CSNbbs

Full Version: Does anyone genuinely believe (again)...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
...that the President's latest foreign policy talk in response to the airliner attack is anything more than an empty reprise of "Words must have meaning! Violations must be punished!" or similar fulminations uttered back in April?

For that matter, did anyone (on this board, in the US, anywhere) genuinely believe those words back then?

Of course, wasn't the world supposed to start loving the US on January 20, 2009? And if not immediately on that date, then certainly after the Great One made his apology tour later in the year? And if not on those occasions, then surely after the Norwegian coterie handed him its (once-)esteemed Peace Prize?
Yes!

Yes!

No, not right away.

He went on an "apology tour"? I thought it was a "clean-up-the-mess tour"... 03-wink

No -- these things take time.
No!

No!

No, never, it doesn't work like that.

He's done a lot of apologizing, but he's yet to clean up a single mess. I'm betting he makes more than he cleans up.

No, never, I told you, it doesn't work like that.

Obama's first year has been pretty much what I expected. That's why I couldn't vote for him.
They are empty words until they are followed by action. I expect them to remain empty words. It is his pattern.

Yes, many people believed his words back then. Many (less) believe them now. Believing them does not accrue any credit to the believers. Some people believe the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Some believed Bernie Madoff was going to make them a fortune. Belief in Obama falls somewhere between the two. Probably closer to Madoff. Madoff made a lot of promises too, and also said he would outperform the "other guy". I see a parallel. Some people will always believe in Obama, just as some always believed in Nixon and some to this day will swear that Clinton "did not have sex with that young lady, Miss Lewinsky". Faith is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it can be misplaced.

It was a "clean up the mess tour" if and only if one believed that apologies and promises to be better would clean up the mess. Apparently the definition of a mess is foreigners not liking the way we take care of our business. Kiss, kiss.

Maybe these things take time, but it seems to me that as time as passed, not only are we not better liked, but our prestige has fallen in the places we used to be liked with no corresponding gain in being liked by those who hated us. A net loss. No respect.

Obama has lied and broken promises continually, and at the same time has displayed a petulance and vindictiveness unseemly in a President and unproductive. Where he promised bipartisanship, he has practiced alienation and intimidation. Where he promised transparency, CSPAN, and internet postings, he has delivered secrecy and back room deals. He has broken promises left and right. (pun intended). Instead of "change we believe in", he has delivered same ol', same ol', only more of it and worse.

I think Owl69/70/75 has made a good bet. A very good bet.
(12-29-2009 09:40 AM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Yes!

Yes!
Wow, I am surprised. Remember, momentary popularity is not the same as actual success (as the world learned, quite disastrously, 70 years ago). I predict that 40 years from now, in terms of foreign policy, Obama will be an also-ran of history. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he can amount to anything good in that department. About the best we can hope for is that he will prove to be merely a minor embarrassment, and not a genuine disaster.
I think we are being premature. Obama hasn't even been in office a year. George W's foreign-policy legacy wasn't exactly clear on December 29, 2001.

My opinion is exactly the opposite of what many of you have written. I have seen an enormous amount to suggest he will amount to something quite extraordinary in foreign policy. Any momentary unpopularity (at least among folks similarly minded as many of you) is not the same as actual failure.

Let's wait and see, you and me both. And support him as our duly and democratically elected Commander-in-Chief while we wait. If you don't like what you observe over the next two-and-a-half years, vote for the other guy in 2012!
(12-29-2009 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe these things take time, but it seems to me that as time as passed, not only are we not better liked, but our prestige has fallen in the places we used to be liked with no corresponding gain in being liked by those who hated us. A net loss.

I don't mean to pick on this statement, because it is only one of many statements with which I disagree, but I am not sure it's correct.

For example, this widely cited Pew Center report from July (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264) is pretty clear. Some excerpts:

"The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama... Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared. But opinions of America have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia .. [and] even in some predominantly Muslim countries [including Nigeria, by the way] that held overwhelmingly negative views of the United States in the Bush years."

