RE: Why I Don't Support Barack Obama

I don't think we'll change the world on ABCtales, but we can write about it. If you feel so strongly, why don't you do a Macjoyce: The day I woke to find I was an American, or whatever.

The BBC drama about the Chewdors (as it is usually pronounced) is a reminder of how recently we in the UK loved to torture as we killed. In a few hundred years the Yanks will have grown out of it.

First, let me say that I am a lifelong American, born and raised in the south. (And I know what you may be thinking. Although I have little southern accent, I am educated and well read, and I think for myself!) I realize that stereotypes abound, but allow me to offer another perspective. Americans can be a surprisingly diverse group (of around 300 million), you can't paint us all with the same brush.

Most Americans are actually against torture (including myself). Period. Also, as far as people burning our flag, that would not be particularly upsetting. Americans generally respect the right to free speech and differing opinions. We are a varied nation of often contrasting views. Within this country, there are good old boys, Neo-Nazis, Jews, Hispanics, religious fundamentalists, African-Americans, independents, hundreds of different ethnicities, 'conspiracy theorists', intellectuals, environmentalists, etc. Somehow, for the most part, we all live and let live.

In the U.S., there is also a large segment of thoughtful, humanitarian minded individuals that are interested in 'true' (not pseudo) liberty and democracy, and the betterment of all peoples. Unfortunately, however, the government often does not reflect the good intention of decent individuals. There is a vast and growing segment of the population that is very displeased with our leadership. And that's putting it mildly. I did not authorize the Iraq War, or torture, or reckless practices of greedy banks, or anti-Russian sentiment, or subversion of civil rights. Actually, I'm disgusted by it! Many Americans are as well!

'My' government seems to have its own agenda, which many question the intentions of. The American government may seem to 'represent the people', but this is often not the case. The government, just like most, is corrupt, profit seeking, manipulative, and does not accurately represent the views of everyone under its banner.

As far as Presidential candidate Obama, much of the reason he is popular is because he is supposed to represent opposition to all the aforementioned. This remains to be seen, although it does point to the fact that Americans are unhappy with current leadership. Many in this country are even more rightly critical of our own government than foreign nations with harsh objections.

Hopefully this perspective will open some minds. As an American, I am not proud of this country's recent actions. Please realize there is more beyond the surface appearance of things. I am optimistic that thoughtful people throughout the world can push for human rights, business with a conscience, reduced aggression and hostility, and more open discussion.

Alan, I don't dispute a single thing you say. Of course there are 'good' Americans, if I may put it like that, just as there are 'good' Chinese or Iraquis or Zimbabweans. The problem isn't individual Americans, it's American culture, society and politics, none of which the rest of the world finds at all appealing, to put it mildly.

You hate torture. That doesn't mean there's any less of it going on. My open mind reduces it not one jot either. You might hate Guantanamo Bay. It's still there, despite your goodness and my open mind. You might despise the patriot act, but it still exists and still has the same obscene name. You might detest ugly faith-healing shows, but they still go on. You might well be able to hold your head high as an individual, but as an American? Best keep that quiet.

"The problem isn't individual Americans, it's American culture, society and politics, none of which the rest of the world finds at all appealing, to put it mildly."

I don't think this is really true. Millions of people (possibly billions) around the world enjoy many aspects of American culture - films, music, TV shows, clothes, food etc.

I'd also say that the society and politics is a mixed bag. America wouldn't be my first choice of country to live in but it certainly wouldn't be my last and - in terms of their actions in the wider world - America is clearly imperfect but it's long way from being the most negative force in global politics.

"You hate torture. That doesn't mean there's any less of it going on."

Well, the fact that many American people don't support torture probably does reduce the extent to which it's carried out. Democratic pressure from elected politicians and voters does have an effect. As does a free press. The US has these things while many countries don't and the ensure that the actions of the US government are heavily debated and scrutinized.

I oppose the policies of the Bush administration as much as the next person in Europe but I don't think it helps anyone to resort to hyperbolic anti-Americanism which fails to distinguish between the US and other regimes which are much, much worse.

buk, I agree with most of what you say too. Certainly I'd choose to live in America in preference to many countries in the world. I'd choose to live in a country that had a health service, clean drinking water, where most people have a home and get enough to eat. Who wouldn't?

