Spoiler alert: this entry will be quite boring if you don’t like playing the politics game; if you do like playing the politics game, this entry will probably also be quite boring. I would like to address this entry to people like my mother—people who are still unsure their choice of candidate come November. This is not directed toward those who have already made up their mind and are antagonistic toward one candidate or the other (I guess by definition, this post is not for me). In other words, Gabrielle, Matt, and Paul I am not trying to convince you to vote for my candidate; rather, I’m trying to sway those swing voters (Madre, Jonny, Libby (?), Melinda, etc.) into joining my ranks. I guess for those who have already made up their mind, this will serve as my justification and rationalization for my vote come November.
As I see it, America has one big problem: a damaged brand name, both at home and abroad. Many, if not most of our problems stem from this badly wounded image. I hold that if we are able to repair our brand at home, our economy will right itself, Americans will find a restored faith in their country and this will help us find answers to tough problems. I of course don’t envision this happening over night; however, I do see it reversing a trend of disappointment in our own country’s actions. When we are able to again restore our faith in our leaders, then many of our problems will be surmountable.
Abroad, the current administrations’ actions have badly imaged our international brand. Immediately following 9/11 we had the support of the world. However, following a badly botched invasion, secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, cowboy diplomacy, and general disregard for the international communities’ opinions, many abroad see America as a broken country. The value of the dollar is in free-fall. Foreign countries will soon come to collect their debt. We are seen as a dangerous occupying force throughout much of the Middle East. The Bush administration has greatly reduced our stature and standing on the international playing field.
How then do we repair our damaged brand? How do we restore faith in America, both at home and abroad? In my mind, this is the overlying issue come November. Everything else is almost moot; at the same time, everything else also helps build our brand as a compassionate, fair, intelligent, complex, democratic, free and tolerant country.
Barack Obama will fix our brand. He will repair our image domestically and internationally. He will do this in three ways.
First, as a person of a mixed-race background, he gives hope to all of us who, for one reason or the other, have felt the oppression of odds stacked against them. 50 years ago, about the time when Barack was born, it was unimaginable that a black man (Barack is really biracial, and it seems strange that he is automatically labeled by so many as black, when he is as much white as he is black, but that’s another issue) would be a viable candidate for president. By overcoming such odds, Barack will repair the image of America to millions of Americans who have been, are currently, or ever will be oppressed because of their identity, be it religious, racial, sexual, or otherwise. Of course, I realize his mixed racial background, in and of itself, is not sufficient enough reason to vote him into office. It is, however, a contributing factor.
Second, Barack represents a person who is, in my mind, not a conventional politician. I know Paul will disagree with this and argue that he is playing the game just as much as any other candidate. I do agree that Barack has run a savvy campaign. I disagree, however, that he is a conventional candidate. His way of looking at issues, dissecting the components, debating the policies, and arriving at a position is impressive. He sees change as something that will happen over time. He thrives on policy debates. It is true that I do not agree with him on all the issues; however, I respect the way in which he arrives at his positions. This kind of deliberate and open evaluation is refreshing. He approaches issues not based on political expediency (obviously there will be exceptions to this, and I’m sure through this campaign he has occasionally done things out of expediency), but on principle. To illustrate, I look at two things that both Hillary and the right-wing attack machine have continually harped on: the flag lapel pin and Reverend Wright. I respect that Barack decided a long time ago to not flaunt his patriotism on his sleeve. The silly antics of Washington that dictate a flag pin somehow equals patriotism are insulting to the intelligence of Americans. As for Reverend Wright, I think this has been a very personal thing for Barack, and he has shown great compassion and sympathy as he has dealt with the an issue that would have sunk any lesser candidate.
From the very beginning, I have expressed my own dismay that I personally so ardently support a politician. While in Utah, Paul also expressed dismay that I am following the ‘trend’ as usually I am one to react to the ‘in’ thing. He’s right. I usually do. You would think that the second I saw that silly will.i.am Yes we Can video, I would have run for cover. For some reason, however, I find the hype surrounding Barack believable. As cliché as it sounds, he speaks to me as someone who is real, as someone who truly believes what he says, and as someone who wants to do good things and make a difference for those who are hurting. Does that mean I agree with every thing he says? No. Does that mean I think he’s never wrong? No. But it does mean I like the way he says what he says. It does mean I like the way he arrives at his positions. It does mean I like his thought process. For all of the above reasons, Barack is not a conventional politician.
Third, Barack will repair our brand in international circles. He represents to the rest of the world someone who is both cosmopolitan and distinctly American. He represents the true strength of America: its diversity. Aside from his identity, his policies are a complete reversal from the failures of cowboy diplomacy. He will wield a large microphone instead of a big stick. Under his guidance, we will begin to remove troops as quickly and as safely as possible, giving responsibility back to the Iraqis (where it belongs) and freeing our troops to focus on Afghanistan. His decisions are not rash; rather, he is deliberate in determining foreign policy.
A restored faith in America will help the dollar. It will help our allies. It will help the economy. His leadership will be a large contributing factor to repairing out standing in the international community. Does that mean I think all his foreign policies are perfect? No. But I do know that upon his election, the value of America in the eyes of the rest of the world will dramatically rise.
In this manifesto of support for Barack, I did not defend him against specific attacks. I did not defend his every policy position. This election is less about specific policies, although these are extremely important, and more about the general direction in which America is heading and how Barack’s presidency will make this much better. My support for him has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. It has nothing to do with liberal/conservative. My support is based on the need to repair our brand both at home and abroad. Barack is the candidate to do this. His election will signal a turn in America politics and will give millions of American and non-American people (I know it’s cheesy to say it, but I can’t resist…) hope.
