Tuesday, December 15, 2009
An Op-Ed to the Arab World
This is a very interesting development: a Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon, has taken the unusual step of writing an open letter to the Arab world -- in Arabic -- and getting it published in Asharq Alawsat, described as one of the largest pan-Arab newspapers.
I'm sure it will be met with great skepticism and cynicism in the Arab world (and elsewhere). Nonetheless, it's a very important step, every bit as important, in my opinion, as the all-but-forgotten pan-Arab press conference given in Madrid in October 1991. (That, too, was done by a deputy Foreign Minister, a promising young politician named Binyamin Netanyahu. He promised that he would answer any and all questions to any journalists that chose to show up, and he explicitly invited Arab and Muslim journalists.)
Will this open letter change anything? Perhaps not. Nonetheless, it is a message that will be seen, and read, by millions -- perhaps hundreds of millions -- in the Arab and Muslim world. Hopefully, even if it produces no immediate results, it will plant some seeds.
The only link I can find so far (to an English translation of the letter, that is) is here, on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and that appears to be an excerpt. If I can find the whole thing, I'll link to it here.
The entire text was e-mailed out to people on the MFA mailing list, though... so here it is, in full:
English translation:
An Open Letter to the Arab World
By Danny Ayalon
Since the reestablishment of our state, Israeli leaders have sought peace with their Arab neighbors. Our Declaration of Independence, Israel’s founding document that expressed our hopes and dreams reads, “We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help.” These words are as true today as when they were first written in 1948. Sadly, 61 years later, only two nations, Jordan and Egypt, have accepted these principles and made peace with the Jewish State.
Recently the Israeli government has made significant steps to restart negotiations with the Palestinians and reach out to the Arab world. In his Bar-Ilan speech in June, Prime Minister Netanyahu clearly stated his acceptance of a Palestinians state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel. My government has removed hundreds of roadblocks to improve access and movement for Palestinians and has assisted the facilitation of economic developments in the West Bank, through close cooperation with international parties to expedite projects and remove bottlenecks.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a right-wing government has, in an unprecedented move, declared it would refrain from building new settlements in the West Bank. All of these moves taken together amply demonstrate Israel’s willingness for peace.
This Israeli government is also committed to extend a hand to all of our Arab neighbors, its leaders and its citizens, to join together to face some of the major challenges facing us all in the coming years.
For the first time in many years, we find ourselves on the same side in seeking to quell and defeat the forces of extremism and destruction in our region. While many see the threat from Iran directed solely at Israel, we in the region know differently. Together, we understand the menace that emanates from the extremist regime in Tehran. A regime that seeks to export its extremist ideology across the region and beyond, while arming terrorist groups that seek to destabilize moderate Sunni regimes and aiming for hegemonic control of the Middle East and far beyond.
The Iranian regime has many tentacles spread out across the region sowing destruction and despair amongst the people. The enemy of the people of Lebanon is not Israel, but Hizbullah. The enemy of the Palestinian people is not Israel, but Hamas. The enemy of the Egyptian people is not Israel, but militant Islamist opposition groups. All of these groups, and many others, receive their commands from Iran, who wish to control and suppress any aspirations the region has towards freedom and advancement.
Iran seeks to hold an entire region, including its own people, to ransom and keep it engaged in conflicts orchestrated and directed from Tehran. Whether it is in Morocco, Iraq or Yemen, Iran is constantly interfering with Arab sovereignty for their own nefarious gain. Israel and its Sunni neighbors alike are in the sights of Khameini, Ahmadinejad and their minions.
If Iran is able to attain nuclear weapons, the situation becomes inexplicably and inexorably worse. The Iranian regime has demonstrated that if feels unrestricted in its ability to dominate our region, a nuclear umbrella will only embolden its acolytes to act unrestrained to the detriment of us all. Only together can we face this threat and remove it.
Another issue that entails mutual political will to overcome is the threat of climate change to our region. Many reports and organizations are pinpointing the Middle East as an area that will suffer gravely as rain falls even more infrequently and temperatures rise.
Recently, the leading international scholars on climate change met in Copenhagen and released an important report on this issue. They claimed that climate change will exacerbate conflicts and increase strains and violence among competing groups. We are already witnessing water rights and growing desertification as underlying reasons for the intensification of conflicts in our region.
