Obama may have some shady folk lurking on his election team (who won’t likely be in his cabinet) while McCain likes to sing little songs about bombing Iran. In front of cameras. For fun. I guarantee you, if McCain won, the White House would remain a refuge for neocons and hawks. it wouldn’t be a matter of if we bombed Iran, but whether or not McCain did it in his first 100 days or waited all the way until Spring.
jcs 10.27.08 at 11:06 pm
#56
But it has already changed dramatically from 18 months ago, and U.S. military power was critical in making that change possible.
The following is a link to an article by Joel Brinkley. He argues that there has been some improvement in Iraq, but that the situation is still a mess, it is simply being crowded out by the news on the election and the economy. Out of sight out of mind.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=733389&category=OPINION
Henry (not the famous one) 10.27.08 at 11:26 pm
Seconding what Henry (not me) said: this campaign presents, to use that current cliche, a teachable moment on race. I’d refer the readers to the This American Life episode on campaigning in Pennsylvania for some anecdotes on what that means for unionists dealing with and trying in various ways to overcome the racism they encounter among their fellow union members. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=367 (the second segment starting somewhere 20 minutes in or so). No miracles, but some progress.
Rene C. Moya 10.28.08 at 1:02 am
‘…the sheer volume of schmalz in this post is a little bit hard to swallow.’
***
Agreed.
I’m a young American living in London. I was here during the 2004 election, and felt an utter disappointment at the result that year.
As an American, that shouldn’t be too surprising.
And yet, I haven’t been able to shake the idea–since then–that the outside world cares too much about what goes on our side of the Atlantic. By that I mean the chattering classes, primarily, and also politically motivated foreigners on the left.
Frankly, I’m not comfortable with non-Americans taking it upon themselves to comment daily on our elections. I say this as a left-leaning American, as one, indeed, who took the ‘I’m moving to country X if Bush wins’ quite seriously. No, I don’t find it ‘heart-warming’ or pride-inducing to hear non-Americans like Mary feel so much is at stake for them.
Let’s be honest: very little is at stake for you if you don’t live in America, but do live in Japan, Canada or Western Europe. And so it should be. I have relatively little at stake in, say, French or Canadian elections…yes, I’ve taken a keen interest–and, indeed, staked an opinion–but I’ve never exaggerated what it meant to me personally.
The myth of American power is hyped far too much in the non-American world. That is, perhaps, a legacy of the Iraq war, but it does not–and it should not–blind us all to the truth of relative American decline.
The sooner I see the BBC stop mentioning America every waking hour (from nightly news broadcasts to documentary introductions by Stephen Fry, et al)–a country by now all-too familiar to outsiders–the happier I will be.
novakant 10.28.08 at 1:04 am
Those expecting systemic, fundamental change in US foreign and domestic policy with an Obama presidency are bound to be extremely disappointed.
True, that would be naive, but let’s not forget that we are facing a binary choice here: it’s either Obama or a continuation of the madness of the last 8 years, which were an extraordinary deviation from the international consensus. Some who dream of a peaceful social-democratic world-community in the foreseeable future will continue to gripe and some who have succumbed to an irrational cult of personality will be sorely disappointed. But if Obama does nothing more than get us back to the normalcy of Clinton or even Bush Sr. than I’m happy enough for the time being and will take it from there, in the knowledge that the US will change only very gradually.
phensley 10.28.08 at 1:06 am
Just because you find yourself on the margins of political discourse does not mean you have a right to spread disinformation about mainstream political candidates; Obama in fact the Military Commissions Act.
Steve LaBonne 10.28.08 at 2:14 am
The group that is commonly efrred to as “al Qaeda in Iraq” 1) has only tenuous connections to the guys in Afghanistan / Pakistan 2) didn’t exist before the invasion and 3) exists only to resist the occupation. The Shia militias, given a free hand, would have made short work of them. As it happened, the Sunni tribesmen got sick of their own people being killed and have pretty much saved them the trouble.
Really, your head is stuffed with bullshit McCain talking points that bear little if any relationship to reality. Get a clue.
Coldtype 10.28.08 at 4:39 am
“But if Obama does nothing more than get us back to the normalcy of Clinton or even Bush Sr. than I’m happy enough for the time being and will take it from there, in the knowledge that the US will change only very gradually.”
