big-business-friendly government policies and too much dependence on foreign oil.But that's not America's biggest problem.
The thing we should worry about most is America's standing in the world, where the nation's once-sterling reputation has been severely tarnished. There's a fine line between being a cooperative leader and a self-centered bully. While some international friends remain, the global perception of America is strongly skewed to the bully column.
Americans' preoccupation with homeland security, homeland prosperity, and homeland access to the planet's oil leaves much of the world feeling unappreciated and "less than."
For Americans who think beyond their bank accounts, finding a way to restore America's respected position in the global village has to be at or near the top of the priority list when it comes to selecting the next president.
Of the viable candidates, which one has the greatest potential of getting the international community to warm up to America? It can't be anyone who thinks the war in Iraq was anything other than an ill-advised boondoggle that has cost far too many lives, made the world considerably less stable, and fueled the cause of extremists.
That eliminates John McCain, leaving Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Although Clinton has traveled extensively, shown a great awareness of global needs, and served on important committees, it seems evident that Obama has the edge. He may not have worked in as many official foreign-policy capacities in Washington, but he has the life-experience of being born to an African father, spending part of his childhood overseas, and being -- like the majority of people in the world -- a person of color.
If the president is the face of America, Obama's face is more likely to be perceived as a friendly and acceptable face in the world at large. Democrats living overseas and in closer touch with the international community seem to affirm this view: primary voters among Democrats Abroad gave Obama a nearly two-to-one edge in voting Feb. 5-12, or 65 percent of ballots cast.
That vote didn't get a lot of play in the media, but it ought to get our attention. It's not just the economy: it's the global community, smarty.
15 comments:
So if I'm to understand you correctly, you think that the United States of America should select their next leader based on a public opinion poll - of a public that isn't even part of the electorate?
Do you honestly think any other country in the world selects their leaders this way?
Shouldn't we be trying to elect the best, most qualified leader? Shouldn't we as believers be voting for the candidates that best fit our priorities, whether those priorities be social justice, sanctity of life, or both?
The rest of the globe can't have it both ways. They can't tell us on the one hand that we shouldn't interject ourselves as some kind of bully, then on the other hand tell us we have to choose leaders that they prefer, basically bullying us into doing what they want, trying to shape us into an image they prefer.
I wholeheartedly support global cooperation, negotiation, trade, and in some cases intervention in "hot spots." What I reject is this idea that somehow because we have made European Socialists mad that we are instantly bad, and required to become American Socialists to pacify them.
Some of us believe that the best way to help our nation's poor is to create a system and economy that allows them to succeed rather than just become dependent of a federal check like so many of Europe's lower classes.
Some believe that with great strength comes great responsibility, and that The United States has a role to play in freeing people (like Iraqis, Rwandans, Sudanese, etc...) from tyranny. While that may not be yours or my point of view, it doesn't make it a "bad" one or an "illegitimate" and certainly shouldn't make Barack Obama the only right choice for President.
Let's not forget (as some seem to have) 95 of 100 Senators voted FOR our action in Iraq. So now we have to vote all of them out too?
I enjoy your writing, respect you as a person, and miss your presence in the Biblical Recorder, but I had to respond to this blog with a big thumbs down.
Thanks for the comment, Jason. My intention is not to suggest that other nations choose our leaders. I do, however, think a person's ability to relate America more positively in the global context should be a factor in our decision making.
Generally, as you know, I avoid secular politics. I just couldn't help observing that Obama seems to have the edge when it comes to the issue of America's place in the world.
There are, of course, other issues, and none of them are easy.
"There are, of course, other issues, and none of them are easy."
No wiser words have ever been spoken my friend.
My biggest concern with our country is the level of discourse. How we no longer even fathom that a person can want the same end goal that we want yet see a different means to getting there. Until we can give each other that courtesy we have a long road ahead of us.
I meant it when I said we mis s your in the Biblical Recorder. We have a mutual friend in Burke Holland, who is (as you probably know) a member of my congregation.
Tony:
Looks like you have read Andrew Sullivan's cover story on Obama in The Atlantic a couple months back.
I voted for Obama here in Alabama; even so Leon Wieseltier is posing some strong reservations at the The New Republic.
As you and others have time, google up Wieseltier and Obama and consider coming back in the week's ahead.
It is going to be a most fascinating summer and fall. And for sure how Richard Land plays it all is gonna be interesting, and rachets up with CBS 60 Minutes Sunday on the dealings of Land's conference caller buddy Karl Rove and his machinations against the Alabama Governor.
No, I haven't read anything in The Atantic, or had time to look at The New Republic. With my current course and writing load, it's all I can do to skim a daily newspaper and glance at a few articles on the web, and that's unlikely to change soon.
