9 Responses to “(Not) Our Possible Future”

1. bamdadhassan, on October 20th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Said:

   nothing new in Peters’ nonsense! I’m just wondering why you waste your time with that! By now, anybody who is still listens to such kind of rhetoric and accepts it cannot be persuaded otherwise. most people believe in things, not because they thing they are true, but because they make them feel better.

   Confronting this kind of nonsense, the best language to reply (and the only one which might be useful) is the language of humor, irony, or ridicule. Use logic when you talk to wise grown-ups!

2. Indya, on October 20th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Said:

   All it is is an attempt to paint Obama as the stereotypical liberal - soft on crime and war, without evidence, just because of “not knowing who he IS.”

3. Daniel Larison, on October 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm Said:

   Yes, it’s all old and rehashed nonsense that’s being offered in that piece, and I agree that laughing at it can be very effective, but I think it is also useful to make a very thorough demonstration of how empty all these claims are. Certainly from my perspective the problem with Obama is that he is far too hawkish, so the last thing we need is to set up false oppositions between Obama’s alleged weakness and the truly “strong” position of the GOP.

4. Turbulence, on October 20th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Said:

   I mostly agree, except for this one bit:

   Maybe, if everyone in the region is as clueless as Obama’s domestic critics (this would be difficult), but why exactly would that be the case? Again, what has Obama said or done that would give anyone this impression? This is the flip side of the equally implausible “Obama’s election will cause Muslims everywhere to love the U.S. government”–a view foolishly promoted by his own supporters–and it is no more likely to be proven correct. Both misreadings rely on the idea that Middle Eastern governments and publics base their hostility/lack of hostility to the United States on superficial, symbolic things rather than actual U.S. policies. If only we change the appearance or the name of the President, everyone will respond accordingly! This is completely and in all ways wrong.

   I’m not aware of any serious Obama supporters claiming that “Obama’s election will cause Muslims everywhere to love the US government”. This is a big country and Obama has tens of millions of supporters, so I’m sure at least a few actually believe this, but so what? A few Obama supporters probably believe he is living god; lots of Americans believe crazy things. If you want to claim that this idea is accepted by many Obama supporters or by serious writers who are Obama supporters, then I’d be curious to see who exactly you’re talking about.

   Now, I think there is reason to believe in a much weaker version of this idea. Because the US is a democracy, and because Bush was reelected in 2004, many people around the world have concluded that Americans support the government’s foreign policies including the Bush doctrine in all its glory. Many people abroad believe that Americans hate brown people or Muslim people. They are convinced that we could never elect someone is the son of a Muslim man. Electing Obama might well convince some of them that Americans are not full of hatred for all things tangentially related to Islam. In addition, in many parts of the middle east, racism is strongly entrenched. The election of a black man might convince people that America is a very different society than they thought. There are already indications that Obama and his potential election have aroused serious interest in the middle east.

   Now, none of that means that policy will change significantly. But it does mean that there will be increased political support for giving America the benefit of the doubt for a time. Lots of people will still be staunchly opposed to US policies no matter what, but to the extent that a President Obama proposes changes in how we deal with middle east, I think he’ll face somewhat less popular hostility than a President Bush or McCain would face if they made the exact same proposals. This sort of effect will probably be short lived and it only really amounts to a willingness to listen to American and consider the possibility that we’re not determined to destroy Muslims left and right. That’s not much, but right now, we’ve got precious little in terms of rapport with people in the middle east, and that opening may make the difference if Obama is willing and able to exploit it.

   This is the sort of thinking I’ve encountered when discussing these issues with other Obama supporters. Like I said, if you can cite instances of serious Obama supporters repeating your extreme version, I’d appreciate it.

5. Daniel Larison, on October 20th, 2008 at 4:24 pm Said:

   Okay, it’s a bit hyperbolic to have put it that way and I will grant that no one has said that all Muslims everywhere will respond this way, but there have certainly been arguments from serious Obama supporters (unless you’d like to disqualify Andrew out of hand) that Obama’s election would revolutionize American soft power particularly among Muslim populations and that his appearance and election by themselves would dramatically alter foreign perceptions of America. His Atlantic cover story on Obama is the locus classicus of this view, but it is not the only one I have seen. I see little reason why his election would have any effect at all once the brief euphoria of “thank goodness Bush is gone!” wore off, and I think the assumption that his background and appearance would garner favorable responses in most parts of the world gets things badly wrong. Roger Cohen’s columns over the past year are rich in examples of Obama supporters and sympathizers, including Cohen, making such interpretations. Those are the most prominent ones that leap to mind, but I expect that more can be found.

   At bottom, both of these are arguments that foreign publics will respond to Obama as a symbol and will ignore what he proposes to do, while it is precisely because foreign publics in the Middle East are going to become aware of what he proposes to do that his election will not be seen as a dramatic change on Israel or anything else.

6. Turbulence, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:20 pm Said:

   unless you’d like to disqualify Andrew out of hand

   Well, I personally would because I think Andrew is a third rate analyst. I mean, this is the guy who supported the Iraq War while believing every bit of Bush administration propaganda, right? The guy who after 9/11 earnestly fretted about how everyone not desperate to start invading random countries was a fifth column, working in league with AQ? He is certainly an Obama supporter, but he’s also someone who describes himself as a conservative. Cohen is a joke, a laughingstock. Despite his pretensions, his outlook seems quite conservative: he certainly cheerleaded for a conservative President. I don’t think you were trying to claim that conservatives are prone to misjudge Obama in opposing ways on this one issue…

   I see little reason why his election would have any effect at all once the brief euphoria of “thank goodness Bush is gone!” wore off, and I think the assumption that his background and appearance would garner favorable responses in most parts of the world gets things badly wrong.

   Then perhaps we’re largely in agreement. I too think any effect will be short lived, especially if Obama continues current policies as you expect he will. I have relatives that live in the middle east and they’re very interested in Obama; he genuinely fascinates them in a way that, say Clinton, never did.

7. nyx, on October 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Said:

   I think there would be an extended honeymoon in Europe, not in the middle east or south asia. Pakistan would be particularly miffed.

8. One Lazy Dog, on October 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm Said:

   OK - I had to look up ‘pan-kartvelian’. Probably more effort than Mr. Peters justifies.

   Sen. Obama has shown himself in his campaign quite resistant to the imprecations of his allies and supporters to take various courses of action that they propose. We can at least hope that he will take the same course in his impending presidency….

9. LibAl, on October 20th, 2008 at 7:57 pm Said:

   Daniel - I fail to understand why you spend your intellectual muscles on debunking simplistic and obvious fallacies in articles like Peters’. You educate your readership so well in so many other aspects that coming across a post like this really breaks the flow.

   What I think would be more useful is a speculative post from you that debates whether Obama truly subscribes to the hawkish foreign policy persona he presents during the election campaign. IMHO I think he wants to pull out of Iraq so as to stop bleeding $$ and channel those resources back home but also understands that politically any administration must, at the minimum appear to, continue to militarily counter Al Qaeda (and by association, Taliban). Other than those clear stands, I suspect he has a post-cold war mentality on US role and involvement in international affairs; a much more nuanced view that has as an underlying principle the US regaining a higher moral ground. This may involve the US taking action in genocidal and other obviously tyrannical activities by states; but never outside the framework of majority global consensus. (Of course I also expect him to be honest about any evidence). I also thinks he will be alot more resistant to using force.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.