“Making the desert bloom” has been a core component of the Zionist ethos and successes throughout the decades. Israel has been able to turn desert into arable land and barren landscapes into forests. We constantly share our agricultural miracles with our friends in Africa and Asia and it is for this reason that many countries of the developing world have sought partnership with Israel in addressing their own agricultural challenges.
However, as Israel’s founding fathers wrote in 1948, Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East. Our partners in peace, Jordan and Egypt, and especially the Palestinian Authority, bear witness to our endeavors in this direction. Israel has actively cooperated with Egypt on the “Mubarak Project” for the establishment of an irrigation demonstration system in Nubariya and annually trains hundreds of Jordanians in Israel in fields such as sustainable eco-friendly agricultural methods.
For us to be able to face these and many other challenges, we need to break with the paradigms of the past. The Jewish people are here because of our historical, legal, moral and national rights.
Those naysayers who can not countenance a Jewish political presence in the region will doom all of us to many more decades of conflict and instability. It is time for courageous leaders to emanate from the Arab world as did Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1979 and Jordan’s King Hussein in 1994 and recognize that peaceful coexistence is far better for all of our people than enduring conflict and enmity.
We recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative is an important document, and is welcomed in Israel as a crack in the denial of an Arab recognition of Israel. However, like the Palestinian Authority’s dictates to Israel on the peace process, it remains frozen in 1993.
Since the historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on the White House lawn, Israel has taken major strides both politically and strategically towards the Palestinian position.
Both in 2000 at Camp David and in 2008 during the Annapolis process, Israeli prime ministers offered the Palestinians everything possible for peace and on both occasions the Palestinian leadership rejected these offers. The Palestinian Authority, like the Arab Peace Initiative, is still holding to its maximalist positions and has not moved an inch towards Israel since 1993. These positions are obviously untenable for peace and reflect a worldview that ignores Israel’s significant gestures and seeks to enforce a solution that will mean the end of the Jewish State. Recent Palestinian and Arab League declarations only enforce this view.
It is surely time to look to the future and break with former intransigencies to create a better future for all the people of the region. Israel has gone very far and is prepared to do its part, but we must be met by a willing partner. Without this, the region is doomed to more conflict and will negate the unity of purpose in the Middle East that is necessary to face the mounting challenges from without and within.
Danny Ayalon is the Israel Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Some thoughts:
It's interesting that, while he says he's addressing the entire Arab world, more than once he seems specifically to be addressing Sunnis, not Shi'ites. Is he assuming (in my view, correctly) that Sunnis may be more moderate, and thus more willing to listen to him? Is he hoping to set off a schism between Sunnis and Shi'ites -- that is, a bigger schism than already exists -- on the subject of Israel? I can only wonder.
I think it was very clever of Deputy Minister Ayalon to invoke the technological successes of Israel, and Israel's proven record of helping other countries willing to accept that help. Arab countries that cannot match Israel's achievements in agriculture, medicine, and other fields must now ask themselves why... and also ask if the advancement of their own peoples take second place to their hatred of Israel.
No doubt the replies to Mr. Ayalon will come hard and fast. I look forward to seeing them.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Oct. 5, 2009: A Massacre at Ft. Hood
A tragedy has happened.
Almost 24 hours later, a good many details have become clearer. We now know that a U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, opened fire at Ft. Hood, killing at least 13 people and wounding over 30 more. He himself was wounded in a belated exchange of fire. It is believed he was working alone. It is known that he is a devout Muslim, and that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he started shooting. CAIR has already come to his defense, after the obligatory condemnation of the shooting.
A few things are still unclear to me. This shooting was only possible because it happened in a 'gun-free zone'. Can anyone explain to me why 'gun-free zones' exist on an Army base? (I suspect base commanders will be rethinking that decision pronto.) For if I understand this correctly, the man was armed with handguns. He must have had time to reload, several times, before he was taken down. That's beyond unacceptable.
It also appears that Maj. Hasan had a troubled past, including violent online postings and speeches; he may have been under investigation, particularly given that he was supposed to be posted overseas today, and apparently was not happy about it. If so, some investigators (and some of my former colleagues in the Military Police) have some serious explaining to do.
Finally, there has been some shock and outrage about President Obama's initial response to the incident -- continuing on with business as usual, announcing that he'd make some sort of statement at a pre-arranged press conference, and then taking over two minutes to cover cheerful trivia before getting to the shooting. As someone or other said, when NBC is criticizing President Obama harshly, you know something is seriously wrong. (Update: and now even the Boston Globe is doing it. Mr. President, you're in trouble here.)