(oh, and this is peter being money--much like barack will be money come next january)
69 comments:
sir,
first off, i think it will take more than one president to repair our image abroad (especially in the middle east and in europe). having been in europe once or twice, their dislike for us goes much deeper than our choice of presidents (although that definitely is the part of the problem. when that swiss guy sued me, he kept telling me i should go back to the u.s. and convert bush to christianity).
that said, you've almost convinced me. i'm almost on the barack bandwangon, but not quite yet. we'll see how these next couple months play out.
question is, what if, come november, i don't like any of the presidential options? do i still vote?
that's all
stevey.
well stated.
a lot of thought put into it.
but you put too must trust in image.
image, perceived and/or real, will not be enough to restore or continue (however you view our current state) america's position in the world, morally, economically, or otherwise.
many of the forces at play, especially concerning globalization and its path of destruction/creation will proceed without much regard to the president of the U.S.
petey:
as i stated, "His leadership will be a large contributing factor to repairing out standing in the international community." of course image is not enough to restore america's position, but it can be a large contributing factor, if not the major contributing factor.
skinny: i don't think it really matters if you vote or not, you living in utah and all. for what it's worth, it probably also doesn't matter if i vote or not, living in new york and all. we all know which ways our states will go.
that being said skinny, i agree that it will take more than just changing a president to completely repair our image; however, for foreigners and nationals alike, seeing america decide to elect someone like barack obama (a biracial, washington outsider) will restore much faith in the american people.
Vote Barack, enough said. Changing images, understanding globalisation (both in economic and social terms) and securing relationships will take time, a great deal of time. For now, securing the faith in ones nation is what only one candidate, I feel, is capable of doing. Vote Obama.
thank you for taking a thoughtful approach to your decision for whom to vote. i respect your personal feelings and thoughts that have lead you to this decision.
i hope you will listen to the debates between a moderate mccain and obama in further fashioning your views and in making your decision.
i will not mar the lovely feelings in the thread to-date with my disagreements with some of your assumptions. rather, i will attempt to give a treatise as how i will choose to cast my vote on my blog in the coming weeks (it is suprising and untrue to lump me in with a group of antagonistic and immoveable people who have already made up their minds about whom to vote for...)
paul: you told me in utah that you were 80% for mccain. that's enough for me to lump you in with people who have made up their mind.
stevie: let's look a key premise that isn't entirely true in my mind. a premises that is key to your argument ('all else is moot') as you said.
the assumptions are these: 'americans have lost faith in their country', americans need to 'restore faith in their leaders' that most american's feel 'disappointment in their country's current actions'
perhaps your current living situation places you in close proximity to a specific subset of people who feel this way. the media outlets in your community certainly reinforce this view and your choice of 'news' entertainment finishes hammering these points home in a way that give you a skewed sample size and non-representative view of the country's view as a whole.
the majority of people i work and interact with (most of whom are not mormon, not utahn--so please avoid stereotypes of that nature when dismissing what i say.) a subset that admittedly gives me my own skewed view through the lens of a subset of people with specific views...
these people are hard-working, compassionate, supporting families, care competently for people of all walks of life in their times of emergency--even dire times. these people are patriotic, nurses, doctors, techs, ems, firefighters etc. they are happy, proud of their colleagues, content with the state of their lives, communities, state and in large part their country. they are complex group who don't demonize a single man as the root of all mistakes and problems in the country. they recognize mistakes have been made in the international arena--many of which were due to oversight, bellicosity, surprises and luck. in reality, many of these issues play second fiddle to daily realities that weigh heavier on their minds.
the brand is not damaged for them. this is a fundamental difference my brother. all else is not moot in their minds as they struggle to care for their families, their patients and live a productive life. they live with other, less esoteric problems and concerns. much of your treatise means little to them.
if we are to look at areas of the world rife with violence, suicide killings, beheadings for shoplifting etc. etc. etc. if we are to look in a complex light at their societies in a 'complex' light (and i think we must.) then these same people can look on some of america's missteps in a similar 'complex' light.
we must be better at creating consensus, but europe has a track record of botching major decisions and requiring our 'bail-out'. the 'greatest generation' of americans bailed out the european continent because they tip-toed around hitler who walked all over them.
bush is not very good at smoothing over situations, but clinton was the master and bombings of american interests continued under his rule. the moorings for the attacks of 9/11 were established under his camelot years of multi-lateralism and broad consensus. there are swathes of poorly educated, poor, young angry zealots in the middle east who are ready to kill americans regardless the name or color of the united states president.
these swathes of the world require our monetary aid, a lift in their quality of living and they will start worrying more about their ipods and ogling hollywood stars than killing complex and innocent americans.
i'm pointing out other possible interpretations than are state in your treatise. i do not disagree that many across the globe disagree with some of america's current policies and that we need to be better at branding outselves. but after the largest attack on american soil and after the nation's politicians and united nations all agreed that saddam had WMD's and agreed that he was a ruler every bit as terrible as the current leaders in rwanda, and milosevic (name your current leftist scoundrel whom bush isn't deposing) and some of the feelings abroad are unavoidable.
i believe we will pull through. i believe we can still help the iraqis find a state of peace and self-governance. i don't want to stay in iraq a minute longer than we have to. i want out, and i want out in a responsible manner.
how's that for some ramblings and balance on the thread. i hope we can be civil and that you can respond to my thoughts respectfully and without attacking me personally.
peace and love.
i decided to leave a few thoughts after-all.
paul: all fair points you make. i never intended to write what all americans thought. i never said that all americans feel the way i do. i said, for me, branding is the most important issue at stake. i said almost everything else is moot. i agree that some people believe things are fine in america right now. they will most likely vote for mccain because they don't want a large change. i don't. we need to change directions on many fronts. that's why i'm voting for obama.
