RSS Feed MenuDavid Frum recently commented on FF about the Roper NBI (National Brand Index) poll in which the United States has suddenly emerged in 2009 as the “most admired country” on the planet. Apparently, we have vaulted from seventh place to overtake France, Germany, England and Japan to the number one slot. The report states that this is due to the rock star popularity of new president Barack Obama. This certainly would seem to be the case as no one can deny Obama’s personal popularity as a transcendent figure around the world. To much of the globe, his election symbolizes the possibilities that exist within the USA which allow one to rise to the very pinnacle of power and prestige, regardless of one’s circumstances. On the face of it this poll’s result should give us awarmy-fuzzy feeling.
But, as Frum points out, these numbers reveal a fickle attitude that as he says could very easily shift the other way in a fortnight. And certainly, the goal of a president should not be that the rest of the kids on the block like us. As a means to an end that works in our country’s favor on some policy initiative, sure. But if being popular on the world’s streets is the end in and of itself, this poses a problem. Especially given that such popularity can evaporate with another election cycle that the world finds objectionable.
For the sake of argument, however, let us assume that Frum is mistaken and that this new pro-USA attitude is more solid than we think. Still, I ask the fundamental question: does it really matter much that the people of the world (those polled at least) “admire” the USA? And who is doing the admiring? Maybe we need not be gratified, but rather concerned by this new-found adoration and ask ourselves what does it mean?
Well, we have seen in the past nine months of the Obama presidency what it does NOT mean. It does not mean that Obama’s popularity – that has showered down upon the rest of us mere mortal Americans – has translated into foreign policy victories for the United States. Oh sure, foreign leaders will fawn over America’s media “celebsident,” jostling and nudging each other to get their beaming faces in the photograph with him at the latest economic summit, climate change roundtable, or old fashioned America-bashing that he’s got down to a science. But when the mikes are turned off, the cameras stowed away, the dinner plates cleared, and the leaders disappear into the conference room and roll up their shirt or blouse sleeves for some serious negotiations, the United States, that now most beloved of nations, tends to walk away empty-handed. This despite Mr. Obama’s personality… or perhaps even more disconcerting, because of it!
Consider this disconnect between being well-liked and being an effective statesman. Mr. Obama may harbor a belief that there is no problem that cannot be thawed by the warmth of his charm, the record would dictate otherwise. George Will laid it out nicely this weekend:
- He has asked Israel stop expanding the settlements… they didn’t.
- He asked the Palestinians to engage the Israelis… they didn’t.
- He suggested to Saudi Arabia some gesture towards Israel… they didn’t.
- He said to Iran do this that and the other thing… they haven’t.
- He said to Honduras please restore your president… they didn’t.
- He said to India and China please restrain your greenhouse gasses… they won’t.
- He asked NATO to please take some of our Gitmo terrorists… they won’t.
- He asked NATO to please send more troops to Afghanistan… they won’t.
As Mr. Will summed it: “The world adores him and ignores him.”
Unfortunately, then, we have the opposite of what we need in a world leader and standard-bearer. I think when it comes to foreign relations, it is better to be respected than liked. And no, they are not the same. Especially in the realm of foreign affairs where national interests trump all – as Mr. Obama discovered yet again at the hands of the IOC last week. You can possibly have both respect and adoration. We have had it once or twice before, especially in the aftermath of World War II. But in a world that will always gravitate, in the end, towards its own self-interests, you must have the former or face diminishment abroad. And so there will be times when as president, one will actually have to make a decision that the world will not agree with, but is in your own country’s best interest nonetheless. As much of Europe lurches relentlessly towards a pan-Islamic caliphate in the next half century, the USA will be ever more at odds with nations that were once traditional allies but will have have become different countries altogether. When a world that is positioned to be ever more hostile to our interests suddenly approves of the direction we are headed in, it may be time to take a step back and reassess if this is such a good thing. And so Barack Obama – and his successors – must always remember the core covenant made with the American people when assuming the highest office in our land. That he was elected President of the United States of America, not the world. And as such he must always place our national interests first and foremost… even at the expense of getting knocked down a few rankings in the next NBI poll. Based on what I know of the history of nations, I’ll take being respected over being liked any time. And based on what I’ve seen so far, I wonder if President Obama even knows the difference.
Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:36 pm
The most popular names in these for Dutch cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht? Muhammed.
Second most popular name in Britain now besides Jack? Muhammed.
In the countryside the names are more traditional. But in the CITIES check out a serach of any major city in Europe and see where Muhammed (or variations) rank in popularity.
The new Islamic conquest is upon Europe now. If you find that values that are uniquely Western–religious tolerance, thrift, scientific discovery, individual liberties, equality of the sexes, the rule of secular laws, etc.–are not worth fretting over then by all means, call me a paranoid and move about living your life with your head in the sand trying to tell yourelf that there is much we can learn from living under Sharia law, practising state-sanctioned mysoginy, and religious intolerance and censorship when the Imams take over.
Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:46 pm
“What’s the Muslim population og Rotterdam? Forty percent. What’s the most popular boy’s name in Belgium? Mohammed. In Amsterdam? Mohammed. In Malmo, Sweden? Mohammed. By 2005, it was the fifth most popular boy’s name in the United Kingdom. Yet most Europeans weren’t even aware of the dominant demographic trend until September 11, and subsequent events in Madrid, Paris and London. ” — Mark Steyn, America Alone.