I enjoy Hollywood films too. I think you might be on dodgy ground with the clothing, but then a lot of British clothing is manufactured in Asian sweatshops too, so we'll call that one a draw. But would you consider it okay for your neighbour to be a child molester so long as he occasionally baked you a cake? Your examples are trivial in comparison to the real issues.

I'd like to know who you think is a worse influence in global politics. There are any number of countries whose internal politics is a child's garden of diseases, but few who are so proud of their diseases, and few indeed, if any, who have a worse impact on global politics. Perhaps you can name one?

"Your examples are trivial in comparison to the real issues."

The examples of culture are pretty big examples of culture.

"There are any number of countries whose internal politics is a child's garden of diseases, but few who are so proud of their diseases, and few indeed, if any, who have a worse impact on global politics."

There's a number of major European countries with similarly or more corrupt political systems. France and Italy to name two.

I'm not how you judge whether they're proud of it. The Italians are proud enough of corruption trials that get 'timed out' and allowing a bloke to be prime minister while controlling 80% of TV output to avoid changing the conditions that allow these things to happen.

In terms of US impact on world politics, my point was that they're not the worst regime in the world.

The list of regimes that have done very bad stuff in the years since the US became the world's only superpower is quite long: Serbia, the Taliban, Russia, Indonesia, Sudan...

The US has a big impact because it's a superpower which these countries aren't (Russia may be again soon).

I don't equate culture to the output of the leisure and entertainment industries. They reflect the culture of a country, but they aren't in themselves the culture. Maybe we have differing understandings of the meaning of the word?

Certainly France and Italy have corrupt political systems. We can agree totally on that one.

Yes, we can (probably) add the Taliban to the list of bad guys, although they aren't exactly a country. But then maybe we should add Mustafa Kemal to our list of historical bad guys, since what he succeeded in doing in Turkey is not so different from what the Taliban would (probably) like to do in Afghanistan. I'm not convinced that even the Taliban knows exactly what the Taliban wants. Half the time it seems they're just fighting for the same reason the IRA kept bombing all those years - because that's what you do.

Not so long ago, when we had an empire and treated the world as our property, we could have put ourselves on the list too. We had problems that couldn't have been fixed (and weren't fixed) simply by electing a new prime minister. Not so long from now we could be having a similar discussion about China.

My original point was simply that there's a lot about America that needs fixing, and that will not be fixed simply by electing a new president. If we can agree that too, I think our work here is done. We can call a press conference, shake hands, sign the documents, smile for the cameras...

This weekend I look forward to having more time to post a more specific response. I do think this is a good dialogue we're having, and I'm enjoying taking part in an intelligent international discussion!

"You might well be able to hold your head high as an individual, but as an American? Best keep that quiet."
FTSE, am I supposed to keep quiet, as an American? If that's what you're implying, I beg to differ. If anything, internal skepticism, political/social pressure, and free speech would be effective ways to change the unappealing philosophies and practices of 'my' American government. I'm certainly encouraging other Americans to think carefully about these issues, and to vote based on the urgent change that many here view as imperative. (Many U.S. citizens would agree, by the way, that the country has been hijacked by neo-conservative, fear mongering, control obsessed tyrants!)

As far as culture.. Yes, I agree with many of the points raised. Like I stated before, America is extremely diverse. I'm not proud of many aspects of that culture, e.g. rampant materialism, violent entertainment, arrogance, an often myopic point of view, etc. Although I do feel my individual comments have some impact.. as Buk alluded to. Individuals are the foundation of a collective society, and so change in that society has to start somewhere.

