Five ways to make America more popular (and better)
During Saturday’s Miss America show, which probably had higher ratings than in a while, and which was as its most transparently ridiculous, one of the final questions asked of the contestants was something like, “How can America improve its reputation in the world?” [The question itself belies a lot. Our reputation is important, sure, but it's more important to recall the virtues of our nation and live them more fully. Do that, and the reputation will follow.]
But it’s a question that the left has kept asking, and that’s what this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine is all about. Parag Khanna asks us to imagine what it will be like in eight years:
It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term. America has pulled out of Iraq but has about 20,000 troops in the independent state of Kurdistan, as well as warships anchored at Bahrain and an Air Force presence in Qatar. Afghanistan is stable; Iran is nuclear. China has absorbed Taiwan and is steadily increasing its naval presence around the Pacific Rim and, from the Pakistani port of Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea. The European Union has expanded to well over 30 members and has secure oil and gas flows from North Africa, Russia and the Caspian Sea, as well as substantial nuclear energy. America’s standing in the world remains in steady decline.
That paragraph right there made me want to stop reading, but I kept on. Khanna offers five ways for the next president to solve the problem. Here they are in summa:
1. Be a diplomat. Stop talking about “American interests” and “American values” and talk of global interests and values. We know you like America. You live here. You’re the president. Be nice to your global audience. [This is a giant rule of good persuasion.]
2. Reorganize the State Department to look like the Pentagon. Better communication.
3. Send citizen diplomats around to the world, “spreading values and winning loyalty.” This includes Foreign Service officers. Missionaries of a kind. “We need a Peace Corps 10 times its present size, plus student exchanges, English-teaching programs and hands-on job training overseas – with corporate sponsorship.”
4. “[M]ake the global economy work for us.” Bring Asian money here.
5. “[C]onvene a G-3 of the Big Three. But don’t set the agenda; suggest it. These are the key issues among which to make compromises and trade-offs: climate change, energy security, weapons proliferation and rogue states [...] A Western change of tone could make China sweat. Superpowers have to learn to behave, too.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top56 Comments to “Five ways to make America more popular (and better)”
“Reorganize the State Department to look like the Pentagon. Better communication.”
First, they serve different purposes, but see also the thread “Islamic Insurgengy in the Pentagon.”
Second, most of these ideas are just America bashing. If you’re the biggest country in the world, you should expect the smaller ones – as well as this writer – to think of you as a bully. Doesn’t mean you are. On the one hand, this author in No. 3 wants our money, but on the other hand we’re supposed to grovel to those who need it. The reason we shouldn’t hold our heads up high after all our hard work is what?
Report comment to moderator
Watching Bush on Fox last night. The interviewer asked Bush why others don’t get the clarity of “Either you are for us or against us”.
They don’t even realize that being this intractable is one of the problems. Either you are a friend or an enemy. That’s the black and white world of the Conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
The one thing that would do the most to improve our standing in the world would be to adopt an America first foreign policy. Our Israel first policy isn’t working out too well.
Report comment to moderator
How to improve our reputation in the world?
1. Stop worrying about our reputation in the world, and focus on doing what is right and being accountable to the people for it.
2. Promote democracy and liberty where we can.
3. Stand up more seriously against cultural smut on and from within our shores.
4. Require reliable registration and identification for voting since all else political is futile if our elections are not true reflections of the will of the people.
5. Keep our word.
6. Most of all, lay aside the race-gender-class paradigm for everything and replace it with a clearer focus on the freedom-faith-family paradigm for how to strengthen our values.
But then, I am not in the running for a beauty contest.
Report comment to moderator
American first — yes. If Bush is telling the Israelis that they will have to give a little, as he did in the past few weeks, I’m not so sure our lives revolve around Israel first. By the same token, if the rest of the area is against Israel — and for the most part it is, the Israelis need to know we won’t abandon them, and the Muslims/Arabs need to know they can’t overrun Israel. The problem is not with the Israelis. They’ve taken a desert and made it successful and prosperous through hard work. The problem is with Islam’s inability to get it together and join the 21st century. They have to get over themselves and get it together. They have nothing because they don’t work.