Now I do not have the source of his stats, but there is a fine bibliography at the end wher eyou may peruse for yourself.
And let us even say for sake of argument it is only what you say it is. The point is that the trend is happening and maybe it will be ten years before Steyn’s claim (if is wrong to you) becomes the fact.
The problem with arguing with multiculturalists like you is that you do not wish to acknowledge that there are indeed superior culures. I could hit you with facts and figures about human rights scores of Muslim versus Western nations, with imperical data, evidence, even anecdotes and you would simply decry them as my “opinion.” Islam taking ove rEurope is not an opinion…it is a fact. An unpleasant one but one nontheless whose negative implications for the progress of man and knowledge you seem unwilling to accept.
Arguing with someone like you is like playing tennis with someone who believes that the ace I just served is merely a social construct. (That is from Steyn as well by the way.)
Raider1 // Oct 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Balcon. You hit on the demograohics at the heart of the problem. When you have only 1.1 children per couple (Spain), 1.2- 1.3 (Italy and Greece) around that fro GErmany as well (whose indigenous germanic poulation will halve in fifty years) then you must import immigrants to, in effect, be the vhildren you did not have.
And with all do respect, I do not think your experience matters. What matters is the overalll trend. When 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for example, when more Londoners now attend mosque than church, when German publishers self-censor for fear of Muslim violence (so much for assimilation and grakllying behind Western free speech eh?) then this is NOT like regular immgration of times past where you become a hyphenated American say and then just an American who may have his/her ethnic roots to draw from for a sense of identity within a gretaer identity.
Mulsims want NO PART of westrn culture. This is hwy, as I said, this is not the story of a wave of immigrants…it is the story of a COLONIZATION. A conquest. Only conquest now by reprodyuction, not the sword. A very deliberate one. Why become a German when you know by the time your grandkids (all fifty of them) become adults that Muslim will be the dominate force? You just wait and use the laws and the welfare state against the host in the meantime…the way a virus uses the host to nurish itself and grow while killing it form the inside.
You can tell yourself it’ll all be good. But the fact is, under Sharia law, we could not have this discussion.
ottovbvs // Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Get a life man……where the percentage in being an American president that is reviled by the rest of the world versus one who is admired and respected……..do all your neighbors hate you……do you want them to hate you…….at times your immaturity is startling
pnwguy // Oct 8, 2009 at 11:40 pm
raider1:
So leaving alone the issue of many western nations with less than replacement birth rates, what do you suggest? It’s not as if that somehow encourages greater family size of Muslim households. That happens regardless. They would just be continuing to swell in other countries and adding to the festering dysfunctions in their native societies. You could take the stance “let them rot there”, but if there was anything we learned from the 9/11 experience, it is that the problems of dysfunctional societies and ideologies aren’t so easily contained within their borders. At least not when so much of our commerce is global in nature, and where people move about between nations relatively free.
Seriously, I’m not being flip here. If what you are advocating is a new crusade, to stem the tide of a world population with greater Muslim dominance, articulate it. I’m curious about your solution.
The two nations with Muslim majorities I’ve had personal experiences with, Turkey and Malaysia, are both highly secular and by and large non-threatening societies. There are fundamentalist pockets in each, I’m sure, but they have both embraced modern society to a great extent. Now Saudi Arabia seems to be an entirely different matter. If there is a Muslim dominated society we SHOULD be poised against, it’s that one. The export of really vile anti-Western religious hatred, with almost unlimited petro-dollars behind them, seems to come from there. And yet we bend over backwards for the Saudis.
Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:22 am
Otto. Get a clue and climb out of your we-are-the-world bubble man. Of course I would rather have my neighbors like me than not. But more important I want them to respect my property rights first and foremost and not treat me like dirt by leaving cars up on blocks in their driveway, leting their lawns grow to weed fields, etc.
As Schaeffer says (I guess you didn’t read it…big words in there I know) you can be liked and respected, but if you can only be one it’s better to be respected, even at the expense of popularity.
To use your silly neighbor analogy and take it a step further, which would you rather have?
1) A neighbor who just loves you, thinks you’re the greatest guy in the world, but has no compunction about letting his dog crap all over your lawn, has blaring steross playing outseide until 4am, blocks your driveway with his car, and genrally cares little for your property rights? OR…
2) A neighbor who thinks you’re a jerk because after you asked him nicely many many times to curb his dog, turn down the music and get the car out of your driveway, you finally called the cops on him and he complied.
Personally I’ll take 2 because there are times when you will not be able to have both. And I would rather have my proeprty rights respected and lose a potential “friend” than be treated like a doormat in the name of “peaceful co-existence.” That’s called surrender.
Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:29 am
PNWguy…Europe is finished. It is in a death spiral demographically from which it cannot recover. I have no solution. Just learn from them as best we can. If it means curbing Muslim immigration so be it. Call it an act of national defense. The stakes are too high.
Raider1 // Oct 9, 2009 at 9:38 am
PNW…based on what I have seen in my travels, I would be very happy to help Europe repopulate with the women of Italy, Spain, Greece, Sweden, and the South of France (not so sure England or Germany!). But although personally that is a solution to which I would be open, if I musabout t go to bed with these women to take one for the time I guess I must, I do not think that women–who find my personality a natural profilactic–will be open to this most sensible of solutions.