I have an Obama poster in my house.
And, a Bush, '04 sticker on my car.
I've added your blog to the SFHS Class of '99 Blog Archive. I hope you don't mind. Please visit the site and look up old friends from high school and leave a comment.
While Obama may be miles better at foreign policy than McCain, I find it hard to believe that improving America's "brand" will magically fix everything else (National debt, dollar crisis, out-of-control government spending, to name a few of concern to me). Maybe I missed the connection; care to explain?
Perhaps you can help me on this as well. Obama says he'll pump $75 billion back into the economy. Where will he get this money?
elise darling: you over-simplify my argument. i don't think fixing america's brand will magically solve everything. I do, however, think that it will be a good start to restore faith in america both at home and abroad.
as to your other question, i don't have a lot of time to answer it now, but a huge cut in our defense budget (i.e. bringing the troops home) will go a long way to loosening up some spare change to pump back into the market, will it not?
with ron paul gone, elise, who will be getting your vote.
..?
you did say 'all else is moot' my darlingest brother.
paul: this illustrates the problem with almost all your argument-making, my dear brother: you oversimplify, misquote, and/or quote out of context. what I said was, "Everything else is almost moot; at the same time, everything else also helps build our brand as a compassionate, fair, intelligent, complex, democratic, free and tolerant country."
never did i say 'all else is moot' as you attribute to me, complete with quotes and all.
in all the discussions, i have heard many counter-arguments from paul. and no true arguments from him.
i wish he didn't love the debate so much and winning the point that he fails to clearly articulate what he *actually* thinks about the situation.
its easy to take a line or two, write a "treatise" and then move forward as if your logic is unfailing.
and yet, we have heard no pro-mccain arguments, simply negative obama and/or slash nit-picking and pigeon-holing type caricaturizational tactics and arguments.
in such, it makes it difficult to discern what paul really thinks and why has have 80% decided (presently) to support the old senator from AZ.
Stephen: What exactly is a "good start"? (Seriously, I'm not trying to annoy, I just need something a bit more concrete.)
Paul: As of now, I still am planning on writing in "RON PAUL FOREVER!"
I don't see much point in voting for anyone else.
elise: just for the record, i think ron paul would do an equally good job at rebranding america. i realize they come from opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to economic policies. however, economic policies are not what concern me in this election.
i would define a good as this: beginning to change the europeans' perception of the general american voting public; starting to change the way we treat antagonistic foreign powers; taking a striking stand against cowboy diplomacy; showing the rest of the world AND the general american public that washington (read obama) is serious about real diplomacy, real policy-making (as opposed to policy-making based on lobbyist-inspired/forced issues); and tackling the issue of poverty in a serious-minded way.
peters ubiquitous tendency to avoid pith for insults is tiresome.
it's late, maybe i'll have something nicer to say to peter after some sleep...but likely not.
paul.
don't worry about being naughty or nice.
just say something positive about mccain instead always tearing down obama or selecting single sentences (often contorted/construed/squeezed/twisted) to make your point and write disproportionately long responses.
that's all i'm asking. there's no need to be offended.
paul.
case in point. you quoted stephen's words back to him a couple times in this thread, for example, as if that automatically scores you a point and the debate is won, irrespective of what stephen actually said or actually meant. and then went on to use this gaffe (real or manufactured) as one of your key rhetorical devices in your argument.
ok i've said enough. i only point this out, b/c i am actually curious as to why paul is 80% for mccain, rather than ___% (pick an accurate number) against obama.
despite all the paragraphs i have written in the last 10 threads (including this one) peter successfully comments without addressing the points i have made.
unsatisfying, offensive and unproductive talking with this boy.
stephen said, "As I see it, America has one big problem: a damaged brand name, both at home and abroad. Many, if not most of our problems stem from this badly wounded image. I hold that if we are able to repair our brand at home, our economy will right itself, Americans will find a restored faith in their country and this will help us find answers to tough problems."
how was i not addressing stephen's central premise? i was addressing what i saw as his central theme. it you find a theme more central to his post please enlighten me. or a make a constructive comment. or something. stop playing gotcha and accusing others of playing at the game you so frustratingly display on these pages.
also, i've said i'll work on a post of my own about my central concerns in this election and whether i think a candidate lines up with central issues most important to me. not much originality in your corner lately either...so please lay the insults to rest.
meanwhile, in your open-minded benevolence, will you please allow for and constructively engage a dissenting voice and treat him with the respect and the openness you profess to embrace in your ride on the obamand-wagon..?
you're up early petey boy.
paul: you're straining at a gnat, older brother. don't take petey's bait; when you do, you don't rise above it yourself. there was a problem with the way you quoted me out of context. peter was pointing that out. i also pointed that out. i indeed never said 'all else is moot.'
you boys need to play nice here on this web log and give each other (and me) a little bit of leeway to try and figure out what the other is actually trying to say...
ma, jonny, libby, and mel: this post was addressed to you, right? what do you have to say?
So this is what I'm getting.
1. Obama will help improve America's image abroad. What will this do, specifically, for Americans at home?
2. Obama will, instead of policing the world through wars and economic blackmail, adopt a humble foreign policy and actually use real diplomacy. Does this mean he will bring the troops home from other places besides just Iraq? Will he get America's nose out of the Israeli/Palestinian mess?
3. Obama will make policies based on what Americans need (reading between your lines here...correct me if I am wrong) rather than what special-interest groups are lobbying for. I am more concerned about what those policies are rather than how they are made.
As for "tackling the issue of poverty," you already know that I am opposed to his whole approach (socialism) in that area, so that doesn't do much for me.