I heard the President on radio last night, and the commentators were all breathlessly awaiting an important pronouncement from him. He did indeed say a lot of the right things, but it seemed to take him forever to get to it.
Some are now calling this Mr. Obama's "My Pet Goat" incident -- in reference to the children's book President Bush continued reading after being informed of the 9/11 attacks. As has been pointed out, however, this comparison doesn't make sense -- the immediate reaction of President Bush, who had no warning and needed to stay where he was for the time being anyway, as compared to President Obama, who'd had more than three hours to digest the news, and who could respond in any way he wished -- and chose to give a personal "shout-out" first.
I don't see this as anything sinister; call it another example of this Administration of Amateurs. Just as President Obama should have aides to tell him that the language of Austria isn't Austrian, he should also be told -- or should know by himself -- that the murder of American military personnel takes precedence over just about any other news. (He should also know the difference between the military Medal of Honor and the civilian Medal of Freedom... and that one can be a "recipient" of the Medal of Honor but not a "winner". This isn't a foot-race we're talking about.)
Oh, and one more thing: my hat's off to Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who responded within three minutes and brought the gunman down, sustaining wounds herself in the process. A lot of people owe their lives to her today. (Later -- let's make that kudos to Sgt. Munley and Senior Sgt. Mark Todd, her partner; it's not yet clear which of them, if either, was more responsible for bringing Hasan down.)
UPDATE: This report (quoting something I haven't been able to find yet) says that Maj. Hasan had an FN Five-SeveN automatic pistol and a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. (It is unclear if the revolver was used in the shooting.) It also says that he fired over 100 times, over the course of five minutes, before he was taken down by Sgt. Munley.
Assuming he was using the standard 20-round magazines, he would therefore have had to reload multiple times.
So my question still stands: why on Earth should a U.S. Army base, of all places, be a 'gun-free zone'?
I realize that there's a culture of publicly unarmed soldiers in the United States, but I don't understand it. When I wore the uniform in Israel, we were expected to carry our weapons with us at all times, on duty or off, on base or at home. It wasn't uncommon to see soldiers in civilian clothes, on their way to a movie, carrying their rifles with them. The weapons were always unloaded in civilian areas... but we were required to carry the ammunition with us.
Maybe the United States isn't ready for that. But I might mention that Israel, compared to the United States, has its share of crime... but almost no violent crime. Armed bank robberies and the like are almost unheard of. Is this because the bank robber is quite likely to be outgunned by the people waiting in line? Or is this a correlation without causation? You tell me.
Let me add: if I were a U.S. soldier serving at Ft. Hood today, I think I'd rather carry a firearm concealed -- and answer for it to my commanding officer if I had to -- and thus be ready if this sort of thing ever happens again.
UPDATE 2: Others are asking more interesting questions. And Richard Fernandez has his usual concentrated analysis:
ABC News reports that US Intelligence had been aware for months that Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to get in touch with al-Qaeda. It is not known what role the “Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia” played in subsequent events. But the circumstances are suggestive. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the mosque once had prayer leader Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki had been the spiritual adviser of two September 11 attackers. He is now in Yemen and is certainly pleased at Hasan’s actions...Mr. Fernandez's point -- and I think it's a vital one -- is that, when people urge us not to "jump to conclusions" about Maj. Hasan's motives, they're speaking nonsense. We know all we need to know, and more, about his motives, in terms of his antipathy to America and to the American military in which he serves. More to the point, he's a cold-blooded murderer 13 times over, and deserves to be treated as one; end of story.
Mr. Fernandez gets off a few more great comments:
Barry Rubin recently spoofed the “jumping to conclusions” phrase by writing a satirical piece retelling historical incidents in modern politically correct style. Why he asked, should John Wilkes Booth have been suspected of Confederate sympathies simply because he expressed them?By all means, read the whole thing.
Political correctness may have the long term effect not of shielding Muslims from suspicion but making it universal.
The effect of political correctness has been to destroy the contrast between dissent and actual criminal behavior.
UPDATE 3: As a postscript to President Obama's confused priorities in re the Ft. Hood tragedy, several people have noted that a Commander in Chief visited the Ft. Hood wounded over the weekend. Not the current Commander in Chief, though, who was relaxing in Camp David... it was his predecessor who made the visit.
