The Brand Old Party
Q. I have two questions. One, which candidate is the most capable of restoring our credibility and bonhomie on the world stage, renewing our faith in government, getting us out of the morass in Iraq and showing us how to wean ourselves off foreign oil? And two, do you think the American public can see the forest for the trees when it comes to our grossly diminished impact and respect in the eyes of the rest of the world?
A. I remember being in Europe on the eve of the 2000 election and seeing polls that showed about 85 percent of the people in Holland favored Al Gore. And that was back when Bush was known as a compassionate conservative who worked well with Democrats and talked about a "humble" foreign policy. His "popularity" in Holland has taken quite a hit since then.
There is no way around it: Bush's departure will be a good day for the U.S. "brand" around the world. And while wanting to be liked isn't the sole criterion on which to base your vote, it's hard to deny that the election of a Democrat would result in a a bigger boost to America's international brand.
There are plenty of nuances, of course, and it is hard to generalize. For example, to choose just one unlikely scenario among many, if a populist Democrat were elected to the White House and actually governed like a determined protectionist, rolling back previous trade agreements and erecting new trade barriers, he would undoubtedly prompt much of the world to quickly reassess the Bush presidency. It might even cut him some slack for that Iraq misadventure.
Like I said, an unlikely scenario. On the whole, change will likely be welcomed around the world. And setting aside any other merits or demerits of Barack Obama's candidacy, given his life story I do think the conventional wisdom is right: His taking the oath of office on Inauguration Day would count as a massive propaganda coup for the United States.
Q. Your column on Ron Paul, where you also mentioned the dour Paul Tsongas, provoked this thought: Following the path that made the U.S. what it is today is difficult. Nevertheless, in the end it is a path that gives more than it takes. We've been off that path and on a sort of misleading Easy Street for a long time now. Will we ever get back on the right path and start doing our own heavy lifting again?
A. Well, one man's heavy lifting is another man's light pushing, as the saying goes. Or maybe it doesn't. My point is, it's often hard to tell if the U.S. is giving or taking from the world.
Take our trade deficits. On one level, they are an indication that we are living beyond our means. There we are, living high off of foreign credit (think of China as Macy's, selling us all the goodies after offering us a charge card to pay for them all). On another level, aren't we giving back to the world by buying all this stuff? Forget the war for a moment -- shouldn't they love us because of our trade deficits? The American consumer has been propping up much of the world's economy for much of the decade.
In assessing whether the U.S. does its "heavy lifting" as a responsible superpower, both conservatives and liberals make valid, if selective, points. Liberals are usually quick to note, quite rightly, that the amount of official foreign development aid falls well short of what many other rich nations give, and is well short of the 0.7 percent of GDP target set years ago by the United Nations (the U.S. gives only about a third of that).
Conservatives, for their part, are equally correct in noting that the U.S. pays a disproportionate share of the Western democracies' defense spending. Face it, Belgium: You are getting a free ride. Some U.S. allies -- okay, a lot of U.S allies -- may disagree with Washington about the wisdom of the Iraq war, but for a generation it has been American taxpayers underwriting the security and freedom of Western Europeans (not to mention Koreans and Japanese).
In 2008, U.S. military spending is expected to account for 4.2 percent of GDP, considerably less as a percentage of the economy than it was during past wars or the military buildup of the Reagan Cold War years. Even so, most of our NATO allies spend far less as a percentage of their economies. People in some of those countries may be tempted to feel smug that they are not like those belligerent Americans, but the truth is they can afford to spend less only because they are relying on Uncle Sam for protection. And it would be nice if some of these other countries did more heavy lifting of their own so that allied troops could play a larger role when it comes time for missions that everyone agrees upon, such as securing Afghanistan or ending ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
So in my book, it's a mixed picture when it comes to dollars and cents. I do think the U.S. has lost much of its moral leadership in the Bush years. Some of that is a question of style; the sheer arrogance of this administration. People forget, but well before 9/11, Team Bush had antagonized much of the rest of the world with its disdainful talk about the irrelevance of treaties (a grim foreshadowing of its lack of respect for the Geneva Conventions) as seen by its junking of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Beyond the obvious disagreements over the war in Iraq, another opportunity for moral leadership was lost at the stalled World Trade Organization talks, where Washington was unable to do the right thing and make common cause with the developing world in making global trade more fair for agricultural goods. (Instead, it opted to shovel more trade-distorting subsidies to farmers in this country.) That's an issue that should unite conservatives and liberals: If you want to restore America's moral leadership around the world, end farm subsidies.