I think you only have two choices when it comes to terrorism, RDean — you either fight it or you don’t.
Report comment to moderator
“A Western change of tone could make China sweat. Superpowers have to learn to behave, too.”
Ok… that just makes me want to dope slap the person that came up with that. The way superpowers learn to behave is when someone makes them behave. Otherwise they will make you “behave”. Just ask the Jews that survived the second world war…
Report comment to moderator
First, we must learn to siphon truth out of the ‘hate America first’ crowd. With that said, I will try to address this fellow.
1 IMMEDIATELY. We need to start addressing the world powers as they are and start demanding of them what is demanded of the US. Specifically, we need to talk about Europe, not Germany, France, England etc. We need to speak inclusively of Europe’s carbon emissions and consumption and China’s national pollution problem (and human rights issues). Compared to Europe as a whole and China, the US is better at reducing carbon emission even without Kyoto (rejected by Al Gore’s Senate, mind you!!).
2 SHORT TERM. The US must refuse the backroom deals that make the US military do the dirty work while the Europeans (and like-minded Americans) scoff at our so-called imperialism. (I am still waiting for the Euros to TAKE BACK their citizens from Gitmo). As much as this Khanna fellow touted the police state jack-boot solution to radical islamists in Europe, I don’t think that model works well without the American killing the terrorists in their foreign hideouts.
3 (WAY) LONG TERM. The US must lead the world in renewable, efficient energy. Let China and India remain dependent on oil whilst we develop different technologies that they will be forced to buy when oil is tapped out.
The way to look at this post is the way to read Khanna, we don’t know the future because there are so many variables (and we are not God).
Report comment to moderator
In no particular order:
Close Gitmo.
Develop alternative energy and LEAD on global warming.
Diminish military presence in the Middle East.
Abandon notion of “preemptive war”; return to a foreign policy of Madison and Monroe.
Sign Kyoto, Law of the Sea, Rio pact, etc.
Reaffirm Geneva Conventions.
Agree to accept jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
Oppose fundamentalism in all its forms.
Report comment to moderator
The rest of the world complains that we are imperialistic and unilateral. Although some of Joel’s suggestions may be good ideas, I don’t see how they would address those concerns.
Our policies must be in America’s best interest first, but the “don’t car what them durn furners think” attitude that permeates much of the Right is foolish. Paul’s advice to Christians — “So far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men” — is just as wise for governments. We should seek the good will of the world, if for no other reason than it makes us safer. Even if you believe that terrorists hate us for our freedom and prosperity, you can’t deny that American aggressive and unilateral interventionism angers a good many people around the world.
I’d like to hear why the fact — bald, plain, indisputable fact — that America’s global reputation has suffered under President Bush is something that would make HSK want to stop reading this article, or make NJLawyer dismiss it as “just America bashing.” Are you so sure of the justice of our foreign policy that you’re willing to believe everyone is simply motivated by jealousy? (That sounds, by the way, like such a gradeschool comeback: “You’re just jealous because we’re The Best.”)
Report comment to moderator
How to improve our reputation?
Broadcast more “Miss America” shows!
Report comment to moderator
DC L
You are right about one thing “Develop alternative energy…”
Why would the US want to give up any of it’s sovereignty?
I am sure many of us have known a child who tries to “buy” friendship by giving another child or children candy. Does it ever work?
Report comment to moderator
That is a perfect example of the type of simplistic, black and white thinking RDean was talking about. Being a tautology, it is (of course) true. But the question is not whether we “fight terrorism,” but how.
It’s like saying:
But how do we best fight crime, raise children, solve differential equations, or combat terrorism? Those are the unanswered questions. Sure, these tautologies sound real cowboy. Just need Clint Eastwood’s sneer and gravelly voice at the end: “Well, punk, will ya?” But, like most tautologies, they’re entirely unhelpful in answering the real questions.