But, maybe it is enough to get us out of Iraq; I agree that it is better to spend the money here rather than there. Maybe I'm expecting too much else?
okay, i'll try again. i gave multiple points for discussion in my paragraphs above.
i'll give you two another chance to do as you profess to do...engage me on the issues at hand.
point #1: the brand is not damaged for many if not most of americans. therefore, changing an esoteric brand will have no real effect on the economoy, # of abortions in america, greenhouse gas emissions, the number of uninsured, gas prices and the list goes on.
point #2: extremists killl americans whether the president is a multi-lateral pacifist like clinton or a unilateral hawk like bush. their drive to kill comes from some other source...whether religious, economic or what. without addressing the root of the cause, the color and prettiness of the speech coming out of the US president's mouth won't have much effect.
point #3: walking lock-step with europe for the sake of walking lock-step should not be the highest on our list of priorities.
i do not downgrade the powerful importance of dipolmacy and persuasion. that element of our foriegn policy is badly damaged. we should be far, far better as making our case.
avoid the urge to zing minor points here boys. engage me for the first time in recent memory. awake from your slumber of apathy towards my ideas. give it a shot.
i'm going camping. i'll talk to you tomorrow.
oh, as a reminder. the points i make here are condensed from my paragraphs above--that were apparently too long for perusal.
paul.
at the outset. i'm sorry if you felt i was attacking you. your response makes it seems as though you were offended.
to your points, in a minute.
i have purposefully resisted in engaging in point to point combat on the blogs. i burned out of your insistence to win debate points, in what seemed more like a game than a true articulation of heartfelt opinions. but i couldn't resist commenting on this thread, despite my pledge to avoid the confrontation, by pointing out a few of your covert tactics you deploy.
anyway.
to your points: i'll be a succinct as possible.
1) while many americans are indeed happy and experience happiness, many americans are dissatisfied with the american body politic, as seen in recent polls showing both the idea that america is heading in the wrong direction (yes, its the nytimes, get over it) and bush's embarrassing approval rating. these two are just examples of how people wish that america (and its leadership) needs some branding changes. but i agree with you that many america, in both my circles of discourse and in comparison to other countries in the world, is the number one place to live in the world. a land or greater opportunity, prosperity, &c than many others. but even with that, re-branding is still possible and needed. prosperity &c as you outlined in your comment is independent and not related necessarily with a need to re-brand. this is all domestically. internationally. i assume you agree with stephen since you did not address it. but to that point, on a rough estimate, i would say 85% of the cabbies in turkey for the 3 weeks we were there hated, i mean HATED bush, and his approach to the region. (remember that turkey is half european, half middle-eastern). i mean in the lay-public AKA taxi drivers were so adamantly opposed to bush. it *IS* important that we have a president who will be respected and our brand name on the coattails.
2) extremist kill people. indisputable. however, it is generally accepted that al quaeda was NOT in iraq before we got there. there is also more and more anti-american sentiment as cowboy diplomacy continues. al-sadr would absolutely not be as powerful as he is if he could not decry against the "evil occupiers." this is a serious problem in the region. talking and speeches alone will not solve the crises we face. nor will economic sanctions alone. nor will re-branding. nor will military force alone. but a combination of economic incentives (not sanctions), diplomacy, and military strength in concert does have a chance. obama represents to us at home and those abroad the greatest divorce from our current course. this alone *WILL* be a positive first step. not the end all, be all. but an important first step.
3) agreed. i didn't realize stephen was putting so much importance in walking "lock-step" with europe. but if actually did, then we agree that europe is not as important as other issues facing american.
does that satisfy you? it should. you cleverly paint a picture that if we don't give you the attention you demand on the points you demand when you demand we are somehow not man nor intelligent enough for your time and attention.
one more thing regarding the idea towards point #2.
i read this this morning on my commute. there hasn't been an article by mr. zakaria that i haven't embraced. he is much, much more informed, traveled, intelligent, and articulate than we are.
give this an open minded read. it illustrates the current foreign policy hypocrisy and failure of this administration, while shedding some light on the idea of "appeasement"
this guy must be reading my web log.
Wow, I don't know where to start.
1. If McCain chooses Huckabigot I will not vote Republican.
2. Who is Elise and should I get hopeful.
Madre
Hey Stephen,
I have not decided whom to vote for. I HAVE decided not to vote for Hillary or Obama, but that's about it.
I have a few questions.
1. On what do you base your opinion that America has such a badly damaged brand name? Because this is what the mainstream media wants you to believe? Do you know that Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Japan, and South Korea have all recently elected PRO-AMERICAN leaders? And East Europe is largely pro-American, particularly Poland and Checkoslovakia.
There are some international polls that indicate some decline in "Favorable opinion of the U.S." measures, but it's hard to understand why that is important, given that this sentiment isn't translated to a governmental level. Also it's very important to realize that most European people get all of their news from America from extremely anti-American news sources, particularly CNN International edition. Maybe we need to work on getting a fair rap in the international media, instead of catering to them and choosing our national leadership to appease international journalists.
I think a more true statement would be that where-ever leftists are in leadership (be that here or abroad), anti-American sentiment abounds. The international left hates America, but not all the world is left.
2. But beyond that, can you please explain to me why it is so important to be liked? I don't know why it matters if the whole world is against us, as long as we're doing the right thing. I'd rather focus our energies on doing what is right as a nation, rather than how we can get people to like us. If we can do the right thing and remain respected in the world, that's a good thing. And I contend we're actually doing that, again given the recent election of pro-American leaders throughout the world. But being liked should always be secondary to doing what is right.
3. Why is America's damaged name brand the overlying issue in this election? I see your statements that improving our brand name will have a corresponding beneficial effect on our economy, but I think that's a pretty slender link. Increasing foreign investment in American businesses would be a good thing, but in thinking through a lot of the economic policies that Obama endorses, I see a much greater potential for harm than good, even if Obama can magically make foreign investors take another look at American business (and it's not at all clear how or why Obama would induce this sort of investment anywy).