By Andres Martinez |
November 27, 2007; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: Is Immigration This Year's Gay Marriage? |
Next: Will Al Gore Ever Be President?
Posted by: Melvin Braziel | November 28, 2007 1:01 PM
"A nation healed and a world repaired"----Barack Obama.
"Where we can all attain our highest possibilities for the good of all through President Barack Obama"---Critical thinker.
Posted by: Alyssa | November 28, 2007 11:18 AM
"On another level, aren't we giving back to the world by buying all this stuff? Forget the war for a moment -- shouldn't they love us because of our trade deficits?"
This trifle is so fatuous it should almost serve as a definition for the word. Soon enough you will find out: love has nothing to do with it.
As for who's propping up the world economy, would that be American spenders, or did you mean Chinese savers?
Posted by: fzdybel | November 27, 2007 11:17 PM
I am still astounded that there are those who not only don't get that Bush is an unmitigated disaster, but they would happily elect him all over again!
Chris, bp - How do you not get that he has completely squandered the goodwill we had after 9/11? Not to mention from all the work Clinton did in the 8 years prior? As much as I am sure you hate Clinton, you have to admit he was a master at international relations, he was as good as Bush is bad, which is to say very.
1/20/09 cannot come soon enough for this country, from the deep ideological divisions, to those such as bp and chris who simply plow their head into the sand, and insist that Bush is a MAN, and our only hope.
We don't need Hillary, she's a debacle in waiting, although I'm certain she'd out-President W with both hands tied behind her back. We also don't need another religious nutter, so Huckabee and Romney are no good. Kucinich is...umm...
In my mind, there are two candidates with possibilities of helping us, and not just with our foreign policy issues.
Obama and Ron Paul.
Obama is new, he's different, and he's refreshingly HONEST, a quality DESPERATELY missing from the last 7 years of this government.
But Paul has experience, lots of it, and has never voted for an unbalanced budget. I would like to not pass a 10 TRILLION dollar debt on to my daughter thank y9ou, and Bush has been the absolute, undeniable, unequivocable WORST president for this country financially, we will be suffering the fall-out from his presidency for decades.
All in all, ANYBODY but Bush will improve our chances, and our image.
Posted by: Fred Evil | November 27, 2007 7:52 PM
it doesn't matter who we put in charge,the rest of the world will still try to bring us down. if it wasn't for america , either in war or as a deterrent to war,the rest of the world would be doing the nazi twostep or cutting wood in siberia for the kremlin. who gives a rat what they think.
Posted by: gary | November 27, 2007 7:35 PM
"There is no way around it: Bush's departure will be a good day for the U.S. "brand" around the world. And while wanting to be liked isn't the sole criterion on which to base your vote, it's hard to deny that the election of a Democrat would result in a a bigger boost to America's international brand."
So tell me blogger, when Bush leaves office, is he going to give our Freedoms back to us? Will he take his preemptive nuke first strike home with him? Blogger, you have to realize that the R v D, Left v Right, Red v Blue paradigm is coming to an end. That false dichotomy has outlived its usefulness.
Furthermore I don't see any "Liberals" talking about doing anything to repeal the Patriot Act or the myriad of Constitution destroying E.O.'s that your faux pas demigod of a leader has saddled ALL Americans with. Search your heart, you know that this does not end when Bush steps down.
A. Well, one man's heavy lifting is another man's light pushing, as the saying goes. Or maybe it doesn't. My point is, it's often hard to tell if the U.S. is giving or taking from the world.
not to pick on the blogger again, but this reminded me so much of Huckabee's analogy about breaking something at the candy store.
