What I find interesting about that article is that it sounds a note of caution. Not meaning to be a downer, because I thoroughly appreciate all that Obama's election would symbolise and the resurgence of optimism about America that he's inspiring is a wonderful thing - it's hard not to root for him just for that. But - if he is elected, there will be an awful lot riding on him as a result and with this level of expectation, it seems to me as if a certain amount of disappointment will be inevitable. At the end of the day, as President he will have to juggle the same old competing interests and make the same extremely difficult decisions - decisions where it really is a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils - and even with the best will in the world, with all the "proper thought" you could wish for, you really can't please everybody all of the time.
That said, he obviously has to get elected first - and no matter what, it's hard not to feel that he would be an improvement on Bush, who seemed to manage to alienate most people most of the time.
Notes of caution are important. But I'm one of those people who gets excited about the small changes, the little hopes. You're right that "proper thought" doesn't please everybody. Normally it doesn't even please the majority. But everyone does change the world, everyone can make a difference - even American Presidents.
I certainly understand that, and I don't deny that he could make a difference. I just don't know how much of one and think that when it comes to politics optimism is best kept on a leash. It is so easy to talk in abstractions (like "proper thought", "excels at diplomacy") and one hears so much of it from both politicians and commentators, but formulating realistic policy and implementing it effectively is another matter. (And I do realise I'm talking in abstractions myself here)
You're right that "proper thought" doesn't please everybody.
You probably meant the same, but just to be clear, I meant the decisions arrived at after "proper thought". I'm sure everyone would hope for things to be properly thought through! It's just that this *can* happen and still not produce a decision you agree with, is what I wanted to say.
But anyway, all this is just saying what I said before, and again, not meaning to be a downer! It's clearly just a question of outlook. I guess only history will be able to judge the extent of any change in the end - the important thing is that there is now an opportunity for it to happen and in that respect I understand your excitement.
(And now apologise for the pedantic nature of my comments. I love to split hairs as you know.)
*sighs* I'm just about ready to murder LJ. It keeps eating my comments.
Anyway, the point you made is an important one: just because a "proper" process is followed doesn't guarantee a "good" result (as judged by any given person). In my defence, I put the word "seemed" because I personally lost faith that policy talk and choices were backed up by good thought. I felt and still feel that far too much of it was based on what people wanted to believe e.g. believing that September 11th occurred because terrotists wanted to attack freedom, when the issue is surely much more complex than that (which honestly is not saying that the terrorists were justified or that America deserved it or anything at all along those lines, but simply suggesting that to fight something, you first have to be prepared to understand it.)
It could easily be I'm wrong about the Bush adminstration. Maybe they followed a rigorous process of thought where they considered every option and viewpoint. Hence the "seemed" and the "whether fairly or not" that I added to my sentences. Most people reading this blog, yourself included, will have a much, much better understanding of the US political system than I do. But one thing I do know is that a lot of people felt the same way as I did. George Bush did not give the impression to many people outside America of having good, rigorous thought behind his actions. A lot of that is to do with the way he came across personally, and perhaps that is unfair, but the impression that you give as a politician is absolutely vital.
As for excelling at diplomacy, I do think that that is a clear, tangible issue.
Check out this article:
Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
Obviously, this is all about perception. A UN official might say "we want a US President who's willing to work with us and show us respect as a union of nations", while another person calls it "worship at the altar in New York". But the point is the same: there are different ways of being an American President, there are different ways of approaching the UN and of relating to other countries. And some might work better than others.
I do talk in abstractions, but I feel they relate to very different ways of approaching problems. Diplomacy is a difficult business - I don't deny that - but I do believe that the most important issue is to work from a position of mutual respect. And I do think that Obama is more likely to help that happen, on both sides of the table.
This isn't me arguing (honest)! Everything you say is absolutely right. There probably is a tendency for me to think the process is bad because I don't like the outcome. I'll have to watch that. But I wanted to say what I meant by some of the abstractions I used. Thanks for making me look more clearly at these questions. It's good to talk them through and I appreciate it. :)
(And btw, please don't think I agree with all the comments put forward in the article. Some of the pro-Obama ones are a bit aggressive. I just felt there were other bits that illustrated what I meant.)
That said, he obviously has to get elected first - and no matter what, it's hard not to feel that he would be an improvement on Bush, who seemed to manage to alienate most people most of the time.
Reply
I'm an incremental idealist, you see. :p
Reply
You're right that "proper thought" doesn't please everybody.
You probably meant the same, but just to be clear, I meant the decisions arrived at after "proper thought". I'm sure everyone would hope for things to be properly thought through! It's just that this *can* happen and still not produce a decision you agree with, is what I wanted to say.
But anyway, all this is just saying what I said before, and again, not meaning to be a downer! It's clearly just a question of outlook. I guess only history will be able to judge the extent of any change in the end - the important thing is that there is now an opportunity for it to happen and in that respect I understand your excitement.
(And now apologise for the pedantic nature of my comments. I love to split hairs as you know.)
Reply
Anyway, the point you made is an important one: just because a "proper" process is followed doesn't guarantee a "good" result (as judged by any given person). In my defence, I put the word "seemed" because I personally lost faith that policy talk and choices were backed up by good thought. I felt and still feel that far too much of it was based on what people wanted to believe e.g. believing that September 11th occurred because terrotists wanted to attack freedom, when the issue is surely much more complex than that (which honestly is not saying that the terrorists were justified or that America deserved it or anything at all along those lines, but simply suggesting that to fight something, you first have to be prepared to understand it.)
It could easily be I'm wrong about the Bush adminstration. Maybe they followed a rigorous process of thought where they considered every option and viewpoint. Hence the "seemed" and the "whether fairly or not" that I added to my sentences. Most people reading this blog, yourself included, will have a much, much better understanding of the US political system than I do. But one thing I do know is that a lot of people felt the same way as I did. George Bush did not give the impression to many people outside America of having good, rigorous thought behind his actions. A lot of that is to do with the way he came across personally, and perhaps that is unfair, but the impression that you give as a politician is absolutely vital.
As for excelling at diplomacy, I do think that that is a clear, tangible issue.
Check out this article:
Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. "The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don't worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else," said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."
Obviously, this is all about perception. A UN official might say "we want a US President who's willing to work with us and show us respect as a union of nations", while another person calls it "worship at the altar in New York". But the point is the same: there are different ways of being an American President, there are different ways of approaching the UN and of relating to other countries. And some might work better than others.
I do talk in abstractions, but I feel they relate to very different ways of approaching problems. Diplomacy is a difficult business - I don't deny that - but I do believe that the most important issue is to work from a position of mutual respect. And I do think that Obama is more likely to help that happen, on both sides of the table.
This isn't me arguing (honest)! Everything you say is absolutely right. There probably is a tendency for me to think the process is bad because I don't like the outcome. I'll have to watch that. But I wanted to say what I meant by some of the abstractions I used. Thanks for making me look more clearly at these questions. It's good to talk them through and I appreciate it. :)
Reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502011.html?hpid=topnews
(And btw, please don't think I agree with all the comments put forward in the article. Some of the pro-Obama ones are a bit aggressive. I just felt there were other bits that illustrated what I meant.)
Reply
Leave a comment