Report comment to moderator
Exactly right, JJF.
Report comment to moderator
We best fight terrorism by fighting the terrorists. Duh.
Report comment to moderator
#4: Promote democracy and liberty where we can.
Are they the same thing? If given the “democratic” vote, the majority vote in a terrorists organization thereby thowing away their liberty, do we support their fledging “democracy”? The truth is that we can only lead by example.
Report comment to moderator
HARRISON: . . .recall the virtues of our nation and live them more fully. . .
Nobody has invoked America’s virtues more frequently and executed them more totally than George W. Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Well said, and it’s a key distinction.
I remember watching a BBC documentary on the much-touted Iraqi elections. Iraqis basically went to their mosques and voted however their mullahs told them. The interviewer questioned a group of men on the street about their vote, and they said that they had no idea how they were going to vote because they hadn’t heard from their mullah yet.
While this may be democracy, it is certainly not liberty. It’s a democratic dog and pony show superimposed onto a tribal mentality.
Report comment to moderator
I know it’s been awhile since some of us have been to a civics class, but could we please remember that the US is not a true democracy. It’s a democratic republic. (Even our pledge of allegiance says, “…and to the republic for which it stands…”)
A democratic form of government presupposes a moral people and a work ethic.
There are some peoples for whom a democratic form of government just doesn’t seem to work. It is not easy for a people to switch gears into a mindset condusive to democratic government from an oppressive dictatorship. It requires more than a generation.
Report comment to moderator
Are you being ironic?
I hope so. Because surely you recognize that this is not as simple as you make it out to be. The best way to fight communism was not by fighting the communists, it was by outproducing them. The best way to fight socialism was not by fighting the socialists, it was by building a strong free society. The best way to fight Christianity (in ancient Rome) was not by fighting Christians. It’s hardly the truism you suggest that “the best way to fight Xism is by fighting the Xists.” In fact, it’s very often counter-productive.
Report comment to moderator
Atrocious grammar
Report comment to moderator
There goes Mommy again, doing her best to “reflect Jesus” in every encounter she has with others.
Report comment to moderator
Huh? Pointing out bad grammar is being un-Christlike now? It’s not like she engaged in an obvious personal attack on another poster…
Report comment to moderator
What a contrast between post #4 by Joel Mark and post #8 by DC Lawyer! I put my hopes on Joel Mark’s
doctrine. Actually, Night Train is completely correct in his post #3, but would you agree, NT, that concept needs to be strengthened by a more conservative person than our current White House occupant?
Report comment to moderator
I thought this article was really well put together. I can’t say I disagree with a single suggestion here.
Report comment to moderator
I take it JJF, that you would accommodate crime, you would let your children run wild, you would talk something to death rather than accomplish something. We have that now.
Go back to MAC’s post, the section headed IMMEDIATELY. That’s basically telling the world to put up or shut up. If we were the imperialists they accuse us of being, we would be doing just that (not that a good swift kick in the pants wouldn’t do them some good). As long as China has enforced abortions, as long as China has sweat factories, etc. as well as all their other human rights abuses, why don’t we just say: we’re not going to buy from you? Why don’t we just outproduce them?
Bob Buckles writes: “I am sure many of us have known a child who tries to “buy” friendship by giving another child or children candy. Does it ever work?”
Haven’t seen an answer to that one yet from our liberal friends, and I don’t think we will.
Before you start to “answer[ing] the real questions, you have to identify the problem. First you have to decide if you’re willing to fight terrorism. Are you? Yes or No? Are you willing to fight crime? Yes or No? Are you willing to raise your children to be decent, productive citizens? Yes or No? You either want to or you don’t. Call that “cowboy” all you want, but the first thing you do is identify your problem. The next thing you decide is how far you’re willing to go to resolve it.
You’re all for bashing America, but not China. You’re all for having America make all the concessions, but not China, not Europe, not the Muslim nations. You’re part of the problem.