I am open to seeing more recent public opinion polls that show a change in world opinion of the United States. Given all that's happened recently, this information would be useful to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy efforts.

Absent this information, though, it's impossible not to conclude precisely the opposite of what Optimistic asserts. I mean, Optimistic may despite Obama's approach to foreign policy. But to take the next step and conclude that the rest of the world does too, leading to a "net loss" in U.S. prestige, is an example of reasoning through belief and faith, which is exactly what Optimistic derides.

In sum: The most current data I've seen suggests that U.S. prestige around the world has increased since the election of Barack Obama and the beginning of his administration. A minority (43%) of Americans currently disapproves of his foreign policy efforts (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/-jobapp...policy.php ). A vast majority (100% minus epsilon) on this board disapproves of his foreign policy efforts. All these things can be true at once.
(12-29-2009 03:33 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-29-2009 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe these things take time, but it seems to me that as time as passed, not only are we not better liked, but our prestige has fallen in the places we used to be liked with no corresponding gain in being liked by those who hated us. A net loss.

I don't mean to pick on this statement, because it is only one of many statements with which I disagree, but I am not sure it's correct.

For example, this widely cited Pew Center report from July (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=264) is pretty clear. Some excerpts:

"The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama... Improvements in the U.S. image have been most pronounced in Western Europe, where favorable ratings for both the nation and the American people have soared. But opinions of America have also become more positive in key countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia .. [and] even in some predominantly Muslim countries [including Nigeria, by the way] that held overwhelmingly negative views of the United States in the Bush years."

I am open to seeing more recent public opinion polls that show a change in world opinion of the United States. Given all that's happened recently, this information would be useful to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy efforts.

Absent this information, though, it's impossible not to conclude precisely the opposite of what Optimistic asserts. I mean, Optimistic may despite Obama's approach to foreign policy. But to take the next step and conclude that the rest of the world does too, leading to a "net loss" in U.S. prestige, is an example of reasoning through belief and faith, which is exactly what Optimistic derides.

In sum: The most current data I've seen suggests that U.S. prestige around the world has increased since the election of Barack Obama and the beginning of his administration. A minority (43%) of Americans currently disapproves of his foreign policy efforts (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/-jobapp...policy.php ). A vast majority (100% minus epsilon) on this board disapproves of his foreign policy efforts. All these things can be true at once.


The Pew report you quaote is dated 7-23-09. In case you lack a calendar, that is over 5 months old. What could have happened in the last five months that may have displeased Europeans and/or Muslims? Sending more troops to Afghanistan, maybe? Not bring home troops from Iraq? Gitmo still open?

Not sure what you mean by epsilon - I had to take my math credit at TCU. If you are implying that 57% of american must hold the opposite view as the 42.9% who disapprove, I refer you to your own graph. It shows 46.6% approval. Disapproval is rising, approval is dropping. Why is disapproval rising?

I don't think 57% would even be overwhelming. A 3.7 percent margin certainly isn't - and it is dwindling.
(12-29-2009 03:33 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]"The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world, reflecting global confidence in Barack Obama"
Yikes!
If having one's finger to the wind of "world opinion" is the measure of success -- well, I don't need much more reason than that for lacking confidence in this President.

As for "supporting" the President, let me be clear:
I resolutely do not want Barack Obama to "succeed" in carrying out his foreign policy intentions, because I believe that most of what he intends would prove to be harmful (no matter how popular it seems at the time). The best hope for the United States and for mankind is for Obama's intentions to be generally thwarted for the time being, so that things do not get too bad by the time the next president comes along. Our second best hope is that he will have a sudden epiphany and change his stripes (like Chamberlain did in the brief time after Churchill's ascension to P.M. in May 1940, when Chamberlain became a fairly ardent member of the War Cabinet before succumbing to ill health) -- though I certainly hope that Obama's epiphany, if it comes, will be under less murderous and cataclysmic circumstances.

I don't recall much sanguine support of previous Presidential foreign policy by leftists -- certainly not by Senator Obama, or by Oxford student Bill Clinton.
(12-29-2009 03:31 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I think we are being premature. Obama hasn't even been in office a year. George W's foreign-policy legacy wasn't exactly clear on December 29, 2001.
My opinion is exactly the opposite of what many of you have written. I have seen an enormous amount to suggest he will amount to something quite extraordinary in foreign policy. Any momentary unpopularity (at least among folks similarly minded as many of you) is not the same as actual failure.
Let's wait and see, you and me both. And support him as our duly and democratically elected Commander-in-Chief while we wait. If you don't like what you observe over the next two-and-a-half years, vote for the other guy in 2012!

I'd be really interested in knowing what constitutes the "enormous amount" you have seen to suggest that he will amount to "something extraordinary" in foreign policy--unless you mean extraordinarily bad. I think many people around the world want to like him, but in the end I think he is taking us in a wrong direction. In foreign affairs, the two rules I learned early were to treat people with respect and in turn to demand that they respect you. Shrub violated rule 1; Obama is making a mockery of rule 2. This cannot end well.

More importantly, I think his domestic agenda is nothing but a one-way ticket to disaster; I cannot imagine sufficient success in foreign relations to offset the coming economic disaster at home. I know Shrub was a disaster and Obama inherited a mess; but he's making it worse rather than better, at a time when we don't have much room for error.

We will all have to wait and see. If he turns out to be the success that you foresee, I will be astonished but I will admit my mistake; can we count on you to do the same if you're wrong?

In the interim I will support him as strongly as I am sure you supported Shrub. Obama and Shrub--one idiot after another.
Slam!

(12-29-2009 03:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The Pew report you quaote is dated 7-23-09. In case you lack a calendar, that is over 5 months old.

I do not lack a calendar. In my post, I identified the Pew poll as "from July." I also wrote, and you quoted, "I am open to seeing more recent public opinion polls" and "Given all that's happened recently, this information would be useful to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy efforts."

(12-29-2009 03:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Not sure what you mean by epsilon - I had to take my math credit at TCU.

A small number. I wrote, and you quoted, "A vast majority (100% minus epsilon) on this board disapproves of his foreign policy efforts." I mean that almost everyone except me (the "epsilon") hanging out in The Quad disapproves of Obama's foreign policy. Sorry that I was not clearer.

(12-29-2009 03:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If you are implying that 57% of american must hold the opposite view as the 42.9% who disapprove...

I was not.

(12-29-2009 03:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]... I refer you to your own graph. It shows 46.6% approval. Disapproval is rising, approval is dropping.

I agree. Which is why, like I wrote and you quoted, "I am open to seeing more recent [world] public opinion polls" and "Given all that's happened recently, this information would be useful to a discussion of Obama's foreign policy efforts."

Have you seen more recent data that would reinforce or contradict the Pew Findings from July 2009? I am genuinely interested.

If not, is it better to just go on what we believe must be true, even if we lack evidence?
(12-29-2009 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Obama and Shrub--one idiot after another.
Isn't that the truth! We can only pray that the old adage rings true: God takes care of fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.
(12-29-2009 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]We will all have to wait and see. If he turns out to be the success that you foresee, I will be astonished but I will admit my mistake; can we count on you to do the same if you're wrong?
Sure -- why not? I mean, this argument is not about my pride or need to be correct. Although I am a France-loving, arugula-eating, hope'n'change leftist, I want my country to, you know, succeed and all that. Why would I not want to recognize and learn from Obama's inevitable mistakes, even if I anticipate that they will be far fewer than his successes?

(12-29-2009 04:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]In the interim I will support him as strongly as I am sure you supported Shrub.

