November 20, 2008 |  22 comments |  Print this Article | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Jesse  Schwartz

America: New Beginnings, an Old Idea

Jesse Schwartz: The 2008 election evinces the timeless notion of America as more than a place - “At its best, it is an idea.” Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to the White House substantiates this conviction. Moreover, it seems to confirm that the Atlantic Ocean may not be as wide as it was just four years ago.

Nicholas Kristof recently extolled America as "more than a place. At its best, it is an idea." Following the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the zenith of American politics, this aphorism has never rung more true.

As a child, the American Revolution enchanted me. In the woods behind my home in New York I found relics from soldiers who had camped there. Their plight as a hopelessly outnumbered underdog fighting to attain the axiom that "all men are created equal" was an overwhelmingly romantic notion to me. It still is. Born in the same year that the government of Grenada was overthrown by my own, it soon became glaringly evident to me that if all men are created equal, they certainly aren't treated as such.

In college I received a liberal arts education. As the cliché goes, the classics hardly prepare young people for the "real world." Perhaps my laboratory, then, has been my experiences throughout Europe.

I first came to the Continent to study in the early days of 2004. There was something that intrigued me about the panoply of cultures, peoples, and languages living side by side - when only sixty years earlier they had done everything imaginable to annihilate one another. Meeting dozens of people from an assortment of European nations, who for the most part shared a common belief that war is a detriment to the advancement of humanity - the odd revolution or two aside - was something that I could relate to in both my sentiments and studies.

While I was visiting Madrid, the bombs of March 11th ripped through Atocha and resounded through the countryside. The popular sentiment, though at no point pro Iraq war, immediately shifted towards Zapatero and the PSOE's more placatory platform. Then the Abu Ghraib scandal hit the papers, and the people took to the streets in fulmination. In London, where I was living, the disgust was palpable.

Across the pond, the laboratory was producing different results. Upon returning to the US the contrast could not have been more astounding. New Jersey's native son, Bruce Springsteen, had come out with an album chiding the Iraq War and the Bush administration. I was disheartened to see the alacrity with which my college roommates, especially those from NJ, took to burning (yes, burning) all (yes, all) of his albums in spite of their Jersey pride and lifelong affinity for "The Boss." This stark disparity between American and European perceptions of the legitimate use of force is something I found astonishing.

Permit me to step back for a moment. These are obviously gross generalizations of two vast and varied continents. Of course not all Europeans abhor war and not all Americans are truculent barbarians (over three hundred and fifty thousand people gathered in New York City to protest in the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq). But in democracies, at least to a greater extent than in other forms of governance, the government is representative of the will of the people – especially as seen in the rebuke of Aznar’s Partido Popular at the hands of the Spanish people on March 14, 2004.

No election in recent US history was as polarizing as 2004's. 2008 pales in comparison. Essentially a referendum on Bush/Cheney foreign policy, the resulting Republican victory at a tight two-percent margin split the nation and served as vindication for their pugnacious, neoconservative worldview. If it were Europeans that had voted in that election, the outcome would have undoubtedly been a landslide for Democrats.

I returned to Europe for much of the remaining Bush years. Not surprisingly, anti-American attitudes hadn't changed since I left. If anything, they had calcified. I took up residence in the Czech Republic, Switzerland and now Germany. Throughout, I encountered the same sentiment. There simply was no way to excuse a nation that had re-elected G.W. Bush. I more or less began to treat this as a given, a principle unto itself. I'd introduce myself as American. "But I'm from New York and I voted for the other guy," I would almost reactively proclaim. I wasn't ashamed to be American; I just didn't feel the need to be associated with the abominable hypocrisy of the Bush administration, and I was too enervated from the outcome to explain Rovian fear tactics.   

I realize this may have become a hackneyed statement by this point but on November 4, 2008 everything changed. Accompanied by over thirteen hundred people, I locked myself away in a 1920's theater in Berlin. From 10:30pm to 6:30 the following morning, my perceptions of America and its relationship with the world were forever transformed, almost in lockstep with the results that were trickling in from the US. I knew Obama was a fan favorite; after all, I was at the Democrats Abroad party.

Never could I have fathomed what I would see inside, though. As Obama's electoral vote count rose, so did the ebullience. Excitement soon gave way to pure euphoria. This was to be expected, especially from the Americans. But then I saw tears streaming down the face of grown men from Zambia, a fourteen year old girl from Berlin and her mother, Germans, Americans, Irish, white, black, old, young, everyone. The catharsis was overwhelming.
 