Before they come at America, they should get their own house in order first.
I heard enough stories about jackboots (Nazis) growing up and from Jewish friends who have small families because of WWII that I haven’t forgotten the lessons learned from WWII.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #4 . . . lay aside the race-gender-class paradigm for everything and replace it with a clearer focus on the freedom-faith-family paradigm for how to strengthen our values.
JUSTUS331 #23 I put my hopes on Joel Mark’s doctrine.
How about liberty, equality, and fraternity? Joel’s paradigm will do what it’s always done, hurt people according to their race, gender, and/or class.
Report comment to moderator
We best fight terrorism by fighting the terrorists. Duh.
Duh. That must be your middle name.
Tell me, smart guy, what are we doing against the PKK? They’ve only murdered 30,000 civilians in the last twenty years. Oh yeah, nothing.
What about the Jundullah? Oh yeah, we’re FUNDING them. Why? Because they kill innocent Iranians.
What about the MEK? Ditto. We not only fund them – we protect them in Iraq. Then we let them cross the border into Iran and murder civilians.
“With us or against us” was nothing but a sound bite.
I think you only have two choices when it comes to terrorism, RDean — you either fight it or you don’t.
NJL – I know you are smart enough to look up some of those terrorist groups and see where we have looked the other way or even actively funded them. Ridiculous. When you find a leader who believes “with us or against us” or “fight it or you don’t,” call me. It will be a first. In the meantime, Bush and his successor will play realpolitik and the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Worked real well in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
I know Outkast will post some drivel that will make me yawn. He’s a lost cause.
Report comment to moderator
#27 LESTER
Which politician(s) make you yawn when listening to?
I know Mommy, don’t end a sentence a preposition with. I be illin’ you.
Report comment to moderator
It’s no wonder that the Christians in this country see no problem with forcing, no matter how unwelcome, our form of goverment on others. They want to force their religion on the rest of America. Force is what they know and understand.
Report comment to moderator
Lester, you wrote “Bush and his successor will play realpolitik.” You bet! Life is like that. But when Bush is saying you are with us or against us, you’re talking about the second part of “answering the questions,” the practicalities of how these things get done. But we learned a lot from our supposed allies when Bush said “you’re either with us or against us” — and it wasn’t whether they knew the Bible or not. There are a lot of countries who are all too willing to have us stick our neck out because hey, we’re the United States, but when called up to step up to the plate, you don’t even see them in the ballpark. There are Americans like that, too.
(I think about that preposition business, but then I type on. Sorry, Mom.)
Report comment to moderator
“You are either with us or against us” is a threat pure and simple. And if Bush is anything, it’s simple.
Report comment to moderator
Huh? Pointing out bad grammar is being un-Christlike now?
Where in the Bible did Jesus go around correcting people’s grammar? I can’t find any instances. And if he had, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have done it that way. But that’s the great thing about “following Jesus” – everyone can just invent their own Jesus in their own image.
It’s not like she engaged in an obvious personal attack on another poster…
No, and I never compared her to Outkast or Peter Leavitt. That their behavior is worse doesn’t excuse hers.
Report comment to moderator
Rdean – there are some things that actually are fairly simple, no matter how much you want them to be complicated and nuanced.
Report comment to moderator
By and large, America’s reputation has not suffered under President Bush, except with the left of the world as well as tyrants and despots who generally disliked America already.
Don’t buy the media template. Elect Obama and the media will claim that the whole world loves us again. The media confuse their own mindsets with the whole world.
Report comment to moderator
“Promote democracy and liberty where we can.”
Who said that ‘democracy’ and ‘liberty’ are synomymous terms? Not me. They are quite complementary, though, and they should be promoted where possible. That was my point and it stands.
Report comment to moderator
Again, I think this is simplistic black and white thinking. Because I’m not on board with vapid but gung-ho statements like “we either fight crime or we don’t,” you assume I don’t care about lawlessness.