-novakant
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm but a return to Clinton or Bush Sr. is nothing to celebrate. Yes, Team Bush was a radical regression but Obama is fundamentally committed to American Empire and all that this entails. So we can look forward to outspending the rest of the world combined in “defense” spending [price tag for 2009: 600+ billion] under President Obama. Not encouraging.
a 10.28.08 at 5:55 am
Count me among the cynics. In a year’s time there will be stories out of Europe that Obama is considered a regression from Bush; that whereas Bush in the latter years listened to European concerns (witness the financial summit agreed to by Bush), Obama is not heeding them enough.
On the other hand I think Obama will always be a positive in the eyes of the non-elites of the rest of the world.
Chris Armstrong 10.28.08 at 10:19 am
Based on the all-persons-affected principle, I assume that us non-Americans are going to get a vote in choosing our new world leader? So I understand that weighting these votes is a complex issue but seriously, shouldn’t I have got my ballot paper yet? You Americans are voting on the 4th; I’m mostly free that week and could fax it in if you like?
Oh, another thing – the new post-racial-division America. It’s a lovely vision, and I am reasonably optimistic about it. But electing Obama also opens up the possibility of a horrible, horrible new America; the one which happens after someone shoots him. Someone please reassure me that I can stop having nightmares about this now…
engels 10.28.08 at 10:52 am
On the other hand I think Obama will always be a positive in the eyes of the non-elites of the rest of the world. (‘a’)
I have a tough time believing that those cynical about an Obama foreign policy actually come from areas that are imperial victims of the United States rather than, imperial rivals in Europe. (DRR)
Evidence, please? What I have seen suggests that something like the reverse is true. Opinion in the West, especially among America’s imperial allies, tends to strongly favour Obama. Opinion in much of the developing world tends to be more ambivalent.
AFP
Rene C. Moya 10.28.08 at 11:39 am
Oh, another thing – the new post-racial-division America. It’s a lovely vision, and I am reasonably optimistic about it. But electing Obama also opens up the possibility of a horrible, horrible new America; the one which happens after someone shoots him. Someone please reassure me that I can stop having nightmares about this now…
Again, why would this directly affect you as a non-American? It’s reasonable to feel emotionally shocked by the event, perhaps, but where is your stake in this game? Is it the vision of a post-racial America guiding shamefully racist Europe into broader, sunlit uplands what would be crushed by the event?
It would indeed be depressing, and perhaps even internally destabilising in the States–but life would certainly go on, and in any case I wouldn’t imagine US foreign policy changing all that much after such a dreadful event. Again, like taxes and national health care (the former issue was at the heart of a Newsnight investigation on the BBC not too long ago–I found myself confused as to why any Briton would want to know the minutiae of budgetary allocations in a foreign country) this wouldn’t directly affect YOU.
Which also brings about another question: seeing as how Europeans have a very different immigration/emigration dynamic to the States–and seeing as how, e.g., Britons didn’t really have black immigrants to the UK in large waves until about the 1950s/1960s–how exactly can we (or should we) compare the American experience with respect to black-white relations? Put another way, why do SOME lefties in Western Europe pretend as though America’s 400 year+ history of blacks, racism and slavery is even remotely similar to their own, mostly post-colonial immigration histories?
Is it possible for Britons to contemplate a separate, European path to equality–given the unique circumstances of the European immigrant experience? I have my doubts; whereas Britons know what’s going on 2500+ miles away from their shores they often seem viscerally less willing to understand their neighbours only 34 kilometres off the Dover coast…
Maria 10.28.08 at 12:17 pm
I flew to Cairo last night. You should have seen how the shirt went down there…
Zamfir 10.28.08 at 1:18 pm
Rene Moya, your’re probably right that Europeans spend more attention to the American elections than they rationally should. But to a large extent, it has the same appeal as an international soccer match: it’s exiting because the outcome is not guaranteed, and you and everyone you know can support the same team, even if the outcome has little effect on your lives.
As far the black/white thing, I would say that the less influence the candidate will have over your own life, the easier it becomes to openly support him for being black, or some other not too relevant characteristic.
Rene C. Moya 10.28.08 at 2:10 pm
Zamfir, points noted. I think you’re right on both counts–to a limited extent.
