On Criticising the President, The Right to an Opinion and Learning Curves

Are US foreign policy, Barack Obama and their politics in general, any of non-Americans' business?

Yes

 

 3

No

 

 2

Other - please explain below

 

 0

In recent days, I've come across opposition to remarks I made, that Barack Obama is an 'average' President, referring to a post first put here by Randy,  an article by Charles Krauthammer.  There are many angles to this, including another rant of mine which was quoted by an admin over at the group Political Souls.

First things first... I owe member Darrylw an apology, I think.  How I delivered my point was, as he put it, 'curt', dismissive, blunt and basically rude.  I acknowledge that and have given our exchange some thought - coming to the conclusion that I was probably wrong, so I can understand your indignation at my calling Obama 'average'.  Some consideration of what he has acheived thus far in Office made me realise he has actually done rather well - a well-received tour of the Middle East, a historic healthcare bill at home in the US, pulling back the missile sheild pointed at Moscow, provoking a like gesture from Russia, to begin with.  I do not think any of this warrants his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, but then... who else would you give it to?  I'll give Obama a bit more benefit of the doubt; Rome wasn't built in a day.

My negative view of him was of course focused on two things.  First, expectations.  And these have been too high from the beginning.  He's just a politician, not a Messiah as some have joked.  Can only do so much quickly.  Second, those two wars that continue in Asia.  I'd stab a guess that many onlookers, around the world not just in America, who saw great potential for 'Change' and 'Hope' in President Obama, would like to have seen an 'end in sight'.  Expectation has not been reached.  But I would also acknowledge that much of this is way beyond his control.  You can't just pull out, there has to be an exit strategy and I'm not sure Cheney & co. even had one.  The corporate powers those wars are all about remain too, and perhaps Obama has displayed the greatest trait a leader can, by staying there and fighting the Taliban harder, for example,  bombing Pakistan with drones. Wisdom.  The wisdom to know that if he went against his corporate masters' wishes, - let alone AIPAC - he could end up like John F. Kennedy, and he's no good to anybody dead.

So, I was looking at too narrow a picture.  Mostly the war bit.  This relates well to an ongoing discussion that has been raising its head in various places on Multiply.  Namely, that we foreigners, non-Americans, don't on the whole care that much about domestic US issues, but we often are very interested in US foreign policy and its' side-effects.  I find in  these groups, when subject matter and clientele become too unbalanced in America's favour, I lose interest, or at worst, can feel like I just don't belong there.  Nancy who?  Do you know who Lembit Opik is?

The reason for this is best described in an analogy Gurcanaral made when I wrote about criticism of America many moons ago on my own blog.  The United States is a large ship, whose wake can sink many little boats without the people on the big ship noticing.  He also said "the US sneezes, many in the third-world get pneumonia".  That's why we non-Americans have an opinion about American issues - sometimes they affect us too.  I suspect it's not reciprocal, US interest for the most part being more concerned with what's going on within your own borders?

Darryl argued that my opinion of Obama doesn't matter.  He was voted by the American people and the Electoral College.  This is probably true, but I can't honestly say I care about that part.  He's a politician, he's not infallible, and I find the assertion that we the current-affairs-consumers of the world have no right to an opinion on someone as prominent as the President of the United States, frankly a little absurd.

It did make me check myself though - a day or two ago I asked former member here, Shariavigilant, the rhetorical question "what business is it of ours what system of rule they have in Saudi Arabia?"  Double-standards?  I don't think they're the same thing.  Scrutinising the acheivements of the world's most powerful politician is not the same as trying to export democracy to an Islamic nation, whether they want it or not.  I'll form opinions and provide commentary on international news as I see fit - but I don't expect my blogging alone to alter policy any time soon. 

 This is not just about America - I'm interested in the overall theme of why someone in, say, Turkey is interested in goings-on in Bolivia?  Do the people in Bolivia care what the Turk thinks?  Probably not, and more than a few Americans have told me likewise.

I postulate here that there is a responsibility that comes with power.  When you are the strongest military and economy in the world, people worldwide are going to look at what you do and have an opinion about it.  After the debacle of George W. Bush's Presidency, America has gotten used to taking more stick from all sides than ever before, and I imagine some of them, especially those who didn't support Bush, are getting a bit fed up with it.  This, I think, explains why there is sometimes a reaction as if they have taken it personally - directly insulted - when one criticises their President.  I don't know if this applies to other nations, it's just that the USA is flavour-of-the-month because of events in the last eight or nine years.  It is not a personal insult to have an opinion about a President.  It's just the way of the world - and the criticised  in turn have every right not to care what we think.  But some of you really need to learn to take criticism without taking it too much to heart, going on the defensive back foot and acting out your inner child.  In some cases, I can't get a word of sense out of you because you close up like a clam, thinking you're being 'attacked'.  You're not, we are having a discussion.  You know, I started another group like this back in 2005/6, and one of two fellow admins I suspect of deleting it (erasing about a year and half's content), did so in anger after I criticised Obama.  All I said was that Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc backed both Hillary and Obama. I used 'Open Secrets' as a source, which was first attacked, and then when I awoke the next morning, the group was gone.  I stand accused to this day of removing it myself.  I would never do that... do you think I'd do that here?

So... they take it quite seriously. 

Darryl asked me to give some examples of world leaders historically that I might call 'good' or 'bad', in order to better understand what is meant by 'average'.  Fair comment.  I had some fun thinking that one over.

Bad is easy.  Malign dictators aplenty.  Saddam?  Hitler?  Idi Amin? Mugabe? Kim?

Good is not so easy.  These are politicians (and a few religious figures) we're talking about here.

I thought the Dalai Lama was a cop-out, and came to the conclusion that in most of those who have made an impact during my own lifetime, one can find both good and bad to point to.  For all that we hear about Tony Blair and  probably falsified information on Saddam's WMD's to justify invading Iraq, he also oversaw the Good Friday agreement which brought peace to Northern Ireland, and reformed the welfare system in this country so fewer pensioners freeze to death in winter (paid for by tax of course).  Mikhail Gorbachev all but dismantled the USSR's nuclear arsenal - though it is arguable this didn't make the world safer, because it gave the other major contender in the Cold War more free-reign to go forth and conquer.  And of course there's Nelson Mandela.  His historic Presidency in South Africa ushered in the end of apartheid there - obviously a great contribution to human rights and peace.  But to some, notably white South Africans, he was in his early days, a 'terrorist'. 

Considering Margaret Thatcher, I realised something, or rather recalled what I should already have known.  History remembers those leaders who WIN wars.  That's a fact whether I like it or not.  I'm sure someone here can suggest an exception to the rule, but I couldn't think of a leader who was praised for pulling out of a war.  Only the winners, like Churchill in WW2 or Maggie's Falklands outing.  This is simplistic of course, but it does suggest wars, once started, have to be finished properly.  History has set a precedent for the President and the two wars he inherited.

Once more, Darryl...  sorry man, and thanks for the lesson.  I come here to learn as well as have fun.  The lessons and the messengers vary - but as long as we all walk away enriched, all's good.