I take great pains to train my children well, and I recognize that statements like “you only have two choices when it comes to raising children: either you train them, or you don’t” are entirely without substance and of no help in discerning how to train children.
I, and a great many people, see the problem of global terrorism similarly. “You only have two choices when it comes to fighting terrorism — you either fight it or you don’t” is all bluster and provides no help in discerning how to best fight terrorism. It’s certainly not done by attacking a random middle eastern country without significant ties to terrorism. Nor is it best done, as Lester points out, by training and funding
terroristsfreedom fighters in other countries. Yet both of these are the solutions your straight-shooting Texas cowboy, President Black and White Simplicity himself, continues to implement.Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark:
I think you’re just shooting from the hip, here, and have nothing to back it up.
Can you name three countries where America’s reputation has improved under President Bush? A great many polls attest to its decline in developed European and Asian countries.
I remember a particularly juicy recent one: more people in a poll of one group of foreigners (can’t remember if it was a nation or a larger body, like Europe) even think him a greater threat to world security than Ahmedinejad.
Report comment to moderator
#33: Rdean – there are some things that actually are fairly simple
And Bush is one of them.
Report comment to moderator
You’re a hoot, Buckles.
Was that better for you?
Do you always go around correcting people’s grammar?
I’d say probably not because they’d probably kick your butt.
I’m doing good so far. How many sentences is that?
A few more:
Now, can you explain why Bush shelters some terrorists while fighting others?
NJL – please explain. Why should people buy Bush’s argument when he doesn’t buy it himself.
Report comment to moderator
#26
OEL MARK #4 . . . lay aside the race-gender-class paradigm for everything and replace it with a clearer focus on the freedom-faith-family paradigm for how to strengthen our values.
JUSTUS331 #23 I put my hopes on Joel Mark’s doctrine.
Scroop: How about liberty, equality, and fraternity? Joel’s paradigm will do what it’s always done, hurt people according to their race, gender, and/or class.
Or we could change the paradigm to the collaborative Vichy France regime slogan; Travail, Famille, Patrie (Work, Family, Fatherland)
Report comment to moderator
JJF, #37, “Can you name three countries where America’s reputation has improved under President Bush?”
Liberia, West Africa. Bush helped depose the evil tyrant, Charles Taylor, and things are much better there now.
Our friendship with Great Britain was enhanced and deepened.
Afghanistan, where the Taliban is out of power and who could hate us more than the Taliban?
India, our reputation has been high there and it keeps growing to the good.
Iraq, many remain grateful that we deposed Saddam. Many are grateful that we stayed to help train and protect the peole and rebuild the country. The Kurds especially regard us more highly.
I could go on and on (Israel, Japan, etc). The expections are where leftists hold sway and they believe their own imaginations. In reality, our reputation has grown with nearly every decent country on the planet. It is the media and the leftists who are shooting from the hip, hoping that we are diminished in the eyes of the world.
Well, we are not.
Report comment to moderator
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
Favourable Opinion of America
Great Britain 2000 83%
2006 56%
Japan 2000 77%
2006 63%
India 2002 54%
2006 56%
Indonesia 2000 75%
2006 30%
Turkey 2000 52%
2006 12%
India changed very little and the rest declined. However, it increased in Nigeria from 46% to 63% and in Russia 37% to 43%
Report comment to moderator
#39 LESTER
“I know Mommy, don’t end a sentence a preposition with. I be illin’ you.”
I was laughing at myself. I ended a sentence with the preposition “to.”
The last part (I be illin’ you.”) was a saying at my school meaning that I was playing with or teasing Mommy. I certainly wasn’t commenting about anything anyone else had written. I decided quite a while ago that correcting anyone else’s grammar or writing was not in line with “If you can’t say something nice…”
In #28 I asked you “Which politician(s) make you yawn when listening to?” because I am having a hard time figuring you out. I don’t always read people to well. I was not being flip or smarmy. It was an honest question. I realized when I wrote it that some might take offense but I posted it anway. Oops.