So, FTSE, I won't be keeping quiet as an individual, as an American, or as a human being on this planet. None of us, especially with thought out opinions to offer, should keep quiet. Intelligent dialogue can be an effective catalyst for positive change. I wouldn't ask a Brit to keep quiet because of the 'blood on his hands' from past imperialist conquests, etc. No entity is innocent or perfect. That goes for individuals as well as groups of individuals, nations, governments, etc. To see the error of our ways, and to strive towards a more civil and humanitarian transformation is essential.

what I love is how much you people bitch and moan about american society and rant against americans in general. What the fuck do you want us to do? you don't actually adress politicians themselves, who are responsible for america's foreign and political image. i'm not exactly super excited about our policies, but it is up to our politicians to come up with solutions for our nation. I mean we can vote against it but unless we follow into politics we honestly have no real say. and then you go on to contradict us by saying that individual americans should "keep quiet"? Every reason you give is a slew of contradictions. I'm sure u can come up with a witty remark, but I'm sure I can find a way to prove that you really know no more than any other foreigner. perhaps you yourself should stick to judging and offering advice in your own country. in hindsight, your opinion on this matter doesn't mean jack.

Seeing as you're too young to vote Mike, your opinion also doesn't mean jack.
Craig

mikepyro - To attempt a serious answer rather than a 'witty remark', it's the assumption that it's just an 'image problem' that is at the heart of the matter. The world sees what America actually does.

Also, I did not at any time say that Americans should keep quiet. That might be what you wish I'd said, since it would be a stupid remark and easy to attack, but it isn't what I actually did say. Look again.

The idea that America can keep on as before and make everything okay by PR is exactly the attitude that will prevent any change.

FTSE might overstate his case, but in the fundamentals he isn't far from the truth.

moimo, I realize my opinion doesn't matter, but when someone asserts themselves as an expert in such matters, especially if they don't live in the country they adress, while spouting out stereotypes of americans who freak when we see a flag burned, has just as small a chance of actually changing anything as an underage american. Its not that I disagree with FTSE's remarks, I actually would try and validte his points, I just feel that the overall negativity sent towards my country and its people is uncalled for in this type of discussion.(actually i'll be old enough to vote come election day, so when you think about it...)

It seems to be you frothing at the mouth here, Mike. If you have any serious point to make, why don't you make it?

Nothing that is said here will change the world, it probably won't even change opinions, but sometimes adults like to discuss these things.

There is no sense in banging on about Americans and America as if the people of the US were homogeneous and the country some kind of unique symbol of the abuse of power. Negativity towards to Americans as a whole is nothing but racism, it doesn't matter what one thinks of US foreign policy. I happen to find the state of Israel fairly detestable, but if I took that as an excuse to cast generalised abuse at Jewish people I would quite rightly be excoriated for anti-Semitism.
America - that portion of North America called the USA - has given the world a great many worthy thinkers and artists. I would make special mention of Thoreau (he of Walden);F. Scott Fitzgerald; Steinbeck; Murray Bookchin; Noam Chomsky; Howard Zinn, but this list reflects purely my own interests and is by no means even the tiniest fraction of the American contribution to the world of ideas. One should probably also mention Malcolm X and BPP members turned anarchists like Lawrence Ervin Komboa. The history of America is rich with struggles for freedom (cf Howard Zinn) and anyone who equates Americans with reaction just because they've heard of the CIA and have read about George W. Bush betrays nothing less than their own sad ignorance.
Of course, none of that means anti-Americanism won't happen. Anyone who is English and has had a few Welsh or Scottish friends will know that distancing oneself from the state of one's homeland is rather harder than just saying "look, what the English Crown did to the Welsh it did to the English first!"

Nobody here has been making rascist remarks, nor has anybody denied the existence of good and worthy Americans. You are tilting at windmills.

FTSE: "You might well be able to hold your head high as an individual, but as an American? Best keep that quiet."

FTSE, If you read your own comment, I think you can realize how it's reasonable to deduce that you were saying Americans should keep quiet about being Americans. If that is not what you meant, you may want to word things more carefully. I definitely took it the way Mike did, and I offered a response. Note: I don't think any discussion with the mentality of 'us against them' is productive. I am as self critical as I am 'other critical'. We all must look in the mirror before looking outwards, I feel.

Moimo: "Seeing as you're too young to vote Mike, your opinion also doesn't mean jack."