Let's think for a minute about what that means. President Obama, who should have done that, didn't; he probably thought that it wasn't part of his job, to the extent that he thought about it at all. Former President Bush, on the other hand -- who has no official job anymore -- felt it was part of his duty, and did go.
Job vs. duty. That's a distinction between Mr. Obama and Mr. Bush that speaks volumes.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Peggy Noonan: On Her Way Back?
Peggy Noonan, once a speechwriter for President Reagan and now a Wall Street Journal columnist, has been slipping for some time. I remember when she took a leave of absence from her job at WSJ in 2004, to campaign for the re-election of George W. Bush; she felt that having him at the helm was more important than her job. By 2008, though, she had become increasingly disillusioned with the President, and in her columns was sounding more and more like a liberal Democrat.
In particular, she's been a strong supporter of Barack Obama's candidacy and Presidency, largely from the perspective of the hope he brought with him... and some readers have been perplexed at her willingness to be caught up in the hype. (She keeps offering the President advice, for example, on the theory that he just doesn't understand.)
Today's column, however, marks a refreshing (for me) return to pragmatism. She doesn't name the President directly, but it's pretty clear what she means:
It is a curious thing that those who feel most mistily affectionate toward America, and most protective toward it, are the most aware of its vulnerabilities, the most aware that it can be harmed. They don't see it as all-powerful, impregnable, unharmable. The loving have a sense of its limits.(emphasis mine)
When I see those in government, both locally and in Washington, spend and tax and come up each day with new ways to spend and tax—health care, cap and trade, etc.—I think: Why aren't they worried about the impact of what they're doing? Why do they think America is so strong it can take endless abuse?
I think I know part of the answer. It is that they've never seen things go dark. They came of age during the great abundance, circa 1980-2008 (or 1950-2008, take your pick), and they don't have the habit of worry. They talk about their "concerns"—they're big on that word. But they're not really concerned. They think America is the goose that lays the golden egg. Why not? She laid it in their laps. She laid it in grandpa's lap.
They don't feel anxious, because they never had anything to be anxious about. They grew up in an America surrounded by phrases—"strongest nation in the world," "indispensable nation," "unipolar power," "highest standard of living"—and are not bright enough, or serious enough, to imagine that they can damage that, hurt it, even fatally.
We are governed at all levels by America's luckiest children, sons and daughters of the abundance, and they call themselves optimists but they're not optimists—they're unimaginative. They don't have faith, they've just never been foreclosed on. They are stupid and they are callous, and they don't mind it when people become disheartened. They don't even notice.
The title of her column: We're Governed by Callous Children -- speaks volumes.
Read the whole thing. She also has some interesting examples of "going Galt" -- people who refuse to put up with ever-higher taxes, and choose to simply opt out instead. I suspect we'll be seeing more and more of that.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"Give Galt A Chance"
Thanks to Instapundit, I just saw this well-written post, with a lovely "photo" to go with it:

Okay, it’s time to finally admit it: Barack Obama hates businessmen. Not just certain businessmen, mind you, but the entire profession.(emphasis mine)
Obama has demonized just about every business sector in America. Through the 2008 campaign to the present, he has gone after credit card companies, the coal industry, mortgage companies, real estate companies, steelmakers, utilities, drug companies, doctors, oil companies, Wall Street, defense contractors, and health insurance companies, just to name a few. In each case he has dinged them for greed, taking excessive profits, and failing to put people first. His criticisms have not been over minor matters but over their basic core functions, and their values or lack of them.
Obama demonstrates almost complete ignorance about the private sector and it’s no wonder: he has so little experience in it. He has spent his adult life in college, teaching college, and organizing communities. The one private sector job he has held, for a consulting firm in New York, he recounts as a terrible experience. In his memoirs he describes the experience as working for a private business “like a spy behind enemy lines.”
President Obama would do well to heed the words of Winston Churchill:
"Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful can see it for what it really is - a strong horse that pulls the whole cart."But he isn't very fond of Sir Winston, is he?
Paraphrasing the Churchill quote above, Robert Heinlein once summed up economics succinctly by describing "the makers, the takers, and the fakers". An economy that demonizes the makers will shortly have fewer of them, a process that Instapundit has been calling "going John Galt". And, as he points out, this is becoming ever-more popular.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Guardian: British Bastion of Israel-Bashing
Carol Gould of Pajamas Media notes that, in a recent list of Nobel Prize winners in the Guardian, the Israeli names -- Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres -- were somehow omitted.