Needless to say, I was never much of a fan of W's domestic policies, but, for what's it's worth, I supported his foreign policies... for a bit. Gave them a chance, you might say. After a while, they started not looking so good. I think my own evolution on the matter (again, for what it's worth) mirrored a lot of Americans' views, judging from the old polling data I was just looking at.
Actually, I don't really buy in to this criticism that Obama will make us into France or Sweden. I don't think it will be nearly that good. I'd take France or Sweden in a heartbeat over where I think we are headed--more like Zimbabwe. I'd plead guilty if you accused me of being a France-lover, but I simply don't buy what Obama is selling. If he were selling France, I'd be much more inclined to buy--and I do know the difference.

Legally I owe certain duties to the office of the presidency, and on top of that I respect the office, so I will perform those duties and responsibilities that are due to the office. I have no respect or admiration for Obama--he'll have to earn that, and so far he's doing an extremely poor job of it. He strikes me as a lying, unprincipled Chicago street hustler who's trying to put the fix on this country, if not the world. He told a bunch of lies to a country that wanted to believe him to get elected; now he's having to figure out how to make lies come true. I give him an F-minus so far.
Sorry about the calendar thing. I was doing three things at once, and I am NOT a good multi-tasker. I should have waited and taken more time in my response.

My impression of falling approval rating abroad is not based on polls, but on reports i have heard on TV/radio/print over the months. It does make sense to me that falling approval ratings at home probably reflect similar changes abroad. (In truth, I think falling approvals at home coupled with rising approval abroad would be alarming). I have no doubt that many people, here and abroad, have been disappointed in Obama's sending of troops to Afghanistan, his Nobel acceptance speech, his lack of progress on Iran nuclear program, his slowness in withdrawing troops from Iraq, and many other actions/nonacations. We still have three americans captive in Iran, and others captive by al-qaeda. Not everyone who is displeased with him is on the right. A lot of his support in November 2008 came from people who believed (key word from the initial post) he would do things differently. But in any case, whether his detractors, left or right, are disappointed because of what he has done or what he hasn't done, they are disappointed. I, too would be glad to see something more recent than 7-23-09 - I think that whatever levels he had then, in almost all areas of the world, will have dropped. If you find something, post it. Whether it confirms or denies your position or mine, post it if you find it.

He was elected on hopes. Every time he breaks a promise, fails to achieve, or continues to ignore, he loses support. I see no reason to assume that the loss of support stops at the border. I also see no reason to suppose the trend will change without a foreign policy coup - and as of now, I don't see where that will come from. Maybe if he convinces Iran to abandon their nuclear program and open up to verifible inspections without giving up hundreds of billions of goodies a la N. Korea, that would do it. That would impress me. Reading nice speeches well won't.
(12-29-2009 04:05 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]I wrote, and you quoted, "A vast majority (100% minus epsilon) on this board disapproves of his foreign policy efforts." I mean that almost everyone except me (the "epsilon") hanging out in The Quad disapproves of Obama's foreign policy.
The fact that this small handful is more perceptive than the public at large is hardly blameworthy.

(12-29-2009 04:05 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If not, is it better to just go on what we believe must be true, even if we lack evidence?
Interesting question, especially since the core of modern liberalism is the exaltation of belief over results.
(12-31-2009 11:19 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-29-2009 04:05 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If not, is it better to just go on what we believe must be true, even if we lack evidence?
Interesting question, especially since the core of modern liberalism is the exaltation of belief over results.

Interesting assessment ... in that such politically conservative groups as global warming non-believers and evolution foes exalt their personal or religious beliefs over virtually unanimous scientific results/evidence.

I suspect that zealots from any part of the political spectrum -- rather than liberals or conservatives -- would be proud to be considered 'true believers' in their causes.
I think I agree with Mike here. The exaltation of belief over results is one trademark of extremists at both ends of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, we have traded in an extremist in one direction for an extremist in a different direction (not really what I would call opposite directions, since there are a lot of common points to both of them, like rapid growth of federal government power and expense, albeit in different directions). Unfortunately we did not stop at the center, did not pass GO, and definitely did not collect any money (we just owe more and more).