I thought your statement, "I like the way he says what he says," was very enlightening. I think this accounts for 99% of his appeal. It doesn't matter *what* he says, he's just so darn good at saying it...
4. Why is the true strength of America its diversity? Diversity in and of itself is not an intrinsic good. America's great strength lies in its good values. If diversity can somehow lead to better, stronger values, then diversity is good. If it leads away from better, stronger values, diversity is bad. The notion that diversity in and of itself is virtuous is not particularly profound.
This was a nice essay, but it still seems like a collection of bumper stickers rather than a rigorous analysis of exactly how and why Obama would be better for our country than the other candidates.
Gabrielle, you are so smart. We must be related. love, uncle ron
gabrielle.
related as we may be, i couldn't disagree more. your ethnocentric all-american arrogance is exactly what people in other countries hate (despise) about america and americans. case in point: to label other country's as "pro-american" as proof that "people like us," is a little egotistical. i can almost guarantee that people in france (who opposed the iraq war categorically from the beginning) did not pull the lever for sarkozy because he would belly up to the US and jump into a war they thought was unjustified. so in this example, that argument of yours falls apart. and for us to suggest that citizens of other countries are voting for candidates on a anti/pro- US stance is very self centered.
also, to suggest that CNN international is the major news source either in europe or the only one about the US is insulting to europe news networks. you even said "all of their news from america." while i'm going to assume that's hyperbole, its still incredibly simple minded to think that they only rely on us, the great supplier of information to learn about the world/america. as far as CNN international goes. their is nothing left or right about showing how people from latin america protest bush's visits or how people in africa great him with tie-around dresses with his face on it. huge rallies of people burning the president in effigy when he comes to town has nothing partisan (US parties) about it. those ralliers have no allegiance to the dems nor the GOP.
i agree with you that doing the right thing is better than being liked. but doing the wrong thing, being disliked, and then telling everyone your doing the right thing for the worst wrong reasons is the absolutely worst possible thing. yes it is good to catch the people for planned and carried out 9/11. but secret CIA prisons, GITMO, the slim iraq in al alqaeda link (these are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head), all point to US government blunders where bushies have refused to own up and continue to try to paint a rosy pictures of their screw-ups. doing the wrong thing and trying to sell it (almost to the point of lying) is one of the worst things a president can do. and this isn't a left/right issue. clinton lied too and didn't get a pass from the media. HRC still lies. its bad. no matter who does it and the "liberal media" isn't hatching some scheme to duped to the whole world into believing something that isn't there.
i agree with you the image alone is not going to increase investment. sound economic policies that will incentivize investment are much needed for proper globalization integration in the upcoming decades. no candidate in my mind really has good solutions to this dilemma. but one thing is for sure, paying for a war we cannot afford, while decreasing taxes and running a bill on chinese credit is NOT sound economic policy. so pulling out of the war responsibly over the next year and a half and starting shave down the deficit (and our reliance on china's line of credit) *will* create confidence in US investment and lead to strengthening the dollar &c. i don't think stevey thinks this will magically happen over night, but a solid portion of investing has to do with predictions, predictions based on confidence-scores in particular businesses or markets. so as long as people see a country signing blank check to iraq on a loan from a competing superpower, their confidence-based investment will deteriorate. and so will the dollar in response. their is no magic bullet. but getting out of the war and addressing the deficit in a transparent, honest way will increase confidence.
your bumper sticker is a nice zinger. i also told him i thought it was a little simplistic and superficial. (not shallow, just surfacy) but i guesshe wanted the rest of us to comment and pick holes in his logic.
Trudy and I are new to the blogging world. We have recently set up our family blog at http://frandsencougars.blogspot.com/
I was made aware of this particular post and the commentary from everybody yesterday by Melissa. I enjoy reading everybodies opinions and view points. I thought I would add a few of my own.
I am currently on the fence on this election so steve your viewpoints may have some sway. So would anybody who has other view points.
I do know that I will NOT vote for Billary should she become the nominee (watch out Barak I hear your life might be in danger). I really question her integrity and frankly just don't trust her. I can't to point any particular thing that has made me feel that way except perhaps all of the bad things I always heard Grandpa Frandsen say about Bill Clinton and her association with him. When I watch and listen to her I really think she cares more about her legacy and being the first women President than really about the country or the American people. Her actions by not dropping out of the race shows me that her ego is the most important thing to her. I think she is to devicive of a figure and would do nothing to bring the country together.
As far a Obama goes I have to admit that i really like the vibe I get from him. I think some of his entitlement programs are wrong and he has big plans to spend lots of money, but I think lots of those plans are just his hopes and dreams and actually being able to pull them off is another thing. He is likable and his appeal to the international community is important but I don't think is a good enough reason to vote for him alone. I don't think he is really as liberal as the right paints him to be and he seems to be thoughtful in his policy ideas and explains why he has come to such conclusions in a way that is usually satisfactory for me. I've read his website and looked at his positions on many items and I am not really alarmed by any of them even though I may do some things differently. I do want to know however that he will actually be tough with some of our international adversaries out there that he is so big on needing to "talk" to. If they don't bend the way we need them to I need to know that he can/will be tough on them even if it is not popular in the internation eyes. OUR survival and prosperity needs to be FIRST and he hasn't convinced me yet that we are FIRST in his eyes.