You do not need to look any further than ground zero to see that America is living beyond it means. Take pro athletes like Alex Rodriquez. The best baseball player in MLB. His contract is worth more than the Tampa Bay Rays. Does he "earn" that money any more than say a Carl Crawford? (Rays All Star Player). Possibly, but not 25 x's more.
Of course he earns it because average joe's continue to pay for it in a time when their money is becoming worth less by the day. The point is, to try an continue to pretend that our fiat is any more valuable than any other countries fiat only last as long as said country is willing to exchange it for something of real value.
A-Rod gets 135K per game or about 39k on average every time he comes up to bat. Next time you are at a ball game, look around and see if you can count how many people are earning 39k a YEAR much less for a few swings and MAYBE and average success rate of 35%.
Yet we go to walmart an expect those Chinese made goods to continue to fall off the shelves and land in one piece in our buggy. American's like me are getting EXACTLY what we pay for and pay WITH. Its paper, and at the end of the day, we expect a Home Run and those Chinese folks expect some real VALUE for there LABOR.
Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Posted by: John in FL | November 27, 2007 5:21 PM
Ron Paul is the people's choice because he will restore our republic instead of selling it to special interests. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have created a website to support this statement.
Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.
Posted by: Cleaner44 | November 27, 2007 4:31 PM
If you are looking for someone to unite behind then take a look at this. This man inspires not only Americans, but our European brothers and sisters.
Posted by: zmeister | November 27, 2007 4:19 PM
The day Obama is sworn in as POTUS, the American "Brand" value will sky-rocket. The Shameful disgrace that the Republicans and George Bush have brought on America with their fake-christian, Rove/Hannity/Limbaugh veneer over a neo-con ideology will only be reversed by a President without "culture war" baggage.
Posted by: thebobbob | November 27, 2007 2:11 PM
I'd tend to be motivated to vote for
the candidate that includes rebalancing
the budget and abolishing a lot of
federal spending permanently in their
campaign...Washington has run crooked
books for decades, they need to set that
Government Accountability Office up with
the authority to seize and freeze and
fire at-will, and clean house, with
a standing open warrant from Congress
to do so. Red-meat auditors.
Wanna rebrand america? Fine. Start with
the brass tacks, and unscrew our tax
system, and put a much better lid on
spending. But, save the lofty hyperbole
and percentages for someone else...
fiscal reforms first and foremost,
get the books straight, and maybe a lot
of the other problems will sort themselves
out. But, unless I see somebody pushing
for that, it's another 'no confidence'
vote for me...
Posted by: Bert | November 27, 2007 2:07 PM
The premise: "... which candidate is the most capable of restoring our credibility and bonhomie on the world stage, renewing our faith in government, getting us out of the morass in Iraq and showing us how to wean ourselves off foreign oil?...."
The answer: given the short list of who is up to be on the ballot, NONE OF THE ABOVE!
The "candidates" are there because they can be controlled by the vested interests that support them.
There is no "credibility" to restore; it vanished in the 50's when the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex betrayed the founding principles of this country.
Getting us out of Iraq is as simple as walking away and let the flow of hatred take it's course.
As for oil, "perpetual war for perpetual profit." The solution is simple: ride a bike; move across the street from where you work; open a shop and live upstairs. It worked for 5000 years, why not now?
The solution is within your grasp: Vote with your wallet; stop spending; stop making babies; STOP and get a grip on what is right and wrong in your own mind as opposed to someone telling you. In reality, when all things are taken into consideration, it is you who are in control; you are the keeper of your soul, not your "leaders" or your neighbors or the world view; it is YOU. CHOOSE!
Posted by: Tau_Seti | November 27, 2007 1:54 PM
The reality is that America has always had a brand.
Our brand is our ethics and what we stand for.
And that is not the anti-American unpatriotic slimeball neocon concepts, the involvement in foreign wars of adventure that have nothing to do with 9-11, or the massive and crushing debt and deficits that are the hallmark of all the Republicans and their spawn.
What America stands for is pretty easy. It's Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life. Not the ultra-rich, the torture, the unreasonable search and seizure that typifies GOP core values.