Report comment to moderator
And in 2007 a new Pew survey as reported by the SF Gate; http://tinyurl.com/2kxphj
the U.S. under Bush remain “abysmal in most Muslim countries in the Middle East and Asia, and continues to decline among the publics of many of America’s oldest allies. Favorable views of the U.S. are in single digits in Turkey (9%) and have declined to 15% in Pakistan. Currently, just 30% of Germans have a positive view of the U.S. – down from 42% as recently as two years ago – and favorable ratings inch ever lower in Great Britain and Canada.” The good news: The U.S. remains ” overwhelmingly positive” in such African countries as Ethiopia and Kenya. “In addition, majorities in two of America’s most important Asian trading partners – India and Japan – continue to express favorable opinions of the United States.”
And in Europe reported by the Financial Times; http://tinyurl.com/2nermr
Europeans consistently regard the US as the biggest threat to world stability, a new poll reveals on Monday. Perceived greatest threat to global security. A survey carried out in June by Harris Research for the Financial Times shows that 32 per cent of respondents in five European countries regard the US as a bigger threat than any other state.
Report comment to moderator
Additionally, one could argue that our reputation in France grew enough during the Bush administration here that they could finally actually elect a pro-American leader who is somewhat conservative.
I don’t put much credence in polls that call for subjective favorable or unfavorable opinions. Sometimes all they measure is momentary media-hyped cynicism.
If our reputation has fallen in Muslim countries, any rational thinker would know that the reasons for it are so mixed as to not have any value for prudent evaluation. Often, we get disliked for doing the right things. Often, we get disliked because falsehoods are believed about us. And often, sadly, when you look at the smut that comes out of the USA, we lose our status for legitimate reasons. But its far too mixed a bag of motivations and presumption to mean much in rational discourse.
Report comment to moderator
When we consider who it is who hates us the most, it goes a long way in validating the policies and performance of the Bush administration. But even that, admittedly, is a subjective point. Perhaps ‘popularity,’ either way, is a weak criteria for judging the times or our leadership.
Report comment to moderator
Actually favourable opinion in France fell from 62% to 39%. And the election of Sarkoczy can easily be attributed to domestic concerns and the desire for a different approach to the French economy and immigration.
popularity is a weak criteria to judge leadership but its important for the maintanence of strategic interests in international affairs. The lack of strategic thinking is the root of the problem expressed in the original post and Khana’s essay.
Report comment to moderator
#34: will claim that the whole world loves us again.
No one ever believed that. Why do you say such things?
Report comment to moderator
#25: If we were the imperialists they accuse us of being, we would be doing just that
And we did. We invaded Iraq and forced a government on them they don’t want, which is why it’s still dysfunctional.
#25: You’re all for having America make all the concessions,
When we go attacking other countries, it’s us that is making the concessions to reason and to what we stand for. The America I grew up in aren’t warmongers. Speak softly and carry a big stick, not blunder like a bull in a china shop.
#34: By and large, America’s reputation has not suffered under President Bush
Do you even read the papers or watch the news?
#41: Iraq, many remain grateful that we deposed Saddam.
Offset by those that say, “It was never this bad under Sadam”. When they had water and electricity. The majority say it’s ok to kill Americans. Does that sound even remotely “Grateful”?
#45: when you look at the smut that comes out of the USA
Ok, it’s clear to me now. It’s smut. It’s all because of smut.
We need to lead by example. That’s what works. Threats, intimidation, saber rattling these things only work on those that believe in the mystical lands of heaven and hell.
Report comment to moderator
Saddam said last night he miscalculated what W would do. He thought some air raids and we would go back to blabbering at him.
Do you suppose any other world leaders think any differently, now?
What would Al Qaida have done with an Al Gore or a John Kerry?
What will Osama do with Obama? Hillary? McCain? Romney? et al?
W is looking pretty good to me.
