What's truly interesting is his perception that Obama appeals more to European conservatives than liberals, and that neither Europe nor Latin America believes that an Obama win would substantively change American foreign policy:
The European right appears more enthusiastic about the liberal Obama than the left. French political scientist Dominique Moisi seems to think the Democrat will give pro-American Europeans some arguments to “sell” the United States among anti-Americans. “Why is Obama so different,” he asks in a recent syndicated essay, “from the other presidential candidates? After all, in foreign policy matters, the next president’s room to maneuver will be very small. He (or she) will have to stay in Iraq, engage in the Israel-Palestine conflict on the side of Israel, confront a tougher Russia, deal with an ever more ambitious China, and face the challenge of global warming. If Obama can make a difference, it is not because of his policy choices, but because of what he is. The very moment he appears on the world’s television screens, victorious and smiling, America’s image and soft power would experience something like a Copernican revolution.”
The whole article--which is not very long--is worth your time.
6 comments:
Do you think European cons & libs view Obama differently because there is a closer correlation between a European con & American lib philosophically, and the American con is too right for the Euro con and the American lib isn't left enough for the Euro lib?
No, I think that European libs and cons both have differently structured ideologies than here. (This is difficult, let's see if I can parse my own thinking.)
Western Europe (which is what we usually mean by Europe) is, in social terms, dealing with different burning issues. Health care, per se, is not an issue there, while immigration (especially direct Islamic immigration) has completely different dynamics there. Likewise there is a different dynamic in terms of the more radicalized political role of agriculture in many of those societies than here.
I don't think the social concerns of our liberals (which are mirrored in the concerns of our conservatives) resonate much at all with Europeans.
Therefore I don't perceive that they either (a) really understand or (b) really care that much about our social agenda debates.
So I think they primarily look at who is in charge in terms of trade and foreign policy. The conservatives are more or less realpolitiks aficionados, and therefore see that the constraints on any newly elected president will be about the same (ergo, remember that Bill Clinton couldn't immediately withdraw from Somalia? They don't see an immediate US pullout from major foreign commitments regardless of who is president).
Likewise, they don't see the President as being able to change (at least not overnight) the US position on tariffs or global warming, because the reality is that Congress holds the power there, and even if there is a major expansion of the Democratic majority in both houses, historically speaking all that does is cause the ruling party to break down into its own internal factionalism. Besides, I don't see the Dems having any chance of getting above 59 Senators, and that's what it takes these days to pass tough legislation over the opposition.
So I think Europeans see the change in the visible "face" of America as incredibly symbolically important, even if the decisions run in a continuum rather than in a completely different direction.
I also think that given Barack's palpable foreign policy lack of experience, he can expect to be tested seriously and almost immediately by our friends and enemies alike.
Great analysis, Steve. Your site needs to be upgraded to Super Genius.
This was fascinating:
"Likewise there is a different dynamic in terms of the more radicalized political role of agriculture in many of those societies than here."
I know nothing about this. Can you give me a link or two so I can read about it?
Thanks.
Somebody else who stays up too goddamn late at night?
Too tired now, I'll try to find you a couple links tomorrow; if you google french farmers and agricultural protest, things like that, you'll probably find it
Here's a smattering on French agricultural protests and peasant politics which go back a long way and never get covered in America. There is also a developing "peasant movement" in central and eastern Europe but it is really really had to find material on it (try checking Bulgaria, Poland, and Croatia).
There is some agricultural radicalism in Belgium, and indications that the Basque separatist movement is trying to hook with the French and instigate Spanish farmers (who are way too conservative for their taste).
Sorry but I haven't had time to look up URLs for a lot of that. One of my problems with the blogosphere is that if it ain't linked on the Web, to most bloggers it doesn't exist; in academia that just is not true. Lots of critical information either won't make it to the Web or makes it only in Pay sections.
This allows a lot of bloggers to pretend the stuff isn't real.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jul2000/fran-j19_prn.shtml
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DD153DF935A2575AC0A965958260
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/french-farmers-protest-at-channel-tunnel-738263.html
Unfortunately a lot of the serious academic work here is in restricted pay sections of various academic repositories. I can access these at work but can't share them easily. The abstracts you can see on the web, however, will give you some idea
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2801(199306)65%3A2%3C410%3APAPAWP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFJ-45K0Y8B-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=91fcd056bb3060ba4a3a387165294524
Thanks. That will get me going. Please don't share anything from a source that, by doing so, might cause you some problems. It's not worth it.
This is a good start. I appreciate it.
Post a Comment