Moimo, I think your comment is a bit ignorant. Are you assuming that because someone is not of voting age, that their opinions are useless? If anything, I think we should encourage the younger generation to know what's going on, and to begin to form thoughtful opinions. I would be more critical if someone advocated that all 'minors' did no thinking on these matters, and then when they became of age, only then took a crash course in politics, etc. Additionally, Mike's comment was relevant and significant.

Stefano: "It seems to be you frothing at the mouth here, Mike. If you have any serious point to make, why don't you make it?"

Additionally, if you read Mike's comment (aside from his not so tactful way of articulating it), you will understand that he does make a 'serious point'. He is saying that Americans can no more control the specific policies set forth by politicians than they can bring an abrupt end to 'our' governments malicious actions that we disagree with. A vote only goes so far.. And, of course, there are certain counter-measures that collectively can be taken; but overwhelmingly, the policies of the many are set by a few. This is one of my many criticisms of the process itself.

I'm not defending Mike as one American to another. My allegiance lies not within nationalist identities, boundaries, etc. My allegiance is to truth. I will put forth what I think is an accurate, informed, reasonable, truthful perspective.. and I will defend against arguments that counter such a perspective.

A closer look at ourselves, first and foremost, is in order. After this, let us move outwards to address pertinent issues, right what wrongs we can, and encourage independent, critical thought/comments/discussion.

I'm not tilting at anything thanks Stefano, just making a point that I thought might be interesting.

On a different point, that's twice you've said that we're not going to change the world on ABCTales. Well, here's the news, we already have changed the world; to paraphrase Zhou Enlai, it may just be too soon to know how. It seems to me that your comment is intended to diminish the importance of debates like this one, but listen, we're just shooting the breeze here, sharing ideas; sometimes it's trivial, sometimes it's flippant, and sometimes just running over things in amicable company is a really good thing for a writer to do.

"Moimo, I think your comment is a bit ignorant. Are you assuming that because someone is not of voting age, that their opinions are useless? If anything, I think we should encourage the younger generation to know what's going on, and to begin to form thoughtful opinions. I would be more critical if someone advocated that all 'minors' did no thinking on these matters, and then when they became of age, only then took a crash course in politics, etc. Additionally, Mike's comment was relevant and significant."

Alan,it's called sarcasm or did you not read Mike's comment about anyone outside America's opinion not meaning jack.
While Mike can be excused because of his young age, comments like 'nobody outside America's opinion means jack' smacks of arrogance. Not only because the US spends so much time sticking their noses into the rest of the world's affairs but also because whoever leads the most powerful country in the world is everyones business.

Oh and Alan, assuming that you know what I mean is ignorant, assuming you can't do anything about policies is defeatist, maybe you need a bit of solidarity.

Craig

Oh and Mike, if you're going to be old enough to vote come November then you've got the wrong birth year on your user profile cause if you were born in 1991 you sure as hell aint gonna be 18 in 2008.
Craig

Look, I never said or meant that anyone's opinion outside of america means jack, just as I hope moimo didn't mean that anyone under the voting age has no real say. I'm trying to point out, because quie frankly I'm sick and tired of seeing it, all these people outside of America so convinced that everyone should follow their plans for leading our govenment. I have nothing against anyone living in the UK, in fact I've had conversations and become aquainted with many people on this site.

and yes I do agree that america sticks its nose in other peoples business, but sometimes its because we actually want to help or feel its neccessary. not every action of our gov is pure profitmaking(though I admit most of it is). I seem to remember last time our country chose not to get involved, two world wars erupted that eventually reached our borders. many american leaders, through their pigheadedness, think that every small arms conflict will egnite into an inferno that will threaten to engulf our country. thus we reach out with what we believe to be goodness but is really just blind ignorance.

it's been our policy for nearly 100 years, do you really expect us to change on the dot?

we simply need better leaders. nothing will change if we send one boob out only to bring another boob in. but to perpetuate a negative stereotype about american citizens, our youngsters, or even to assert yourself as a planmaker for a gov you take no part in, I believe to be just plain ignorant.

theres a difference between having an intelligent discussion between adults and starting every line of your opinion with "americans need to" or "americans should".

Mike my comment was jesting at your comment before hand. Though I would say it would be dangerous to rely on a school education alone to get a view on politics, I don't know about in america but in the UK they tend to rosy it all up a bit, talk about how great the empire was without looking at the shit was done.
They also tend to skip the fact working-class men were on the frontline making rich people richer, yet the rich people take all the credit in history.
I'm certainly not anti-USA, there's good and bad in everyone.
I may be wrong but I was under the impression America didn't get involved in World War 1 and entered World War 2 late was because after winning independence they let Europe deal with their own problems, the new World and all that. They didn't stop anyone who wanted to assist however, I may be wrong but that's how I understand it.
Craig

"I may be wrong but I was under the impression America didn't get involved in World War 1 and entered World War 2 late was because after winning independence they let Europe deal with their own problems, the new World and all that."

You may want to read up on that one. The USA entered WW1 in 1917, the Allies won a few months later.

The question of what the US should or shouldn't have done in the inter-war years is many books worth of discussion but Mike is essentially right to point out that in the case of both world wars, America didn't start them and did play a significant role in finishing them at Europe's request.

It’s funny, we can't help doing it – the British continually rib the French about having had to bail them out of two world wars, and the Americans do the same to us.

I think the USA’s motives for joining WWI were pretty altruistic, the ties were possibly stronger back then with all the recent immigration from Europe. Also an American ship got sunk by a U-Boat somewhere along the line, I think, which contributed to their decision.

Americans didn’t get anything for their trouble, however, and the US public felt quite bitter about it afterwards – it had been a particularly brutal and stupid war. I’m not surprised the Americans were less than keen to go down that road again in 1939. Neither were the British, for that matter, hence ‘appeasement.’

So the US stuck to their guns (ho, ho) and didn’t join WWII – until Pearl Harbour. Japan was an Axis power. When Japan and the USA went to war in 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA – the US had to join in. Which is just as well for us or we would have lost to the Nazis for sure. Then again, if the British hadn’t held out until that point, the Americans would have had all three axis powers, unimpeded by a war in Europe, fighting against her.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

I love the way this thread has evolved. If someone could carve it, it would make a fabulous sculpture.

Did you know Lou2 that GB (Great Britain, funny hey?) finished paying off lease-lend earlier this year? Quite altruistic that, 65 years of debt.

Yes indeed, we were screwed by lend-lease. But lend-lease was a WWII arrangement. I wasn't attributing altruistic motives to the US's involvement in WWII, just WWI.

Btw, I've just realised, I've followed another historical habit and missed out Russia from the equation.

If Hitler hadn't been nuts enough to invade Russia and the Russians hadn't held out as well as they did, it could have all ended differently. With the Cold War that followed, popular history took to glossing over Russia's contribution. Which is a shame as I believe the Russians suffered the greatest number of casualties out of all the allies.

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Hey Lou, that's a chair you owe me; I broke the one I had falling off it when I read the word "altruistic" in the same sentence as "USA's motives". :)
I'm not going to launch into a detailed examination of Woodrow Wilson's war aims, nor a systematic critique of Anglo-American liberalism; suffice it to say that if I did then the phrases "paper thin", "tissue of lies", "convenient propaganda" and "complete bollocks" would feature quite prominently.

*passes new, sturdy chair to Kropotkin*

Okay, ‘altruistic’ was pushing it, no doubt. I was trying to make a distinction between the two wars in that ordinary Americans had more to lose and less to gain by aiding Britain in WWI than they did in WWII. They fought even though their country wasn’t under physical threat and many of the American veterans who made it home from WWI ended up broke and unemployed. Whatever the mixed motives were for joining WWI, in WWII their involvement was forced upon them, so the attitude that ‘the US cavalry rode in and saved your arses again,’ irks me more on the subject of WWII than WWI.

(this subject is playing havoc with my Caps Lock)

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Like I said Buk, I may be wrong, that was just my understanding of the late intervention by the US.
I've learnt something new though, never realised the US got involved in World War 1.
Craig

I see your point Lou. And thanks for the virtual chair - you would not believe the collection of wobbly seats I have to put up with here..... I got to get me something sturdier if I'm going to talk US foreign policy on the web!

There are powerfully consistent threads running through US foreign policy since independence. This is the most important point for me in this debate. Identifying these common threads makes the differences between individual presidents seem much less important than mass media events like election campaigns might suggest that they are. So for some examples: The Monroe Doctrine (that the US has exclusive rights to intervene in the Western Hemisphere); "free trade" which means open access for US capital to other people's economies whilst the US remains as protectionist as it likes; the Open Door in China (and all the rest of East Asia - which means pretty much the same as above); anti-communism in several doctrines (which essentially means that no country can create any kind of nationalist or socialist experiment that might limit the access of US capital - see earlier examples); anti-imperialism (which means opposition to previously existing European colonial empires which stood in the way of, yes, you guessed it, US capital.)

Finally, I am not playing some kind of blame game here. Long running themes can of course also be identified in British or say French foreign policy; this is what nation states do. The crucial thing is that the nation state tends to endure whereas individual politicians of whatever stripe do not. The US is special because it has been a new kind of global empire; far surpassing even the British Empire in its heyday in terms of raw power and influence. Perhaps now we are entering the most dangerous phase of American imperial history: its decline.... whether it will make much difference if its President Obama or President Mcain, I'm not all that sure.

the US entered near the end of the war, but what our gov focused on was that even when we tried to remain neutral the war reached us in some way. thus it figured we had no choice but to send our men in. it developed into a major factor of our domestic policy.

this of course was when war truly was moreso a way of preserving freedom and peace, rather then a loosly streched alibi resembling a quest for peace under which layers of deceit and hidden agendas brew.

I think kropot has a great point. maybe america finally is hitting its slide down into a less powerful nation.

Yes, ‘over-stretch’ is a possibility. It’s been the reason for many an empire’s downfall.

What Mike said, that ‘even when we tried to remain neutral the war reached us in some way,’ reminded me of something…

“The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire”

Okay, so there's a certain logic to that view considering what we’ve been talking about, but… it comes from the statement of principles of the Project for the New American Century (Cheney & Rumsfeld’s lobby group, started in 1997) and here’s how it continues:

“Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

Scary, huh?

P.s. I notice their site hasn’t been updated since Iraq’s gone tits-up, here’s hoping they’ve changed their minds…

p.p.s. Sorry, Kropot, reading ‘Reaganite policy’ alongside ‘moral clarity’ should spell doom for your remaining furniture…

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

p.p.p.s... btw, it was the blatant, 'saying it out loud' aspect of the above that I found most alarming. You get used to Realpolitik going on behind the scenes, but when I heard about the Project I didn't expect to find a public website listing their aims. It smacked of the evangelical - an absolute conviction that they were right... virtuous, even. And that's truly scary...

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Just a random thought in case anybody wants to pick it up - if the current credit crisis develops into a real world recession, rather than just a technical one, we could see a change in the world order far sooner than anybody thinks.

Isn't it extraordinary? I have been banging on about the odious behaviour of banks since 1970. My argument has always been that 'competition' between banks is at best a nonsense and that the only way to a stable and well run capitalist economy is with a nationalised State Bank.

That was regarded as socialist extremism for 38 years.

And now? It looks as if that's what we'll end up with.

So on to my next 'crazy' proposition. I think it's time that we nationalised land.

"Commanding heights of the economy" eh Tony? I also finally left the Labour Party when they ditched Clause 4 and took on Smith instead of Gould.
Here's 3 problems for you to consider:
1) There is a profound difference between nationalisation and socialism - even the wording of Clause 4 - "common ownership" - is redolent with the more socialist formulation and that was written by that arch Fabian Sydney Webb.
2)Government does not work, has never worked and will never work except in the interests of the ruling/owning class. In other words: choose your kind of state & choose your kind of elite; bankers or apparatchiks.
3)What are we doing discussing this in a thread that was about Barak Obama and all that? ;-)

All threads are global these days. A change in topic in one could lead to the collapse of all the rest.

Don't worry, the government is pledged to assist any shaky forums. Contributors' words will be fully secured up to a maximum of ten pronouns. Just don't post from Iceland.