Report comment to moderator
It is 2016, and the Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Barack Obama administration is nearing the end of its second term.
HUH?? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!
*sigh* t’was only a nightmare…..wow, it seemed so…..so….real! May it never be.
Scroop Moth #26 – How about liberty, equality, and fraternity? Joel’s paradigm will do what it’s always done, hurt people according to their race, gender, and/or class.
Justus – Because we really don’t give a hoot about race / gender / class paradigms. At least we shouldn’t if it interferes with merit / hard work / marketable talent. You people who espouse liberalism aren’t getting it! We need to return to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Those concepts were the things that got America it’s favored nation status for those who wanted to live here from other places. America’s reputation?? What is that going to solve? Joel Mark hit a grand slam in his post #3, especially his first point. Joel Mark-Stop worrying about our reputation in the world, and focus on doing what is right and being accountable to the people for it.
now, what is so hard to understand there?????
Comments for this post will be closed on 11 February 2008.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Who cares what some alleged subjective poll claims in pointless percentage points about immeasurable favorable or unfavorable feelings in France when in the real world, they voted for a pro-American, pro-free-market candidate as their leader? I live in the real world where I see America as a force for more good than otherwise and where decent people can recognize that.
Report comment to moderator
We need to return to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
So we should repeal MLK Day, which Reagan opposed for years, and only reluctantly signed into law?
So we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Goldwater vociferously opposed?
Report comment to moderator
In #28 I asked you “Which politician(s) make you yawn when listening to?” because I am having a hard time figuring you out. I don’t always read people to well. I was not being flip or smarmy. It was an honest question. I realized when I wrote it that some might take offense but I posted it anway. Oops.
I misunderstood you. I don’t understand the “illin’” phrase, but I know you teach in Compton, a place that I do not know too well.
To answer your question, I am tired of almost all candidates. I have lived outside of Washington DC since 1993 and nothing has changed. You’d think that Bush and Clinton were polar opposites, but they really aren’t. They energized their base and polarized their enemies. I’m living through eight years of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” after eight years of “Clinton Derangement Syndrome.” Through it all, I realized both are simply politicians and are not too different.
As to Bush’s “you’re with us or against us,” it only hurts the War on Terror when Bush deals with certain terrorist groups while fighting others – but demands that everyone else fight/reject all terrorist groups.
Honestly, do you think a country like Egypt doesn’t see the problem in “do as I say, not as I do?” You don’t think Pakistan realizes Bush backs some Sunni terrorist groups that attack Shia Iranians, but not some Sunni terrorist groups that attack Israelis?
If you’re going to fight terrorism, then fight all of it.
If you’re going to pick your battles, then don’t make blanket statements like “you’re with us or you’re with them.”
When we get a stateman and not just a politician, I may start believing things might change. For now, I see a Washington DC riddled with special interest groups and lobbyists from both sides of the aisle getting rich off of politicians who know the power of a sound bite.
Everyone in DC knows that sound bite is full of crap.
Report comment to moderator
52 Joel
I didn’t raise the issue of popularity. Someone claimed America was losing its popularity and you made a counter claim. I just demonstrated you were wrong.
As I already stated popularity is not necessarily important when judging actions and leadership but its a necessary component in maintaining strategic interests throughout the world. The decline in favourable opinion in Turkey, Indonesia etc is important when trying to convince their leaders to remain in the US orbit of influence.
As for France, American issues were not the issues in the French election campaign, amazing enough the voters were concerned with French domestic issues such as militant unions, financial difficulties, immigration etc. Since France was not involved in Iraq and was barely involved in Afghanistan, foreign policy was not a big issue. Sarkoczy’s election was not an endorsement for American policy. Instead it was an endorsement for the changes proposed by Sarkoczy to France and the EU. The EU is far more important to the French than the US.
Report comment to moderator
#54: when Bush deals with certain terrorist groups while fighting others
Not only that. With the implied threat of “Either with us or against us”, how many potential allies has Bush lost?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!