McCain is somebody whose personality I just really don't like. But like Obama his personality is not a reason to vote for or against someone. I do like how he seems to be tougher on defense than Obama and really like when he says that he will "make people famous" who try to put all of the pork barrel spending in all of the bills that pass through congress. Pete mentioned earlier that the spending of the Iraq war is bad and the money would be better spent here. That may be true but there is way more money being wasted in pork barrel spending than is being spent in Iraq. Illegal immigration and many other social problems here are costing us much more than Iraq. I do believe that we should start to move out, but it has to be responsible. He hasn't really proven in the past that he is really in line with conservative views, but like Obama and unlike Hillary I don't really see him as devisive and I think that he would be able to work with the dems to get some things accomplished.
i don't hear any of the candidates really talking about the energy crisis in a way that I think will really make a difference. I think that should be first on the list of things that our next president should do is to get us energy independant.
Darin
darin.
well said.
i can't officially welcome you to stevey's blog, but it's good to hear your voice.
i can't even imagine what G&G frandsen are saying about hillary and barack right about now.
nice to hear gabrielle and darin add some variety to thread.
peter: i'm never offended by your sweet smiling self:)
i'm still mulling over your response...thank you. you don't have to comment when, how and where i ask you to. but when you do comment, i much prefer your nice comments.
gabrielle: very nice. the points you make are outstanding.
peter: your talk of simplistic points in response to gabrielle seem particularly relevant to the 'bumper sticker analogy' when you definitively state in seriousness (or was you response to her a satire of the left's talking points?) that we are simply borrowing from china to pay for iraq.
darin: your idea about our leaders needing to keep america's interests first is undeniably important. we can try to no end and bring people to our side in a responsible and persuasive way...but when it hits the fan we've got to do what's best for the safety of the citizens of this country...
gabrielle's points about international goodwill and investment in US companies are very important. obama and hillary have been frighteningly protectionist in pandering to US unions. there was also the gaffe with obama shooting down canadain free-trade at a rally while sending an advisor to re-assure them he didn't mean it (hear-say i know, but he is undeniably protectionist never-the-less). the fear mongering about off-shoring industry to india and china is nauseating to listen to. simplistic at best and dishonest at its heart.
despite my tendency to call out peter and stephen in what i see as propagandistic and simplistic statements. i am not convinced of who would be the best president. there is no clear winner in my mind and i am looking forward to hearing the two debate in the general election.
peter: to our point #1. there are certainly polls that show american's saying in record numbers that the country is headed in the wrong direction and there are polls showing bush with the lowest approval rating of any us president since the poll began.
however, you don't see that same kind of hatred of mccain (very pro-iraq). it is simplistic to say that this poll is a referendum on only the bush administration and the iraq war. there are judicial and congressional branches at work as well in washington.
also, in npr's own 'unbiased poll' there was a question about their most pressing concerns were. highest on the list were the cost of oil/gas, job security etc. (please let's not simplify the cost of oil as being tied directly to bush's mistakes in the middle east--look to china, india and brazil's massive industrialization and you will find plenty of demand increase to slake the thirst of oil baron's in the middle east for profit).
in other words. the poll asking american's about the direction of the country does not have a correlative, simplistic cause to which we can point. nearly 45-50% polled in america think mccain can fix the problems america has better than obama (these polls mean little until the two are able to make their case to the american people...i'll grant you that.) we will see how the two fare as people turn more attention to them and compare the two...
Peter,
I think you have mis-read much of what I wrote.
I'm not sure how I was being "ethnocentric?" Or demonstrating "all-american arrogance?"
I didn't say that electing a pro-American leader is proof that other countries like us. I said that I'm not sure their dislike of us MATTERS if it doesn't translate to a governmental level.
The only persuasive argument I've ever heard regarding why it matters if other nations "like" us or not, is that their "like" or "dislike" may impact future diplomatic opportunities. But if a nation's leadership is not anti-American, our "diplomatic opportunities" will not be negatively impacted, and so it really doesn't matter if the average citizen likes America or not.
I never implied that voters in France, Germany, Japan, etc. voted in their current leadership because they were or were not pro-American. I doubt that was even on their radar-screen. However, they certainly were elected on their political positions (unless, that is, they were simply irresistibly charming like Barack Obama, in which case their positions wouldn't have mattered). Insofar as their political positions aligned with those of the United States, we can consider them "pro-American." In this case, "pro-American" really doesn't mean liking America, it means only an alignment of certain policies.
There are only a handful of international cable news sources-- CNN International, and the BBC are the two biggest. And given the fact that CNN International is owned by Time Warner, an American company, and that CNN is the biggest (or 2nd biggest, depending on how you measure) US cable news source, it is reasonable to suggest that a large portion of the international news *from the U.S.* will come from CNN International. I'm not saying *all* their news, just news *from the U.S.* And it is not a matter of opinion that CNN leans left. A 2005 study out of UCLA evaluated the left/right bias of a number of print, radio, and television news sources and the results were not particularly surprising. Yes, CNN leans markedly to the left. Stories about anti-Bush rallies may not be left or right leaning in and of themselves, they are simply reports of actual events. It is the *choice* of stories that makes a news source lean left or right. And CNN (and most other news soruces) consistently choose those stories that play up to a leftist agenda while frequently igorning other stories.
I also object to the Democrat/GOP axis being equated to the left/right axis. This is increasingly not the case, and has little meaning when we're talking about international issues.
There is certainly room for debate on what is the "right thing" for America to do, particularly in regard to Iraq. I'm not even going to get into all you said about the war, GITMO, etc. Reasonable people can disagree, but just because you disagree does not mean that everyone does. Bush was re-elected which certainly indicates that at least some Americans believe his administration was doing the right thing. And among Republicans, most of us agree with the war efforts, and are pleased with the direction the war is going now. Our discontent with George Bush is significant, but centers primarily around those areas in which he has largely departed from conservative principles.