On the black/white point, the Obama comfort issue may very well be limited to his being president of another country. Indeed, many folks might just as well like the idea of a black man as president (hence the ‘Bradley effect’ in US elections) but not, necessarily, the actuality. Nevertheless, you can just as easily argue that comfort is to do with roots: many blacks in Britain are recent immigrants (sort of like our Hispanic minority) whereas the same cannot be said for a majority of black Americans, who have been there from the start. Call it xenophobia, but I think the proximity to one’s immigrant roots will always matter to many people–although to what extent remains to be seen, as (son of immigrants) Nicolas Sarkozy proved in France.
As for the football analogy: maybe, but I think it runs deeper than that among the chattering classes. I’m not saying the Briton on the street cares all that much–though I do, from experience, believe that the educated Brit does care–but it’s incontestable that the British establishment and media do care, and indeed many simply want to apply American ‘lessons’ to Britain. That may make sense from the bubble that is London–multi-ethnic to a degree possibly unrivalled by most cities–but that isn’t yet the case nationwide. The UK is still very much a ‘white’ country demographically, with about 85% of the population being ‘white British’. And that’s to say nothing for large portions of the country like Scotland, which is still extremely ‘white’.
These people, in their enthusiasm for all things American, are ignoring both the demographic and historical uniqueness of Britain.
Still, the race issue is relatively inconsequential to the larger picture I’m trying to paint here, and that is to say there is too much of a movement to make Britain institutionally similar to America. Don’t believe me? Then ask the Justice Minister Jack Straw, who quoted FDR as saying that the US constitutional system ‘has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced’, and then added: ‘and our aim is to emulate that’.
Zamfir 10.28.08 at 2:49 pm
I doubt you should be worried that European support for Obama indicates a wider support for things American. If anything, I’d say that Democratic candidates are more popular because are perceived as more European in some sense.
Watson Aname 10.28.08 at 6:13 pm
I’d say that Democratic candidates are more popular because are perceived as more European in some sense.
Or just perceived as less likely to do crazy things that will negatively effect others.
novakant 10.28.08 at 6:18 pm
a return to Clinton or Bush Sr. is nothing to celebrate.
See, I’ll celebrate when we have achieved world peace and global social justice – in the meantime I prefer to deal with the world as it is and politics as the art of the possible.
David 10.29.08 at 12:16 am
@16 Vavatch: I do not excuse you for being Scottish (or English or Aussie or Bluish or whatever) for a lame equivocation such as you propose. We have enough cheap cynics, albeit sans endearing accents, of our own without your high school formulation.
Obama will disappoint, beyond a doubt. All presidents do. Who would even want the job, especially given the mess he will start with from day one? Nevertheless, he is worlds apart from the alternative and attitudes like yours don’t help a bit. They’re just symptoms.
Coldtype 10.29.08 at 2:10 am
There’s nothing cynical or unsophisticated about Vavatch’s observations David, they’re merely the banal truth.
Nick Caldwell 10.29.08 at 5:49 am
Rene’s comment at #80 reminds me of the old saying that the only people in the world who aren’t terrified of American foreign policy are Americans.
My perhaps irrational gut feeling is that if the US doesn’t elect someone who’s prepared to look at the scientific evidence on global warming, human civilisation’s only got about another 50 years before it collapses entirely. Hell, it may already be to late.
DRR 10.29.08 at 1:14 pm
Evidence, please? What I have seen suggests that something like the reverse is true. Opinion in the West, especially among America’s imperial allies, tends to strongly favour Obama. Opinion in much of the developing world tends to be more ambivalent.
Ambivalence is not cynicism, and while people half the planet away have found no particular reason (and for good reason) to form a strong opinion about who should win the U.S. election, there isn’t a record of them expressing anything like the cynical assessment that Obama is just another figurehead for the U.S. empire like you see from some in this thread.
I just recently reviewed some literature from Gallup on the subject. The consensus seems to be that those countries that have a strong preference and think the choice makes a difference are other western countries. While in Latin America, Asia and to a degree Africa, most don’t have a particular preference but of those who do have a preference, it is Obama by a pretty substantial margin. Asked whether the choice of US President makes a difference in their country the overwhelming majority didn’t know or didn’t have an opinion, a much smaller group thinks it makes a difference, and a yet smaller group thinks it makes no difference.