Coincidence? Accident? One might be naive enough to think so, if it wasn't part of a consistent pattern. As she points out, her occasional pro-Israel reader comments are deleted from the Website... while editorials titled "Israel Simply Has No Right To Exist" are given priority.
I guess it's time to dust off the sixty-year-old argument again. Is this anti-Zionist? (Unquestionably.) Is it also antisemitic? That's debatable. Personally, I'd say "no", since it was the Israelis, not the non-Israeli Jews, who were omitted. The list at Harry's Place shows Joseph Rotblat's prize for 1995, for example.)
The list has, apparently, been corrected... and the Guardian's editor has weighed in that it was a database error. (As commenters on the site point out: when all your errors go in the same direction, there's something more than carelessness at work. Does the Guardian err in Israel's favor, in roughly equal amounts to errors in the other direction? Does the Guardian ever err in Israel's favor?)
It's good to know who one's friends are.
Friday, October 23, 2009
A Flash Of Perspective
Remember discussions of "character" during the 2008 Presidential elections? A point made by supporters of Sen. McCain, time and time again, was that character matters -- your character, your sense of honor, your track record how you deal with friends and opponents (and how you distinguish the two), all these strongly influence the decisions you will make as an executive.
The point was then made that, with respect to then-Senator Barack Obama, we knew virtually nothing about him. He had no executive experience from which to draw a track record of successful decisions; his college transcripts were sealed, and remain sealed to this day; serious inquiry into his past was firmly discouraged. (To the everlasting shame of our supposedly independent press, they were asked to support Sen. Obama blindly, and they did.)
As such, we were being asked to make a huge leap of faith, based on the candidate's word and nothing else -- a candidate who, for all we knew, could have been the world's most successful snake-oil salesman. We couldn't judge him on his actions and accomplishments, because he had virtually none he was willing to let us examine carefully. "Trust me", he essentially said... and, in a spirit of hope (or naivete, or perhaps both), we did.
We are now seeing, more and more, the consequences of that leap of faith. Mr. Obama was criticized many times, for many things, during the campaign -- and those criticisms were quickly hushed up, as though none of them mattered -- but now we are seeing how those criticisms reflect the man himself, and the way he acts and makes decisions. He was criticized then for avoiding difficult issues and difficult questions (for example, with his classic response "Look, why can't I just eat my waffle?"); today he is dragging his feet on approving more troops for Afghanistan, a step insisted upon by Gen. McChrystal (whom he appointed to the job), in what Obama used to call a "war of necessity". Mr. Obama was criticized then for his economic priorities (as he famously told Joe Wurzelbacher: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody"); as President, he has nationalized industries to an extent not seen in this country for generations. He was criticized for being thin-skinned -- remember when he warned reporters not to make fun of his ears? -- and today we find that he can't stand being criticized, to the extent of shutting off news organizations that refuse to toe the party line:
Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?As Jennifer Rubin writes in Commentary, the heavy-handedness can no longer be ignored:
It’s a cringe-inducing moment, both for those who oppose the White House on policy grounds and those who cheer its every move. As surely as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton allowed their personal flaws to erode the office of the presidency, Obama seems bent on allowing his own flaws (thin-skinnedness, hubris) to do potentially grave damage to the office as well. And over what? Not some grand policy matter or some key personnel matter, but over the desire to exclude a news network that has criticized him. For those who suggested that Obama’s main selling point was his “superior temperament,” we anxiously await an admission of grave error. It seems they were terribly mistaken.
It has been said that you are known by who your friends and your enemies are. In the case of President Obama, his actions speak louder than his words, and they tell us strongly that his enemies are not al-Qaeda (whom he pledged to fight in Afghanistan, but now isn't sure about)... or Iran, which continues to call America "the Great Satan" and to fight directly against American troops in Iraq, but which Obama insists on "engaging". No, his enemies -- the ones who earn his venom -- are the conservatives who criticize his policies (whom he openly calls liars, and whom his cabinet calls everything from "unpatriotic" to un-American"), and the one news organization willing to ask tough questions.
President Obama continues to show contempt for Americans that disagree with him. As such, I have to say that I was annoyed to hear, on the morning news, that the President will spend a significant part of today at MIT, walking distance away from my office. He's liable to mess up my commute home. It's doubtful that he'll accomplish anything else.
UPDATE: No, he didn't mess up my commute; I saw the police barricades going up on my way in to the office, and I stayed at my desk until well past 5PM, when the streets were open again.
