My mixed feeling about Obama’s victory

by Jonathan on November 5, 2008

Placed on either side of the light. Belgrade, Serbia, November 2008

"Placed on either side of the light". Belgrade, Serbia, November 2008

[Update: And so it begins, Sam Smith, ultra-liberal, goes on the offensive against Obama]

I was cheering for Obama last night and I was delighted when it was confirmed that he had won.

I attribute it to the booze and the fact that, like just about everyone else on the planet, I really like Obama.

Whilst Obama is the runaway feel-good choice – a charming liberal African-American nice guy promising to heal the perceived damage of the Bush administration – I am not so sure he was the right choice for the world. And I mean world, not America.

This is hard to explain, but luckily for me, Marko Hoare wrote a brilliant post on the eve of the election that perfectly explains my position:

“I’m not prepared to follow the herd and endorse Obama for US president. That said, there are some powerful arguments to be made in favour of Obama, which I have been hearing from Obama supporters – such as my own girlfriend, as well as my mother – for some time now. The strong reasons for supporting McCain, however, which I have outlined in previous posts, remain. Each of the candidates offers a very different set of advantages and disadvantages, and a US citizen deciding whom to vote for should weigh them up very carefully before deciding.

One of the paradoxes of this election is that Obama is perceived by much of the liberal intelligentsia in the West as being the progressive, anti-establishment candidate, even though his likely election victory will owe much to the fact that his campaign has enjoyed much greater financial resources than McCain’s. The richer candidate is spending his way to victory; even if a large part of this funding has consisted of small donations, the hated representatives of American capitalism have hardly been falling over themselves to fund his Republican opponent. Yet Obama’s greater popularity among the liberal intelligentsia, and indeed among international opinion generally, is undeniably because he is more widely – and unfairly – seen as less quintissentially American than McCain. Obama may be just another liberal Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, but for various reasons – in part because he would represent a dramatic break with the politics of George Bush, in part because he is black, and in part because he is undeniably charismatic – he has been invested with much greater belief on the part of the outside world as a force for change than he probably warrants.

But perception matters. And here is the strongest reason for voting for Obama. A President Obama would restore the world’s goodwill toward the US. The outside world will give him the benefit of the doubt, and the US a second chance to enjoy the degree of international popularity it enjoyed before 9/11. Conversely, a victory for McCain – particularly after such a strong and sustained poll lead enjoyed by Obama for so long – would produce another great outpouring of anti-American bile across the world, and above all from the ranks of the European chattering classes. The Republicans would, once again, be viewed as having unfairly stolen the election; their regime would enjoy little international credibility or goodwill. McCain will be painted as a continuation of Bush, and continue to be punished for the sins, real or perceived, of his predecessor. Obama would, therefore, be better able than McCain to restore the US’s network of alliances and connections, rejuvenating the US’s world leadership, or what is termed on the left as ‘American imperialism’.

Yet the reason why Obama would enjoy such international goodwill, and be able to restore the US’s world image and standing, is also the reason why one should think twice before supporting him: the world prefers soft US presidents, and Obama will undoubtedly be a much softer president than McCain. George Bush Snr betrayed the Iraqi Kurds in 1991 and acted to keep Saddam Hussein in power; Bill Clinton collaborated with Slobodan Milosevic and the Taliban, and strove hard to keep the US from having to intervene to stop genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia; yet neither has earned the kind of opprobrium incurred by the current US president for the crime of overthrowing Saddam. Obama has shown himself to be less committed than McCain to the defence of democratic Iraq and of independent Georgia; his restoration of US popularity globally may come at a high price.

…So the choice between Obama and McCain revolves around the question of whether it is better to have a US president who can restore the US’s global popularity and standing but is likely to be less resolute in resisting the enemies of the democratic world, or a president who will be globally unpopular but more determined in resisting our enemies.