America the idea, that ineffable concept, was pouring from people's eyes. This confluence of historic moments had produced something I had never thought possible from my experiences of the past five years. Cheers. Cheers for America. Cheers for the American flag. Uproarious Cheers when Obama told the world, "God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America." Cheers for all things American. And above all Cheers for the idea that is America.
 
Jesse Schwartz is a graduate student at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, and an Editor at Atlantic-Community.org

Related materials from the Atlantic Community:

  • 15
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Marek  Swierczynski

November 20, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
A return of the Great American Dream, an excellent job for the 44th president indeed. But a hard work as well, because the substance of that dream has changed and will have to change further. In this respect any comparison with JFK is a wrong one, the American Dream of the 1960's is not what we feel will be the American Dream of the 2010's. And it better not be. On this side of the Atlantic, in Europe, we need to think about what is the European Dream of the 2010's as well. We prided ourselves and hailed the West for preventing a war on the Old Continent for more than 50 years, for creating systems and institutions unprecedented in human history in their scale and scope - the EU. But this is not enough to provide a European Dream that would match the American one. And I do not think we have "our Obama" to help us out.
Tags: | European Dream |
 
Rob  Steer

November 20, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
It could be argued that Obama won the election by offering a new 21st century version of the American dream, so far from his predecessor GWB as to reinvigorate and provide a stimulus to American society.

This not only attracted younger demographics to register, it also empowered them to believe that that their vote mattered in effecting a change to the political environment in which they were to grow up.

The energy and europhia will only go so far, however, as the problems facing in the incoming Obama presidency include, to list but a few, shoring up failing economic institutions, reducing American reliance on imported energy sources, turning around a failing automotive sector, dealing with conflicts an Iraq & Afghanistan as well as opening relations wtih Iran & North Korea.

Obama has much to do and decisive action is required. He can not solve all America's problems on his own but he no doubt is in a much better position to ask Europe for a helping hand as long as he considers them to be equal partners in solving many of the problems facing the world today.

Hopefully, this will see the end of the freedom fries era of diplomacy and we can all our go back to understanding and enjoying the differing elements and characerisitcs of countries, drawing on the best that each have to offer to tackle future challenges that no doubt effect us all.
 
Kiriti  Rambhatla

November 20, 2008

  • 5
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
As far as Obama's election for the post of President goes, it is really the great american dream come true.

But , what would follow in the future is of importance. More than anyone else, Obama needs to prove that it was OBAMA that made people vote for him but not as any "random" who would replace GWB.

Lot more to come and it has just begun.
 
Christia  Flourentzou

November 20, 2008

  • 4
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?


The election of Barack Obama acted as an energiser on the US society. It has allowed hope to return as it reflects the great progress the US is capapble of; from the adoption of the thirtheenth amendement to the US consitution in 1865 , to the civil rights movement, to the election of the first black US President. This creates the environment where hope, trust and belief in change can flourish. The road ahead is not an easy one. The state of the economy questions US economic hegemony, the situation in Iraq and Afhanistan question the moral status of the US as the world's hegemon. But Obama stands the best chance to set things straight because he gives back to America its title of a noble nation worthy of its title as the leader of the free world, a title that has been doubted under the Bush years. He stands for the American Dream even if this dream has to be re defined to meet the demands of the 21st century. Through the election of Obama America can be once more defined as the nation where everything is possible; even when the task is to overcome the turmoil the US currently finds itself into.

 
Member deleted

November 20, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Management theory devides between charismatic and other kind of social leaders. Mr. President appears to be capable of both, charismatic leading and excellent knowledge on scientifical skills.
Also, reducing the news-storm there is a striking fact: Firstly, Mr. President - elect unifies three religions, thus Judaism, Christianity and Islam within the borders of his family, and secondly he unifies ethnic backgrounds.
And for the first and foremost, against this background, he is a living testimony for the final lines of the inscription at the Statue Of Liberty that reads:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
 
Member deleted

November 21, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The Obama craze is quite logical and to be expected, especially after a president such as George W. Bush. Yet Obama now faces the task to live up to expectations of millions and these expectations are, to say the least, very high indeed. People from across the world project their hopes into him - Americans, Africans, Europeans, Asians, the euphoria is intoxicating. And though I am very glad Obama won, there are I believe two things one must keep in mind.

Firstly, from a national point of view, Obama will be taking over a country which has suffered from years of bad management; this manifests itself most prominently in the present state of the economy. My fear is that Obama can only do so much; it is possible that people will not realise the state within which he must operate and, in time, will begin blaming him when things go contrary to their plans. Imagine one would were to inherit a car-wreck: repairing it to a mint condition takes time, effort and a lot of money. The same story will be with the economy and with other things the Bush administration has botched up.