America's brand, quite frankly, is the Democratic Party.
And it drives the MSM nutso cause they know it's so. But they're too chicken to admit it.
Posted by: Will in Seattle | November 27, 2007 1:36 PM
I'd like to blame Bush for everything; I really do hate that man! But the truth is it is the American people that are off base! George and his gang of Fascists are the logical outcome of allowing "Corporatism" to buy the political process; gotta love the Orwellian capabilities of the professional marketers: Food, garbage, presidents, Congressman, judges, government, wars, etc. just one more marketing plan to feed to the indoctrinated American consumers(er, voters). Add to the mix the Christian Evangelical crazies and the Zionist adventurers, and other religious hypocrisies; you have nation of peoples who bewilder the sane around the world!
Side bar on the positive benefits to the world of American military spending: first and foremost that 4.2% GDP spending is a complete waste in so far as building for the future, it is all consumable or worse obsolete before used. Further, we can be assailed for arming the world, thus contributing not only our own waste but urging our neighbors to do so as well. Then, our "enemies" need to arm as well to defend themselves from our "guaranteed" superiority agenda thus feeding an endless arms race for parity plus. All wars have outrageous environmental impacts, from depleted uranium pollution for millions of years to cluster bomb "lets" still killing years later, to mines and other killers that have there own legacies of destruction, to the really vile stuff like Agent Orange, oil "spills" of oceans of the stuff, to military bases so toxic they can not even be evaluated not to mention the impacts of child warriors and terrorist bombers. All in all, our military expenditures have not made the world safer in any discernable way and may very well be making us less safe!
Posted by: Chaotician | November 27, 2007 1:15 PM
It's Unbeleaveable, any body still mention the word Conservative, apparently you did not go oout of the door in the past seven years and see what happened in the world, what happened to the Iraqi poeple, and what happened to us here in the US, apprently you did not fill up a Car with gas lately, and you did not go GIANT to buy grcoceries, and you did not see what happened to the mortgage industry and the forclosures, or the value of the Dollar that hit 27 years low, anybody but the line up of the GOP could bring some I say some not all credibilty or standing in the World, or Harmony to US.
Posted by: tony | November 27, 2007 1:10 PM
The "brand" you refer to is not usually associated with our government. Our Government's "brand" is almost almost always negative. The World loves America because of our Constitution, freedom, and opportunity. We are hope and inspiration to most everyone on this planet whether they like us or not. When our Goverment proves that the Constitution and our laws and treaties can be fudged or violated because the American people and Congress are as irrelevent as the UN or any other nation then expect the flame of hope to go out and expect people to look elsewhere (extreemism?, socialism?, theocracy?) where the rule of law is not negotiable. We could wait for Bush to leave but that doesn't fix the underlying problem: that WE enabled him. We could pass laws to clarify that what he did was wrong but really, proper redemption requires accountability (impeach Bush/Cheney ASAP) and a reafirmation (education) of the American public of our civic responsibilities. Currently only about 20% of Americans have a clue about what is going on with the executive branch. Most Americans are aware of what is going on with Brittney Spears. Reverse that and we will make the Earth respect our "brand"
Posted by: Rich Rosenthal | November 27, 2007 12:49 PM
BP...are you suggesting somehow that Hezbollah and Bin Laden dislike the GOP? That they fear the GOP? Why should they? Bush and his incompetents have failed to capture Bin Laden after six years. They've galvanized and inspired thousands of young men to support radical Islam, and they've dumped billions of your dollars in cash and hundreds of thousands of small arms into the war zone, unaccounted for. They turned Iraq into Terrorist Grad School. The tough talk by the GOP against radical Islam is just that: talk. Otherwise they're the terrorist's best friends.
Posted by: DFC | November 27, 2007 12:06 PM
Ron Paul is the 'new and improved' product, and it is truly a shame that the media has found a plateau that goals itself in not allowing proper merchandising at eye level. Instead they have a great product in their store that is stored under the counter where no one can see it but those that ask what's hidden under the counter. New and improved--well, the media is new, but not both. Too bad it is a fantasy and imagination that says the media is the watchdog of the Constitution, Senate Bill 1059 and myriad others. www theradioavenger com
Posted by: theradioavenger | November 27, 2007 11:57 AM
Left or right, conservative or liberal, the labels don't matter. George W. Bush has been an anathema to the US and to the world; a failed president who took his failed policies and pushed them as far as a miserable failure could.