Some readers may feel that US domestic policy should count for more in this weighing up. All well and good; I prefer Obama to McCain on domestic issues, but there are 6.7 billion people in the world, and only 300 million of them are Americans. The United States is a sophisticated system of decentralised democracy and constitutional checks and balances, and the battle between conservatism and liberalism will continue to be fought out at multiple levels throughout the country, regardless of which candidate wins. But it is foreign policy where the president’s voice counts for most. I would discount on principle the idea that one should vote on the basis of the candidate’s age or skin-colour; Winston Churchill was presiding over the Normandy Landings when he was only a year or two younger than McCain is today, and was several years older when he became prime minister for the second time, while the social changes that have made it possible for the US presidency to be within reach of a black candidate have occurred, and will continue to occur, regardless of who wins. The fact that Obama supposedly is friends with various dangerous radicals is a big red herring; most of us probably have been, one way or another. But it is no more a red herring than the big Sarah Palin bogey; Palin was brought in by McCain to mobilise the Republican base; she will not determine US policy. McCain might die in office and leave the inexperienced and very right-wing Palin as acting president. But probably not. Finally, I have faith that US capitalism will rejuvenate itself, regardless of who is managing the economy.

So for me, it boils down to a choice between the man who will capture the world’s hearts and the man who will fight the world’s enemies. While there are strong arguments to be made for each, I would always support the candidate who, when the chips were down, defended a small nation against a brutal aggressor, against the candidate who has supported an aggressor against a fragile small nation.”

http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/weighing-obama-versus-mccain/

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Kieran November 5, 2008 at 7:14 pm

It is the last highlighted text that worries me about American leadership typified by Bush and presumably McCain, “a man who will fight the world’s enemies.” We are quick to define ‘enemies’ and seem to do this with ease despite the proximity of our borders (which Palin will attest to) and our shared fate on this planet. Astoundingly, today this includes Russia (“when Putin rears his head”) and China (Tibet). Thus we are quick to jump to aggressive action against them. Some would argue Serbia itself is a victim of this. What good has come of the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan for both of these countries and the international community?

Obama, hopefully, doesn’t share this same ethnocentricity. Any goodwill he fosters isn’t due to softness but the possibility that he might show a sense of respect for other cultures, and even take advice from other market principles. The current crisis shows the American model hasn’t perfected everything. Iraq is evidence that our definition of enemy is fallable and the ability to win is uncertain.

Reply

eon November 18, 2008 at 12:03 am

The Republicans would surely have won if they’d let Sarah Palin be more like Michael Palin. As an Alaskan she’s a natural for the lumberjack song.

And when those interviewers caught her out she would’ve garnered a lot more sympathy if they’d gone ‘never heard of the Bush doctrine? That’s a chip up the nose, Sarah’.

Reply

limbic November 18, 2008 at 9:35 am

Hi Kieran,

Thanks for the comment. Sorry I am late replying.

I disagree that the US policy towards Russia or China has been aggressive. Quite the opposite really.

It is Russia that has come roaring our of its corner since high oil prices and European energy dependency have enabled it to punch above its weight economically.

As for China, the US in particular and the West in general have been nothing less than pusillanimous in the face of Chinese aggression over Taiwan (massive military build up and manoeuvres), cheating in world trade (by artificially suppressing the Renminbi), abuses in Tibet (which are some of the most egregious anywhere) and continued obstructiveness on just about ever issue that is important to the West (it is routinely China and Russia that lead the charge against the West in the UN – Zimbabwe is a great example).

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, they are very different situations. The Iraq war is essentially over. Just yesterday the Iraq cabinet agreed the final US drawdown agreement that sees the full withdrawal by 2011 and cessation of patrolling in urban areas by end 2009.

As for Afghanistan, there has hardly ever been a most just war. The Taliban were and are the most vile regimes ever to have power. The West’s support of the democratically elected government of Afghanistan is for me the minimum we can do to defend our Western values of democracy, human rights and freedom – wherever they are jeopardised.

Reply

Kieran November 18, 2008 at 1:24 pm

The horror!

I wrote a reply and sent it but having not filled in the email information in the box above I received an error message and it is now gone. My points were strong and conclusive, you’ll just have to believe me :)

What do you think of the following article as an aside?
http://www.counterpunch.org/bond11122008.html

Reply

limbic November 18, 2008 at 1:29 pm

I do believe you. Some of my best comments never saw life after they were lost to time-outs or the vagaries of poor commenting systems.

My comments system detects good counter arguments and protects me from cognitive dissonance by deleting them before they ruin my day :-)

Very interesting article. Thanks for that.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }