Comments on: Building Bridges http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:42:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8123 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:47:26 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8123 The strangest thing about the "Obama will improve our standing in the world" is that it simply projects onto Obama whatever it is that the person saying this thinks needs to be changed about our foreign relations, and then assumes that an Obama administration will then govern according to the projection that the observer has made and thus improve relations with other countries. This is the very complex theory of international relations that says, "If I like my President and what he represents to me, the rest of the world will feel the same." I was trying to allude to the absurdity of Castaneda's remarks, but I think I was not blunt enough here. Obviously, the idea that a black President *improves* our relations with most governments around the world takes no account of the attitudes of the nations involved. Of course, I agree that a move away from exceptionalism would be most desirable, but Obama does not really depart from that tradition--he simply reformulates this same bad habit in a different way. The strangest thing about the “Obama will improve our standing in the world” is that it simply projects onto Obama whatever it is that the person saying this thinks needs to be changed about our foreign relations, and then assumes that an Obama administration will then govern according to the projection that the observer has made and thus improve relations with other countries. This is the very complex theory of international relations that says, “If I like my President and what he represents to me, the rest of the world will feel the same.” I was trying to allude to the absurdity of Castaneda’s remarks, but I think I was not blunt enough here. Obviously, the idea that a black President *improves* our relations with most governments around the world takes no account of the attitudes of the nations involved. Of course, I agree that a move away from exceptionalism would be most desirable, but Obama does not really depart from that tradition–he simply reformulates this same bad habit in a different way.

]]> by: empiricus http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8121 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 18:31:46 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8121 Black Sea - I agree with pretty much all of what you say - and I agree that these various sorts of cabinet level affirmative action schemes are ridiculous. On the other hand, a president who didn't have so damned (expletive retained) much American exceptionalism in his neorcortex (or amygdala in GWB's case) would be a big improvement (I really don't care about the veins; one of many reasons why I'd never be a paleo) . In that regard (Bill) Clinton strikes me as rather better than average, with Eisenhower probably the other best postwar pres. GWB in regard to exceptionalism as in so many other ways appears to represent the all time low of the Republic; any other nominations? Wilson comes to mind as probably the leading contender. To nitpick a couple of points, of course Ahhnuld is constitutionally unable to be elected, and some parts of the Constitution still sort of matter. And re Mexico, one might note that their presidents/dictators seem to be getting whiter on average: Benito Juarez was of course full blooded Indio, and a few of the other post-Reform presidents were pretty dark too (e.g. Huerta). But the only one I can think of in the last 50 years who looked decidedly non-European was Diaz Ordaz. Black Sea -

I agree with pretty much all of what you say - and I agree that these various sorts of cabinet level affirmative action schemes are ridiculous. On the other hand, a president who didn’t have so damned (expletive retained) much American exceptionalism in his neorcortex (or amygdala in GWB’s case) would be a big improvement (I really don’t care about the veins; one of many reasons why I’d never be a paleo) . In that regard (Bill) Clinton strikes me as rather better than average, with Eisenhower probably the other best postwar pres. GWB in regard to exceptionalism as in so many other ways appears to represent the all time low of the Republic; any other nominations? Wilson comes to mind as probably the leading contender.

To nitpick a couple of points, of course Ahhnuld is constitutionally unable to be elected, and some parts of the Constitution still sort of matter.

And re Mexico, one might note that their presidents/dictators seem to be getting whiter on average: Benito Juarez was of course full blooded Indio, and a few of the other post-Reform presidents were pretty dark too (e.g. Huerta). But the only one I can think of in the last 50 years who looked decidedly non-European was Diaz Ordaz.

]]> by: black sea http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8117 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:08:05 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8117 The comments of Cohen, Ignatieff, and Jorge Castenda represent the typlcally brainless, politics-as-blood-mysticism school of governance. One might as well argue that George W. Bush has the Executive Office in his veins. In additon to "41," Bush's mother Barbara is a member of the Pierce family, which spawned Franklin Pierce. So as you see, George W. has "greatness" in his veins! On both sides! The only problem is that, despite the bloodlines, he's a disaster. Why not nominate Schwarzenegger so as to rebuild our bridges with European allies, or Bobby Jindal, Lousiana's Indian-American governor, to signal to the rising Asian economies our openess to investment and trade? Or maybe we could appoint an utterly undistinguished Hispanic judge to the position of Attorney General in order to send the message that . . . oh wait, never mind. This sort of approach doesn't even rise to the level of thought, and yet it seems to be a staple of the NY Times Editorial Board, which explains a good deal. By the way, in Cohen's piece, former Mexican foreign minister Castenada is quoted as saying, “My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.” So, when, exactly, did Mexico last elect a president who "looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico"? Felipe Calderon? Vincente Fox? Gee, from the shores of Mexico, the world must look a whiter shade of pale. The comments of Cohen, Ignatieff, and Jorge Castenda represent the typlcally brainless, politics-as-blood-mysticism school of governance. One might as well argue that George W. Bush has the Executive Office in his veins. In additon to “41,” Bush’s mother Barbara is a member of the Pierce family, which spawned Franklin Pierce. So as you see, George W. has “greatness” in his veins! On both sides!

The only problem is that, despite the bloodlines, he’s a disaster.

Why not nominate Schwarzenegger so as to rebuild our bridges with European allies, or Bobby Jindal, Lousiana’s Indian-American governor, to signal to the rising Asian economies our openess to investment and trade? Or maybe we could appoint an utterly undistinguished Hispanic judge to the position of Attorney General in order to send the message that . . . oh wait, never mind.

This sort of approach doesn’t even rise to the level of thought, and yet it seems to be a staple of the NY Times Editorial Board, which explains a good deal.

By the way, in Cohen’s piece, former Mexican foreign minister Castenada is quoted as saying, “My sense is the symbolism in Mexico of a dark-skinned American president would be enormous. We’ve got female leaders now in Latin America — in Chile, in Argentina. But the idea of a U.S. leader who looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico is revolutionary.”

So, when, exactly, did Mexico last elect a president who “looks the way the world looks as seen from Mexico”?

Felipe Calderon? Vincente Fox? Gee, from the shores of Mexico, the world must look a whiter shade of pale.

]]> by: DaveZ http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8116 Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:43:00 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/11/15/building-bridges/#comment-8116 It should be noted that Ignatieff is usually also wrong about matters inside Canada's borders. Actually, Ignatieff ought to know better than most how being a "globalized leader" can be a major political liability. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal party, one of the main criticisms he faced was that he had spent the last 20 years out of the country and didn't seem to have much attachment to Canada. In response to questions as to why he returned to Canada, his answer was to say that while the U.S. is a nice country to live in, Canada has gay marriage, so he thought he'd come back and run for prime minister. Not even Canadian liberals could stomach Ignatieff's sappy internationalism, and he lost the leadership to an even worse candidate. If Ignatieff's example has any relevance for Obama, then one assumes things will not go well for him. It should be noted that Ignatieff is usually also wrong about matters inside Canada’s borders. Actually, Ignatieff ought to know better than most how being a “globalized leader” can be a major political liability. When he ran for the leadership of the Liberal party, one of the main criticisms he faced was that he had spent the last 20 years out of the country and didn’t seem to have much attachment to Canada. In response to questions as to why he returned to Canada, his answer was to say that while the U.S. is a nice country to live in, Canada has gay marriage, so he thought he’d come back and run for prime minister. Not even Canadian liberals could stomach Ignatieff’s sappy internationalism, and he lost the leadership to an even worse candidate. If Ignatieff’s example has any relevance for Obama, then one assumes things will not go well for him.

]]>