Should We Care that Western Europeans Overwhelmingly Support Obama?
Molly HagenLast week, news of Barack Obama’s trip through Europe dominated the American media. A July 23, 2008 Gallup poll shows the overwhelming majority of Britons, French and Germans would prefer Obama to win the presidential election. The United Kingdom showed a preference of Obama at 60% to McCain’s 25%; in France, Obama was 64% to McCain’s 32%; and in Germany, Obama was 62% to McCain’s 27%.
We can only speculate why Western Europeans so overwhelmingly support Obama’s candidacy. Perhaps Western Europeans believe, as many progressives do, that Obama represents the future, and McCain the past. And why should we care about what these Western Europeans think, anyway?
Europe’s reaction to Obama’s big tour gives us several important pieces of information to which we should pay attention. Obama’s European reception is a gauge ofAmerica’s continued relevance to global citizens. In the same Gallup poll referenced above, the interviewees were asked, “Do you think who is elected President of the United Statesmakes a difference to (United Kingdom/France/Germany) or not? In the, 80% answered yes, in France, 71% answered yes, and in, 62% answered yes.
The Gallup poll noted that one reason McCain might not have polled well with the Europeans is because he hasn’t been in the news very often in European markets. The Republican primary season didn’t hold very much drama, certainly not in comparison to the Democratic primary contest. Perhaps McCain will begin to poll more favorably in as the general election season continues. But McCain will also face the difficulty of being of the same political party as the unpopular President Bush.
American politics are not merely internal—even our domestic policy sends ripples of consequence throughout the world. Everything we do matters globally. Western Europe’s reception of Obama tells us that they have great hopes that the whole world will arrive at a better destination with Obama as President. That global reputation is a source of American power and influence, and it is an evidence of America’s continued potency.
So what does it tell us that Western Europeans prefer Obama to be our next President? Obama is making a point of courting Western Europeans because he understands that America cannot function at its maximum capacity or potential without the cooperation of other countries. We live in a globalized world, and President Bush’s tendency to isolationism has weakened America’s global reputation and certain opportunities for economic development. The administration’s “go-it-alone” strategy is a proven failed strategy. Obama’s recent tour tells us that as President he would reengage these countries that currently would rather not have much to do with us. That he was welcomed so enthusiastically means Western Europeans want to re-engage and re-build American relations.
We should care what opinion Western Europeans hold of America, because the higher our esteem in their eyes, the more chances our nation will have to develop relationships that can improve our economy and our government. n our global world, our reputation and willingness to compromise and work collaboratively matter.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:46 am
How is an American-interest only–or, as you call it, a “go-it alone” strategy a “proven failed strategy?” Washington recommended such a strategy, counseling us to avoid at all costs foreign entanglements. Great and incredibly successful American presidents, including most notably Teddy Roosevelt, employed such a strategy to America’s great benefit.
It’s reasonably clear that Bush has failed to implement a “go-it alone” strategy well. But how can you claim that the idea itself is “proven” to be a failure?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
A few questions.
First, how can an administration committed to a war of choice (a pro-choice war?) specifically intended to change the nature of a foreign country by making it more like America reasonably be accused of “isolationism”?
Second, granted for the sake of argument that America should really care about what other nations think of it, why should Western Europe — a region losing power and relevance annually — be the focus of America’s attention or concern over its reputation?
Third, why should a figure representing “the future” implicitly be seen as necessarily holding out hope? (Remember that the phrase, “I’ve seen the future and it works,” was made about Stalin’s Russia.)
Fourth, your question about why the US should care about Western Europeans think of it seems to imply that, to the extent that a President Obama would attempt to move America further towards European-style nationalized health care and welfare state regimes, American citizens should seriously entertain that such a move would be a net positive for America. How would you explain this apparent implication given the clear historical differences between American and European visions of the nature of the citizen’s relationship to the state?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Hey Paul. Answer to first question: Isolationism would apply to the Iraq invasion in the sense that our “allies” were limited. The coalition of the willing didn’t include major world-power countries.
Second question: Western Europe shouldn’t take precedence over other regions in the world. I was just using it as an example since Obama was just there. I think my point could be applied to the entire world, assuming Obama would (will?) get such a reception in other regions.
Third question: Good one. I suppose I did a little editorializing here, equating hope and future in my own mind. Maybe that should be the subject of another essay.
Fourth question: No, I wasn’t making any point about European-style nationalized health care and welfare state regimes.