And I wasn’t saying that Europe itself is cynical over the election, merely that those expressing the cynicism evident in this thread are overwhelmingly likely to be (mostly) white & privileged people, somewhat affiliated with an organized proper LEFT in very rich & developed countries more likely to be imperial rivals than imperial victims.
engels 10.29.08 at 1:50 pm
those expressing the cynicism evident in this thread are overwhelmingly likely to be (mostly) white & privileged people, somewhat affiliated with an organized proper LEFT in very rich & developed countries more likely to be imperial rivals
Apart from your suspicions about organized proper LEFT entryists, isn’t all of the above true of practically every commenter here?
engels 10.29.08 at 2:08 pm
And who do you interpret as saying that Obama is ‘just another figurehead for the U.S. empire’? Picador or Coldtype (who say they are from the US)? Vavatch (who says he is from Scotland)? Is Scotland is an ‘imperial rival’ of the US, in your opinion?
J Thomas 10.29.08 at 2:39 pm
Engels, apart from the question of who said it, is it an interesting question?
Is Obama *more than* another figurehead for the US empire?
Figurehead. Good image. I can see a wooden image at the front of the aircraft carrier. It looks like it’s leading the way, but somehow it always happens to lead in the direction the carrier happens to be going….
novakant 10.29.08 at 3:18 pm
Opinion in much of the developing world tends to be more ambivalent.
people half the planet away have found no particular reason (and for good reason) to form a strong opinion about who should win the U.S. election
You both might want to have a look here, lol:
http://www.economist.com/Vote2008/
engels 10.29.08 at 3:50 pm
Not really, Novakant, as (a) I’ve seen it before and (b) showing that Economist readers all around the world who express a preference would choose Obama over McCain doesn’t contradict my claim that people in many parts of the developing world are more ambivalent about the American election than Europeans are, or the polling results that I linked to to support it.
engels 10.29.08 at 4:13 pm
Here’s a better source for the polling results I mentioned. In particular, see the map ‘Do you think who is elected makes a difference to this country or not?’
novakant 10.29.08 at 6:37 pm
my claim that people in many parts of the developing world are more ambivalent about the American election than Europeans are
I don’t think “ambivalence” is the right word here and I find it hard to follow your wide-ranging conclusions based on rather limited data (i.e. we Europeans strongly favor Obama because we’re in the same imperialist boat as the US, while the wretched of the earth are muttering a wise and world-weary “plus ca change…”).
When they answer “don’t know” or refuse to answer, it is quite plausible that they do so because, well, they simply don’t know, i.e. are less informed than your average European who lives in a country were the media has been headlining the upcoming election 24/7 for months now. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that a very high percentage doesn’t think the election will affect their country, which is simply wrong, since, whether one likes it or not, the outcome of this election will significantly affect every country.
Also, as the presumably well informed “Economist readers” in those countries are overwhelmingly pro-Obama, it seems rather clear to me that these results have less to do with “ambivalence” and more with lack of information.
engels 10.29.08 at 7:13 pm
Novakant, I’m sorry but I don’t really have a clue what you are talking about. I didn’t write anything resembling the view you are trying to foist on me, and trying to claim that an Economist straw poll is a more accurate guide to international opinion than the GALLUP surveys is just really silly.
novakant 10.29.08 at 7:56 pm
So you didn’t write the comment in which someone called engels claimed a strong correlation between being an “imperial ally” of the US and strong support for Obama on the one hand, and being a citizen of the “developing world” and ambivalence towards Obama on the other.
Also, I didn’t claim that the Economist poll was more accurate, but rather that it sampled a certain subset of presumably well-informed citizens, while the Gallup poll probably had a broader base, which could explain the difference in the result.
engels 10.29.08 at 8:18 pm
Nk, (i) You are confusing an observation (‘correlation’) with a conclusion about the causes of it.
(ii) I said that generally people in the developing world appear (as far as I can see from the polls) to be more indifferent than Europeans about the outcome of this election. Wittering on about how, unlike Westerners and Economist readers, they are too badly educated, or badly informed, or whatever, to know what’s good for them is irrelevant to the truth of that claim.
Rene C. Moya 10.30.08 at 2:14 am
:-)
Nice (ii) Engels!
Comments on this entry are closed.