We could use a good centrist in power right now. Unfortunately that is not what we have, nor do there really appear any decent prospects of having one any time soon. Best we can hope for is that 2010 elections gridlock things until we come to our senses.
(01-04-2010 01:29 AM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-31-2009 11:19 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-29-2009 04:05 PM)Boston Owl Wrote: [ -> ]If not, is it better to just go on what we believe must be true, even if we lack evidence?
Interesting question, especially since the core of modern liberalism is the exaltation of belief over results.

Interesting assessment ... in that such politically conservative groups as global warming non-believers and evolution foes exalt their personal or religious beliefs over virtually unanimous scientific results/evidence.

I suspect that zealots from any part of the political spectrum -- rather than liberals or conservatives -- would be proud to be considered 'true believers' in their causes.
There is still a distinction, though. I think it is fairly easy to distinguish Luddite, anti-science "conservatives" from the kind of conservatism espoused on this forum: that free exchange generally does more harm than good (because empiricaly that's the case, and the converse is empirically false); that danger is best deterred by strength (ditto); that people respond to actual incentives (ditto); and that power cannot be relied on to be virtuous (ditto).
In contrast, it has struck me all my adult life that a consistent trademark of virtually all current strands of leftist politics is the rejection of all of the above -- i.e. the exaltation of belief (gosh, wouldn't it be cool if people acted they way I really, really, really believe they should -- and I bet that this time they will) over experience (people don't act that way).
(01-04-2010 01:29 AM)Almadenmike Wrote: [ -> ]global warming non-believers


Speaking of true believers, I don't like to lumped in one big melting pot and castigated because I do not join the Al Gore panic parade.

I do believe we are undergoing global warming, I just don't believe the man-caused portion is the prime mover or even a major portion of the causation, and I don't think efforts by humans even if we could include China and India would be sufficient to reverse the process, Not to say we should not make reasonable efforts to mitigate and slow the process, but in the long run, the Earth will warm.

The Earth has had many cooling and warming periods before. Ice Ages, interglaciations, glaciations and a host of other SCIENTIFIC evidence supports this. I believe we are entering into another such change period, somewhat accelerated by auto emissions, etc., but not to the tipping point.

Why the big panic now? Simple. $$$$. In the past, when we had warming and the sea level rose, humans just moved their camps back from the shore 100 feet. They changed their hunting grounds, changed their crops or moved. Now, we have permanent buildings and expensive facilities in our ports, and expensive homes along the coast. Difficult and expensive to move. People with wealth have political power.

We need to adjust to Mother Earth, not try to force her to adjust to us. There has never been a steady state, but now that is the goal - to force climate to stay the same as it has been in recent times.

I think my viewpoints are reasonable viewpoints, and I should not be dismissed as a "global warming unbeliever" (read "nutjob") as though there was no basis for my opinions, just an unrelenting desire to oppose.

While we're at it, I feel the same way about the phrase "anti-immigrant".
I am descended partially from immigrants, and partially from others who were here before there was a USA but just happened to have their land sold/annexed/conquered. But I know the difference between legal and illegal immigration in the year 2010, and I don't think that it is right to lump anybody who wants controls on illegal immigrants as anti-immigrant.

There is a common thread. Both "global warning unbelievers" and "anti-immigrant" labels usually come from the left. I think it is a handy propaganda tool to discredit legitimate discussion, a way of shouting down opposition before the first word is spoken. Not aiming this at you personally, Mike. This kind of propanganda by labeling comes from high places. From the right, I think it is equally wrong to lump all people with environmental corcerns under the label "environmental whackos" or all people who are pro-abortion as "baby killers". These big umbrella labels do not serve to further discussion.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's