World-wide, economic justice can best be achieved by free men through free enterprise. So perhaps America's biggest problem is helping the global poor by facilitating stronger economies.
I don't think any of the top three remaining candidates have a clue about things economic, domestic or global. But, for me, it is the trumping issue and, on things economic, they stack up as follow:
Worst=Obama
Slightly less=Clinton
Some less=McCain
Popularity polls should be of little consequence.
Increasingly, Obama works a crowd like a TV evangelist :-)
I agree we need to try to bolster our standing in the international community. The way we do this, I think, is to keep our economy strong in the face of some potential rough spots we could face.
A few numbers will suffice to illustrate my point. According to IMF estimates, the US GDP for 2008 comes in at just over $14 trillion. Japan is second with about $4.5 trillion. In fact, the US GDP is about the same as Japan, Germany, China, and the U.K. combined. The U.S. accounts for about 25% of the global product.
If California's GDP was taken separately, it would be approximately 6th in the world, Texas' would be about 8th, and New York roughly 10th.
All this to say, it's not necessarily a matter of arrogance that we focus on our own economy. We stand in a position of great responsibility regarding the global economy. If we don't lead in the area of economics, I think we forfeit our right to lead in other areas as well.
(Obviously there is a range of opinions regarding how to take care of the economy, but I'm not addressing that here...just wanted to point out the importance of the economy)
http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/01/countries_gdp_a.html
Since when does giving careful consideration to other’s opinions equate to being bullied into living up to their image of what we should be? Is the country, in fact, living up to its own identity claims? We seems to have become complacent about setting aside the constitution, international agreements, and a love of freedom because our fear tells us these things don’t work in a time of war. Could it not be that outsiders are pointing to some of the truths that the nation has, in practice, chosen to ignore? We claim separation of powers, yet the executive branch attempts to tell the judiciary what it can and can not hear. Were our own citizens were being denied access to courts and convicted over seas without seeing the evidence against them we would scream to the top of our lungs. If our own soldiers were being tortured for information we’d be building a list of war crimes charges to bring against our foes. If another government were in the practice of destroying documentation of its authorization of crimes we’d draft resolutions condemning its corruption.
I am disheartened by the notion that our nation’s economic status or monetary leadership trumps our actual need for integrity. To the Christians among our citizens I want to ask, is it wrong to admit that this “image problem” might actually have substance, or do we love the darkness more than the light? Are we ceasing to be introspective allowing our interests and actions to be dictated by the rule of fear rather than the rule of love which casts out fear?
If having a more positive image in the World means becoming a more Socialist nation, which is what Western Europe wants, then no thanks.
Leadership is about doing the right thing even when it is not popular. This is why "populism" is nothing more than lacking the courage of one's convictions.
My comments made no implication about a desire to become a socialist nation, and it's certainly a broad overstatement to claim that is what Western Europe wants.
Just speaking from my own experiences in Europe. Most are, without question, Socialist in their economic thinking. They believe that American individualism is at the core of what is wrong with America and they despise free-market capitalism. Although our Capitalism is the reason that we have been able to send so many billions of dollars to Europe over the years.
I have lived in Europe and Central America and I have encountered one thing that is the same. They want American's to leave but our money to stay.
A further analysis that I have of Western Europe is that they live in a continual state of denial concerning the threat of Islamo-fascism.
Kenny Davis wrote:
((...I am disheartened by the notion that our nation’s economic status or monetary leadership trumps our actual need for integrity.))
I agree integrity should matter. For integrity to be the trumping ideal we have to replace the current options altogether.
By current options, are you referring to the remaining viable presidential candidate? Just curious.
As for integrity, we lack integrity in many areas, I think but I still contend that the economy is central even in fixing that. One example is trade agreements. Because our economy is such a large portion of the global market, how we relate to developing countries and emerging markets can make or break a small country's economy, affecting the well-being of thousands if not millions. This is not because we are better than they are or that they are worse. I'm not thinking in "manifest destiny" delusional terms. It's simply a matter of scale. And because of that scale, we have a great responsibility.
Integrity is important. I would certainly agree with that 100%. However, integrity without experience or simply good intentions will not be enough. It's not an either/or issue. It has to be both/and.
Yes, by 'options' I was referencing the three primary candidates left running. With the amount of money that has to be 'raised' to become a viable candidate integrity suffers.
So some other indicator of 'leadership' has to become primary.
I think the economic understanding thus becomes the distinguishing characteristic that matters. It is the proven way to improve poverty.
In addition to the Wieseltier article at tnr.com; some of you will be very intrigued by the latest on OBama there; easily googled John Judis on Obama as Adama at New Republic
Post a Comment