I think it is fascinating how many people left-of-center like to talk about the "war we cannot afford." We would have no trouble affording this war if we eliminated a few of the bloated entitlement programs currently on the budget. As a limited-government conservative, I believe national security is one of the few legitimate uses of taxpayer money.
Whenever I hear Obama speak, he sounds like Santa Claus handing out presents to anyone who asks (or anyone he thinks he can get to vote for him). So we can't afford the war, but... we can afford Obama? Hmmm, ok.
Anyway, I still like you, Peter! And not just because we're related!
wow. so much has happened over this little weekend. i've got some catching up to do. first things first, let me officially welcome darin to the dominion: welcome. and it also sounds like melissa is doing some lurking of her own. welcome to her as well.
i'll need some time to react correctly to gabrielle, paul, elise (hey mom: that's dan roberts' wife), peter, and darin. i'm sure you're all waiting on pins and needles....
Stevie,
I too have missed out on the blog in the last few days. I refuse to get into the debate. Yes, it's because I'm scared. I have opinions, and they're strong, but swayable with educated debate. I'm enjoying the debate from the sidelines though. :)
Elise: 1) Improving America’s image abroad will help America diplomatically; it will America battle the rise of Extremist, Anti-American terrorists; it will convince the best and the brightest of other countries to come her and bring their knowledge and expertise; it will help our economy; it will make America a better player in the globalized economy. The list could go on.
2) obama will keep troops in Afghanistan. I know you are a non-interventionist. But at least obama will do a better job than mccain at staying out of wars that aren’t ours. Of course, obama will continue to treat Israel like an ally.
3) Elise, of course the policies are important; however, I believe it is of most importance how these policies are made (and this is where Gabrielle misinterprets me, but we’ll get to that later). I happen to agree with most of obama’s policies. I know you probably don’t. That’s fair. What’s refreshing, however, and what I think can speak across political/party lines, is the way in which obama comes to these decisions. His campaign fundraising juggernaut frees him from ties to special interests/lobbyists. More importantly, however, is his way of deliberating and thinking and mulling over options until he comes to what he thinks is the best option. I think the word deliberate is what best applies to obama. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s ‘the one’ (although I do like to throw that in paul’s face all the time) and the message of hope and change does get a little tiring; however, in the end I believe his deliberate way of coming to rational, well thought-out positions is especially convincing.
4) the issue of poverty I’ll have to leave to another time when we can truly debate the pros and (many) cons of capitalism.
i think everyone needs to listen to more weezer...
Paul:
As to your point #1, I respectfully disagree. But it doesn’t matter if I do or not. For me personally, America’s brand is damaged. Bush was wrong in his rush to war, and wrong in his response international diplomacy (except for maybe korea, where I think the US has done a pretty good job).
Point #2: again, I disagree. Where does the economic disparity come from that breed extremists? Could it be our engagement in Afghanistan that bred the terrorists that orchestrated 911? I think a better representation of America by someone who comes across as a deliberate and well-reasoned president may do something to curb extremism. I’m not saying that just because obama becomes president, international terrorism will somehow magically end. I am saying, however, that it will possibly make some potential terrorists think twice.
Point #3: I never said we should walk lock-step with Europe just for the sake of walking lock-step with Europe. Please don’t misconstrue my words. I just don’t feel we have to do stupid things with our foreign policy just to show Europe we are independent and can do as we please.
Ahh, Gabrielle. So glad to have you here on the dominion. If you have decided to vote for neither Hillary nor Obama, will you vote for Nader, perhaps? Or what about Ron Paul? Now, on to your points.
Point #1: To suggest that America’s blunder in Iraq has somehow not damaged our international reputation is naïve at best. We went into Iraq hoping to spread democracy, only to have it backfire tremendously. Our international street cred is hurting. Whether or not largely western countries have elected leaders who have some policies that coincide with American policies is completely beside the point and confuses the issue. Our brand is inarguably not what it was September 12, 2001. Also, it doesn’t take CNN international to convince the international community that Bush did not know what he was doing when he declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq five years ago. A blunder is a blunder.
Point #2: I agree that doing the right thing is always important. I never argued otherwise. This country has not done the right thing over the past 7 years (can you say GITMO?), and consequently we are not liked. Torture, blunders, ignoring national tragedy (Katrina), etc. have shown the world that we haven’t done the right thing when it counts.
Point #3: For me, fixing our brand is the most important issue. I never said that objectively this is the most important issue. This thread was focused at those undecided voters (my mom, some of my siblings, and (as it turns out) Darin) who are traditionally republican but are looking for ways to vote for Obama.
You misread my point when I said “I like the way he says what he says.” I did not mean that I like his speech-giving abilities. Frankly, his speeches are getting somewhat annoying. What I like about the way he says what he says, is that I can tell (and this is backed up from what I’ve read about him) he has put well-reasoned thought into his words. His speech on race was untraditional and spoke to me and to my experience. His debating style shows that he is open to discussing policy and figuring out the best way to approach problems. I could go on, but this is getting lengthy.
Point #4: throughout this thread you have set up false dichotomies. I say that we need to fix our damaged brand, you say we need to do the right thing; I say America draws it’s strength from diversity, you say it draws it’s strength from good values, as if these are mutually exclusive. It’s like I’m saying water is good for the grass, and you say “No! The sky is blue!!!”
The point is that I believe that one of America’s greatest strengths is the way it deals with its diversity. In believing that, I also believe that America is practicing good values. The way in which it has dealt with its diversity is one of its greatest virtues (at least in the end, anyway: to say that America always practices good values is disingenuous as we have a long list of horrible wrongs).
Petey: I’ll ignore your slights for now.