On the other hand, I was surprised to read that, even in Massachusetts, President Obama was followed by protesters. In this case, they were liberal protesters -- Code Pink ladies (angry that we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan), LGBT groups (angry about the President's failure to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, among other things), environmental groups, and so on.
If the President is now being hounded by the left... and headlines a major fundraising dinner for the sitting Governor of Massachusetts, which then has trouble even filling the hall... then his popularity is indeed in trouble.
And apart from his popularity, what does he have, really? He can't claim support because of his policies, given that he's deviated from so many of his campaign promises. He can't rely on being able to think quickly and make snap decisions, because he can't. He doesn't even have the power of his soaring rhetoric, long his greatest gift, because fewer and fewer people are willing to believe him. And he certainly can't rely on character, which the American people were willing to take on faith that he had; his private war on Fox News answers that question pretty definitively.
What does that leave, Mr. President? Think about it; the American people are waiting for your answer.
UPDATE 2: Ed Morrissey has something similar to say:
Obama wanted to be President, not to lead, but just to win. Now that he has won, he has no core set of governing principles other than what impacts Barack Obama. He has offered no leadership on any part of his agenda all year long, content to have Nancy Pelosi run it for him. His foreign policy thus far consists entirely of making himself personally popular with the world. On Afghanistan, Obama has thus far allowed Robert Gates and David Petraeus to make his decisions, only balking at the moment because the McChrystal strategy puts him at odds with his base, which could erode his popularity.(emphasis mine)
We’ve complained a number of times about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama, but as [Chuck] Todd implies with this answer, it’s really all Obama has.
And now, with special elections putting Republican governors into place in Virginia and New Jersey, we find that President Obama's popularity, such as it is, doesn't translate to those he supports. (In both cases, he campaigned heavily for the Democratic candidates.)
Personally, I think this means that, even if the President remains personally popular, that doesn't mean people trust the candidates he vouches for... which means that, in a real sense, they don't trust him.
If you can't use your popularity to accomplish anything, what good is it?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Does The World Like Us Now?
It would appear so, at least according to GfK Custom Research:
NEW YORK – October 5, 2009 – Brand America is now ranked #1 by global citizens, according to the GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media, a division of GfK Custom Research North America. Results from the 2009 Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index(NBI), which measures the global image of 50 countries, show the United States taking the top spot as the country with the best overall brand, up from seventh last year.Ryan Mauro of Pajamas Media adds:
"What’s really remarkable is that in all my years studying national reputation, I have never seen any country experience such a dramatic change in its standing as we see for the United States in 2009,” explains Simon Anholt, NBI founder and an independent advisor to over a dozen national governments around the world. "Despite recent economic turmoil, the U.S. actually gained significant ground. The results suggest that the new U.S. administration has been well received abroad and the American electorate’s decision to vote in President Obama has given the United States the status of the world’s most admired country.”
The NBI is based on a global survey in which people from across 20 major developed and developing countries are asked to rate each nation in six categories: Exports, Governance, Culture, People, Tourism and Immigration/Investment. The NBI ranking is based on the average of these six scores.
[President Obama] personifies the American dream and the credibility of American values — the most important reasons the world admires the U.S. As an African-American, he debunks the stereotype heard far too often around the world that America is a racist country. And as an African-American who grew up poor, he is a walking rebuttal to the allegations that in our country not everyone can make it and those who are disadvantaged are left to dangle in a net of unachievable dreams.Personally, I never thought America's image abroad was as important as it was made out to be. (Actions speak louder than words, and so forth.) Still, it did seem clear to me that, with such harsh and unyielding opposition to President George W. Bush, it was more difficult for him to get anything done.
Merely saying the words “President Obama” discredits anti-American propaganda around the world and causes those facing barriers to their own personal fulfillment to place faith in the values that have allowed Obama, and the U.S. as a whole, to succeed. You add Obama’s personal likeability, ability to inspire, and eloquent rhetoric that sounds principled and tough when necessary but not frightening to the world audience and you have a man that they see as the personification of the good of America.
We have yet to see what fruits will come of this new-found popularity. After all, America's enemies and adversaries do not seem impressed by any of this. And if the United States must fight a trade war against Russia, or a shooting war against Iran, would other countries be more likely to help because of American popularity? I doubt it.
Still, the man ran for President at least partially on the premise that he'd get the world to like America again. He seems to have succeeded in that.







