Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Obama & Why It's Suddenly Okay For the World To Feel Good About the U.S. Again

Bush thanks Howard for visiting "Austrian" troops in Iraq
I covered eight presidential campaigns as a reporter and editor and am now involved in yet another as a blogger, but I have never seen a global explosion of enthusiasm for a candidate like that for Barack Obama since his Iowa caucus victory. That groundswell continues to grow as polls show that he may hand Hillary Clinton a second defeat today in New Hampshire.

A blizzard of stories in the foreign press, including fawning accounts from correspondents usually known for their reserve, have a common denominator:
They draw on an abiding hatred of George Bush and his politics of division that have driven America's world standing to an historic low. Now, this chorus of voices in the foreign press is saying, there is an opportunity for that nightmare to end because of Obama and his politics of change.

Shorter version: It's suddenly okay to feel good about America again.
Typical is this homage in the French newspaper Liberation:
"Obama should thank Bush in his prayers. Without him, America wouldn't be seeking a uniter - or even a redeemer. A man capable of bringing together men and women, . . . Blacks and Whites, Blue (Democrats) and Red (Republicans). A man who pardons the original sin of the slave and who holds up a mirror to America in which she is beautiful, multi-racial and pragmatic. A man who will heal the gaping wound of the Iraq War and restore America's image in the world."
Obama, in fact, is being elevated to sainthood far too prematurely.

This is because Obama has not yet articulated in tangible terms what he means when he speaks of change, moving beyond partisanship and building coalitions. And one or two victories early in the primary cycle do not a nominee make.

As I wrote in an essay that was picked up by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Down Under version of National Public Radio, the Democratic Party machines in states like California, New Jersey and New York will turn out Clinton supporters in droves. So the race is far from over even if Obama prevails in New Hampshire and in the South Carolina primary on January 26.

Nevertheless, commenters on my article at the Australian website and my own Aussie friends are pretty much of a like mind: Obama is like a soothing rain in the parched Outback compared to Bush's scorched earth leadership.

Australians are fiercely proud, well understand their nation's place on the Pacific Rim and in the greater world and know American politics better than many Yanks. This helps explain why they turned out Prime Minister John Howard, Bush's biggest cheerleader after British PM Tony Blair, late last year despite an unprecedented 12-year economic boom.
Aussies were deeply insulted when Bush, who moments earlier had confused APEC with OPEC at an APEC conference in September at the Sydney Opera House, declared that he was "happy to be in Austria" while Howard's successor, Kevin Rudd, by contrast was having a conversation in fluent Mandarin with a Chinese statesman.

Bush, of course, cannot even conduct a conversation in fluent English, but that is not the point.
Metaphorically speaking, the world is brown eyed and the U.S. is blue eyed. America always has been a convenient punching bag for what ails the world, but people are sick and tired of the blue-eyed American imperialist president running roughshod. In terms of change, Obama is viewed as being brown eyed -- that is to say one of them -- by many people abroad but Clinton and the rest of the presidential wannabes are blue eyed.

Outside of the U.S., the dam holding back the vast reservoir of hatred that Bush has worked so hard to fill over the last long seven years through division and destruction probably was going to be breached sooner or later, and the break may be temporary.
But I for one did not anticipate that it would be a 47-year-old African-American freshman senator from Illinois who would do the deed, gladdening hearts and provoking an international euphoria that for at least a few days is as enormous as the world itself.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

"This helps explain why they turned out Prime Minister John Howard, Bush's biggest cheerleader after British PM Tony Blair, late last year despite an unprecedented 12-year economic boom."

Hmmm....but what explains why the Aussies - when faced with a previous chance to kick Howard out with Australian forces committed to a very unpopular war in Iraq - chose not to do so? Howard's support of Bush was no less at the previous election, the anti-war forces had held the biggest demonstrations in Australian history and the leader of the opposition party had made specific (if crude) reference to the cheerleading role that Howard had taken on for Bush. I believe he referred to the Howard administration as 'a conga-line of suckholes'. Yet the Australian electorate chose to keep Howard.

This time around they threw Howard out and elected a guy whose foreign policy position is largely identical to Howards. The sole differences seem to lie in the Kyoto accord (more an environmental policy than a slap to Bush) and a promise to pull out of Iraq (more a slap to Bush - though the troops will be going to Afghanistan so we might even see this as a political shuffle rather than a rebuke to the US). In effect, I doubt foreign policy issues played much of a role in changing the minds of the Australian people. Heck - as soon as the new PM was elected head of his own party he started outpolling Howard. The people didn't care about Bush - they just wanted an alternative they could imagine as a leader as opposed to the tripe served up as leadership material in 2003.