Darin, I can’t get on your web log because it’s password protected. Invite me please! (Stephen dot Frandsen at gmail dot com)
As to your points, I respect and sympathize with many of them. I think the old left/right divisions and definitions are no longer valid. Who is to determine what is left and what is right? This polarization of American politics, and both sides’ determination to always portray an antagonist is unhelpful and leads to politicians who are more concerned about sound bites, gaffes, and lapel pins, than policies and understanding.
paul: agreed about weezer.
libby: tell us what you think, please.
oh and Michal: this is your official welcome to the dominion. it's good to have you, of course. you are officially added to the list of links.
Steve,
Trudy unlocked the blog so you should be able to view it now.
Iraq is what it is. Bush was really in a no win situation because if he didn't go in people would be saying how much of a threat Sadaam is and how we need to take care of it. I really believe Bush was trying to do something good but horribly misread the situation and botched the management. It seems things are going better and I don't think we can yet say that it was a bad decision. IF (that is a big if) we can finish this thing off right, history may tell us in the future that it ended up being a good decision. Only time will tell. Some of the righties are concernced that Obama will mess up the gains we have made recently but I think he is responsible and will find a way to responsibly get us out of the middle of it.
I voted for Bush in 04 because I thought he was a better choice than Kerry (I still think that after the past 4 years) but I am ready for new leadership and am leaning toward Obama because I do think he will try to do things differently and even though Im not big on his big government policies, I don't think they will "ruin" the country and a general change in ideas and thinking might be a good thing for us. It will probably play out like it usually does, a dem will get in for 8 yrs and then everybody will be sick of the way they have tried doing things and the reps will get it back. That seems to be the history the past several decades and I expect it to continue. Periodic changes are a good thing in my opinion.
Darin
i like that darin.
your argument there is probably the one argument that has resonated for me and what made me think early on that i might vote for obama...that even though i don't agree with most of what obama's says, i do think that looking at problems in a different light lends balance to the country and it may be a good thing.
that's as far as i've been able to come in accepting obama. that i don't agree with him in most instances, but a change and approaching problems in a new light may lend balance.
paul.
as it seems, you and i agree as well.
oddly enough.
the reasons you stated were among to foremost in my support of mitt. i like his diversity of backgroud, business, non-profit, and government. a bunch of my friends keep asking me what i will do if mitt win the veepstakes. from the very beginning i thought obama and mitt would bring the most important dialogue to the country and so that may happen.
i really like the current foreign policy debate that brewing on the horizon and hard-liners and soft power. i think obama is right about cuba. i think stephen is mis-informed about north korea. where the bush admin. has come around and recently been making strides in good places with NK, much of the build up of NK's bomb testing and provocative action came as a result of bush's label "the axis of evil" (simply to round it out and not just focus on iran/iraq) and his subsequent hard-liner threat rhetoric.
as far as bush/kerry '04, i voted for bush in '04 and still think he was a better choice than kerry. i still consider myself a republican. i am as afraid as paul is of socialized medicine an our relative professions becoming the US postal service. but none of that prohibits me from voting for obama. i don't think we will adopt the policies of canada and great britain in terms of health care. why? the majority of americans don't want it. ok ok, i'm way off topic...
sorry. blah blah blah.
gabrielle.
we are definitely related or why else would we both think we are so right? (and by that i mean correct, not opposing the left...) i just can't figure out if that comes from grandma or grandpa frandsen or parents who raised us to feel extra special.
In the meantime, let's not lose sight of one of the most long lasting effects of a presidency--the judiciary. Whom will a candidate appoint? Will they legislate from the bench? Will they watch out for the youth of America?
Also, having been a businessman and a member of the most highly government regulated profession, will a candidate, through executive privilege, free people to use their talents, or will they subdue and mandate the actions of the masses?
Being a member of the wealthy class, will the government take more than the close to 50% they manage to take through fees, taxes and surcharges?
This should be asked of all candidates.
welcome pops!
hasn't the dialogue softened since darin joined the mix..?
amazing that peter and i have commented so many times in a row regarding politics with such apparent unity...
if you need help listening to weezer...
Great point on the judges Tracy, Trudy and I were just discussing that exact topic last night. That is really the only big concern I have in regards to Obama right now. His other policies while I might do it differently don't really scare me that much. On the other hand would McCain be that much better? He seems to pride himself on "reaching across the aisle" and I wouldn't put it past him to appoint a more liberal judge than what the majority of conservatives would like.
Darin
Great point on the judges Tracy, Trudy and I were just discussing that exact topic last night. That is really the only big concern I have in regards to Obama right now. His other policies while I might do it differently don't really scare me that much. On the other hand would McCain be that much better? He seems to pride himself on "reaching across the aisle" and I wouldn't put it past him to appoint a more liberal judge than what the majority of conservatives would like.
Darin
ooh....dad left a comment. very nice. i welcome his viewpoints. i will not tear them apart this time as a gesture and symbol of my happiness he is engaged in the web log.
this would be more helpful if we knew who any of the names were.
please forgive that it's the nytimes
although, it is obvious that their views on the court are opposite, i think it is interesting that obama is a constitutional law professor/expert. this does not necessarily mean we agree with his expertise, but at least we can know that he is deeply versed in its importance.
i assume then, since no one has responded to my comments, that my retorts trump anything previously written.
Waiting for Hillary to take Montana.
Actually, I was sorely disappointed when I found out that Obama is a smoker. For someone in this enlightened day and age to be a smoker shows a lack of concern for health and education.
He is the kind that makes health care more expensive for the rest of us.
May he chew nicorette gum forever.
is this thread still going?
see, this is what happens when paul and i are cordial, thread's die...
only on the blog would we ever behave that way to each other, but only on the blog does comment count count. and let's be honest, we're the best at keeping it lively.
good point petey. the morbid curiosity of others...
Post a Comment