Sun Blogs: Left, Right or Wrong?
Obama vs. History
Email: 
Share: 
We all know the narrative of this presidential election. Poll numbers show that voter support for Democrats far outweighs that of Republicans. However, in some polls McCain is actually marginally ahead while Obama leads by only slim margins in others. So, why is the election much closer than it should be, based on voter support for generic Democrats versus Repulicans? There is a litany of answers, but the answer is simple when it comes to foreign policy: Obama’s narrative and vision of America’s role in the world is at odds with the historical norm.
Senator Obama’s history and vision of the world is contrary to the one America is familiar with. Obama does not subscribe to the notion of American exceptionalism, an idea that has long prevailed. Rather, he views the world as one in which America simply plays a supporting role. He would claim that this role has become one that is too large and too powerful. If elected, Obama would in essence apologize for the mistakes the U.S. has made (certainly there are many) and subsequently integrate America into the global community rather than re-establish the U.S. as a superpower.
When it comes to the major threats facing the U.S. – for example, Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban, North Korea,. – Sen. Obama correctly states that all options are on the table in terms of dealing with our foes. Arguably, he has put on a tough guy persona in some instances in order to move more towards the center. However, it has become ever more apparent that Obama’s philosophy is one that is fundamentally opposed to the use of force. Sen. Obama is often compared to President Kennedy in many respects, one of which is Obama’s supposed level-headedness and “worldly” view. Let us remember, however, that President Kennedy got the U.S. involved in Vietnam, launched the Bay of Pigs invasion and was a fierce Cold warrior. These characteristics do not seem to be present in Sen. Obama.
The problem with Obama’s view is that historically it has not been the American view. Obama is really a product of the 1990s. It was during this period, the era of Bill Clinton, that he solidified his political philosophy. Other than the exception of the Clinton presidency, Americans have voted for the candidate who illustrates not only that he will use force, but also that he understands the necessity and importance of the armed forces. In his commencement speech at Wesleyan, Sen. Obama focused on the importance of civil service. Further, he said he wishes to, “engage the young people of other nations.” This intense focus on the world outside of U.S. borders, as well as the failure to make mention of service in the armed forces, is a manifestation of his ideology and rejection of American exceptionalism. On a related note, it used to be that widespread support from abroad for a candidate rubbed Americans the wrong way. While many praise Obama’s oratory skills and his ability to inspire the world, it would not be surprising if Americans view foreign support of Obama in a negative light.
This is not to say that all of Sen. Obama’s policies are wrong or misguided. Furthermore, no one can fully know if as a president he would use force when necessary, or if his political philosophy might prevent him from doing so. America may be changing, but the trend of American exceptionalism as the prevalent view in the U.S. is likely to continue. Sen. Obama must convince voters that he subscribes, at least in some part, to the idea of American exceptionalism, or he risks losing the presidency.
Obama' s foriegn policy at odds with history
This is a unique take on things.
I am surprised to hear that Obama's foreign policy is the problem. Very few folks I hear, talk to, read about seem concerned at all with his foreing policy, least of all those that gravitate to Sarah Palin.
Where Obama is at odds with history is the fact that he is bi-racial and so many folks are going to vote against him because of it.
He is obviously the most well qualified at a time when the whole country is ready for change and his policies will benefit the majority of the electorate -- yet he trails a doddering old man and a poorly educated woman who gave no thought whatever to foreign or domistic policies until two weeks ago and I fear it is the color of his father's skin that is the reason.
since when is so called
since when is so called "american exceptionalism" equitable with warmongering?
o, i see, b/c obama believes more in the civil and entrepreneurial power of the citizen, rather than the states influence on the geopolitical terrain, he is, de facto, anti-exceptionalist.
you, my friend, are obviously a statist. (and not so good at reasoning, though good at "journalism", which is far greater of an affront to exceptionalism!)
A Candidate They Can Relate To
You make some intriguing points, but I can't say that I fully agree. In recent times, Americans have shown a propensity to vote for a candidate they can relate to rather than one who will make decisions that are for the betterment of this country. We saw this with Bush junior and even with Bill Clinton (his shining moment came when he played the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show).
McCain's bump in the polls recently has been largely due to the extent to which people feel they relate to Sarah Palin. She is the ultimate "reality TV" show candidate; Palin makes the average American think that they too could be Vice President. And unfortunately, how well you relate to a candidate says nothing about how effectively that candidate will perform their job. If I need to hire a plumber to fix a leaky faucet,I'm going to choose someone who I think can do the job, not the person I best relate to. While this is common sense, for some reason in the context of a President election, Americans throw common sense out the window.
People also cannot evaluate issues appropriately. They will vote for a President who they think will protect them from terrorism over a candidate with sound economic policies even though the likelihood of a terrorist act is generally extremely small, whereas economic turbulence is commonplace. (Not to mention that people might think the Republicans are the experts on national security, even though the biggest terrorist act that targeted the US happened under the watch of a Republican President, and the level of recruiting for Al-Qaeda increased considerably in response to the American "preemptive" strike on Iraq.
Going back to your point, if anything, Obama's plan strikes me as one that wants America to take a leadership position. He correctly observes that if we fail to invest in certain areas, like education, and if we continue the current plan of deficit spending by increasing our debt to other countries, then it is only a matter of time before we are surpassed as an economic superpower by countries like China.
So, I don't believe that ultimately, many Americans vote by carefully considering the issues and the long-term repercussions of a particular candidate's platforms. And I also don't believe that many Americans fully comprehend the ramifications of a particular candidate's plan for this country.
I can only hope that enough Americans will vote sensibly enough come November.
Comments welcome: http://whenelephantsfly.blogspot.com
Right on. Although your
Right on. Although your premise seems very similar to a wsj editorial written a few weeks ago. I think a powerful term you should have included to encompass your argument is "trans-nationalism." It's almost as if Obama believes not in the greatness of America or our ability or even right to be a world leader, but rather believes in the subservience of the US in world politics to a level no higher than anyone else. How can we elect a President who clearly believes that we should not be leading the world, but listening to it more? How can we elect a leader who instead of justifying our place, makes excuses and begs for forgiveness to others? Maybe he'd be a good leader of "world hope" or perhaps even the "Iran and North Korea deserve a seat on the UN Human Rights Commission" organization, but please not President of the United States of America.