It will be a good day when he is gone and out of government -- not that he ever really governed. Anyone who replaces him -- liberal or conservative - has got to be better. A new day is coming.
Posted by: Ricardo | November 27, 2007 11:53 AM
The premise is fallacious. It is not the world that "hates" us, its the Left around the world that hates America's conservative values. There are many countries on the right including the entire eastern block countries that are on our side that the media and Democrats want to dismiss.
Secondly, conservatives elected into office only recently include France, Germany and Spain....but what the media force feeds us is the Left victory in Australia.
Posted by: Scott | November 27, 2007 11:47 AM
In my opinion, a leader that all other countries like = a leader that doesn't have the US's best interest in mind.
Our President should put us first--Bush does this, which is why he is disliked so much internationally.
This is also why we in the US generally have negative feelings about someone like Putin in Russia, but he remains extreamly popular there.
Posted by: Paul S. | November 27, 2007 10:56 AM
People forget, but well before 9/11, Team Bush had antagonized much of the rest of the world with its disdainful talk about the irrelevance of treaties.
So then its justifiable to ram planes into the Pentagon and World Trade Center Towers as a result?
You are a clown.
Posted by: zap | November 27, 2007 9:07 AM
Q. I have two questions. One, which candidate is the most capable of restoring our credibility and bonhomie on the world stage.
I would be more worried about restoring the credibility of someone who actually uses the word BONHOMIE in a sentence.
Posted by: zap | November 27, 2007 9:06 AM
I have two questions. One, which candidate is the most capable of restoring our credibility and bonhomie on the world stage.
Hmmm. I'd be more worried about restoring the credibility of someone who actually uses the word 'bonhomie' in a sentence.
Posted by: zap | November 27, 2007 9:02 AM
Will the Iranians like us better Andres if a Democrat wins? I know that Hezballah will like us better. I know that Bin Laden will like us better. Why do you think that is?
Get back to me when you figure it out...
Posted by: bp | November 27, 2007 8:25 AM
Andres-my guess is you don't really know much about "brand" or much of anything else...Oh, my the people of Holland who soon won't have a country or the people of Sweden who are quietly accepting the rape of their women by Muslim immigrants wanted AL Bore as President of the U.S! Who the hell cares?
Don't be such a pussy Andres. Sometimes you don't get to be the most popular girl at the ball...SOmetimes you have to do what's hard...
Posted by: bp | November 27, 2007 8:24 AM
It seems as if the people that worry the most about "America's image abroad" are actually more worried about their own personal image with their European friends.
Don't worry Andres, nobody is going to think you voted for Bush. I'm sure you stay up at night worried about that.
God this blog just gets worse and worse. And before you ask, yes I will just stop reading it.
Posted by: Chris | November 27, 2007 8:01 AM
Thank goodness the Post gave some space to a partisan liberal. There are not enough partisan liberals among the Post's pundits.
Posted by: Mike | November 27, 2007 7:39 AM
When computing the overall picture of American benevolence, an important distinction between Americans and the rest of the world is charitable giving.
http://www.cafonline.org/pdf/International%20%20Giving%20highlights.pdf
Americans, out of their pockets, gave nearly 300 billions dollars to charities. Americans nearly triple the next country, the UK, in charitable giving as computed by GDP.
The purportedly enlightened "post-Christian" American "blue" states lag far behind in charity in comparison to the folks of faith in the "red" states.
http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005
David
Posted by: David | November 27, 2007 7:23 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The U.S. is carrying the ball for the West in terms of defense, but the U.S. defense contractors are not complaining, and all the others who profit from this. Mean while millions in the U.S. do not have health insurance, and our education system has hit rock bottom. Remember the time when things use to get done, and the marginal tax rate was 91% for those who could afford it?