Again, that question would get me into a whole other essay, but it’s an interesting question. Thanks for giving me ideas for future posts!
August 1st, 2008 at 10:51 am
1.) I would echo Jeremy’s question. His was also my first thought. Why is isolationism/go-it-alone a proven failure?
2.) I would argue everything the US does internally is mattering less and less, though a ripple effect is still clear. I blame a weaker currency, among other things.
3.) Since we’re on the subject of caring about what international opinion-holders feel about our prospective presidential nominees, I think a far more relevant and important question is which candidate is preferred by our international enemies. Hamas endorsed Obama, but to discuss that is taboo. Western Europe loves Obama, and Gallup runs polls on their opinions. As neither vote in American elections, I’ll happily claim that neither are relevant, and yet we can only talk about one of them.
4.) You wrap up your essay by saying that ‘our reputation and willingness to compromise and work collaboratively matter.’ Matter for what? Public sector relationships are largely irrelevant in developing a private economy, military-and-industrial complex notwithstanding.
5.) Do international relationships improve our government? Perhaps they do, and you’re entitled to that opinion, but I’m questioning that assumption. I would argue that government is best to the extent it is governed by a rule of law, the Constitution specifically. If that becomes a dead letter, we are in a far worse political situation than would we be without international relationships.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’m a little troubled by the conclusion, which suggests a “go along to get along” philosophy. It may seem a little old fashioned, but whatever happened to the idea that if we’re right, we should tell the rest of the world to, put it politely, go and do something to themselves that is not anatomically possible? If someone is not convinced that Obama is the right person for the job, I don’t think they should go ahead and vote for him anyway so some faceless Brit will give him an “atta boy guv’ner!”
Also, are you willing to follow the own ramifications of your philosophy? France is Europe’s leading nuclear power producer with 59 (that’s Five - Nine) nuclear power plants. The UK has 19, Germany has 17, Spain has 8, etc. I support nuclear power not because Western Europe does, but because its the right thing to do. However, I assume that you support nuclear power because it would raise the esteem of the United States in the eyes of Western Europe? I would hope that if someone bought into the philosophy of Joan Baez and all those other kooks, they would oppose nuclear power regardless of what they’re doing in Western Europe. That would be the principled thing to do.
I guess I would conclude by saying that we fought a war some 200 years ago to get those bastards off our backs and then another one 65 years ago to make sure they stayed off other people’s backs. Forgive me if when they say jump, I don’t respond how high.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:25 am
I think Keith raises a good point. America’s highest goods–specifically personal liberty–have been maintained because of what the academics call “American exceptionalism.” Our greatness as a country comes in large part from where we disagree with our western European forebears. Why should we consider it wise to elect a President that Western Europeans identify with?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I don’t know if that’s quite the right question, Jeremy, although I think I know what you’re saying. It seems that a better form of the question would be, “Why should we consider it wise to elect a President simply because Western Europeans identify with him?”
Molly: Your answer to my first question seems to imply a misunderstanding of what “isolationism” means. It doesn’t mean that you only associate with a few countries; it means that you stay home and don’t get involved with other countries in the first place. The Iraq War is certainly a case of “go it alone”-ism (or whatever the term for that is), but it simply isn’t a case of isolationism.
Furthermore, I don’t see how having a president in line with Western European concerns won’t lead to the US resembling Western Europe to a greater degree. This includes having larger social welfare and national health care systems. You may not have meant this in your essay, but it’s implicit in your argument. It would be like electing a president in line with conservative Christian concerns and then expecting that he wouldn’t seek to bring the state more into line with those concerns.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I meant the question the way I worded it. Western Europeans identify with Obama for cultural and political reasons that are anathema to a huge portion of Americans. European enthusiasm tells us something about how Obama wants to be perceived, and what he wants to accomplish.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
I understand what you’re saying, but your formula is potentially a little too simplistic. “Do Europeans like him?” “Yes.” “Oh. Well, than I don’t think I will.” Or, on the flip side, “Do Europeans like him?” “No.” “Great. I think I like him, then.” Such conclusions don’t necessarily follow from your position, of course, but in its current form it carries a significant potential for a “Four legs good! Two legs bad!” understanding vis a vis European support. A little more nuance wouldn’t hurt.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:10 am
There’s liking, and there’s messianic fervor. My question rests on the difference. If Paul will consent to leave this temptest in a tea pot, I’d be interested to see what Molly has to say.