Secondly, from an international point of view, Obama, despite his African roots and cosmopolitan outlook, is first and foremost the president of the United States of AMERICA. And this is important. He will be chiefly promoting American interests and looking out for America. Though these interests might coincide with the interests of many other nations, they will never outweigh the American ones.

These two points have not yet manifested themselves because Obama has still not assumed office. No one can blame him for anything (yet), only pin their hopes on him. My only worry is that he might become the victim of his own success.
 
Marta  Osojnik

November 21, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I strongly agree with Mr. Swierczynski where in his comment he argues that we, so called Europeans, don’t have a 'European Obama' who would help us out in pursuing a European Dream.

Though, let me ask, what IS a European Dream?

If American dream is based on equality and possibility of free choice of all citizens of the USA then European Dream, originating from postmodern values and ideals, should be all that and more. But is it? Since EC/EU was based on pretty different grounds than USA, we can imagine a direct comparison of those two is not really possible neither, dare I say, desired. In the spotlight of recent events according the Lisbon Treaty, there is a part of 'Europeans' that doesn't even want to be 'European'. Now, can we pursue a dream if we can't even agree on what that dream should be? But still, no matter Bush’s political failure, it is very popular to make comparisons with America in Europe. Why?

Apart from a lot of things, I believe one of the most important or obvious reasons, if you want, is that America has what Europe doesn't - a common goal, a common interest, a common citizenship. USA has exactly what 'Europe' lacks but fights against in the same breath. We were able to read above in Jesse Schwartz's article that 'America was pouring from people's eyes' when Obama won, we could ‘hear’ him cheer to American flag, now I'm asking you - how many times have you felt that enthusiasm in Europe? How many times in your (nation) state, for that matter (because we have for sure felt it a lot of times before recent Obama’s victory in the States)?

Not many, I am answering myself. Yes, it might be true that we need a new European Obama soon, but let me ask you: Weren't there enough of them in European history already? My point here is that wherever 'Europe' is going, it will have to articulate its dream much clearer and put effort into convincing people that a citizenship (of EU in this case) should never be a barrier or any kind of personal disadvantage but connecting and if you want ‘American’ like instead.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

November 21, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I guess one fundamental value that Europe does not respect as much as America is freedom and integrity of their respective citizens - a value that constitutes democracy in my view. We do not have our European Obama, because we were never allowed to vote for him or her. Even oue European Congress, ie. the European Parliament, the o n l y democratic institution of the EU (elected across the whole EU) is bound to national lists of candidates. I am not particularily convinced that MEP's should be selected like that. In fact, the political internationals have in a way stolen the European Parliament from us voters. Let alone the executive Commission or the rotating presidency of the EU Council. They are never elected and never publicly accountable. I am not sure the Lisbon Treaty has anything to do with being European or pursuing the European Dream, if we're so far from defining it. What it did not provide hohever was any option for promoting democratization of the european institutions and the way it was dealt with after Ireland is a joke at democracy.
Tags: | european democracy |
 
Member deleted

November 22, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
The real world is always very difficult. Far more dificult for any sane person to imagine and may put forth a serious challenge to the very ideas of civility and civilization; modernity and progress and nearly every argument that one hears within the then so-called "liberal world" against other arguments for organized collective living - or what one calls society and suitably passed around as techincally sophisticated sounding term often abused - ideology!
The real world of the United States' reality in countries as far off as India are determined by its various christian fanatical affiliates - the Baptist Church in India comes forth as a clear example, after the Roman Catholic Church. The membership of the Baptist Church, amongst other churches, etc. are very predictably non-Aryan (such terms still make sense to many in the US and perhaps other fringe-fanatical groups elsewhere) and tribal. Not a coincidence. The war against terror by the United States is a sham. It never was there except as a pretext for a war against the Aryan race. Sounds particularly unpalatable and polemical? It is a reality experienced first hand by me. Such religious and christian orientations of the United States immediately puts into question the very notions of a modern world and the fear the US often puts forth for certain Islamist profile that is known as the "Tafriq". However, christian tafriqs and muslim tafriqs and hindu tafriqs and jewish tafriqs or Buddhist tafriqs would and should mean the same for every democratic and modern force in the world. The preference of christain or jewish over hindu or Buddhist or Muslim does present a challenge to the United States to explain, since an Osama Bin Laden has been largely a US creation than any one else. My works on specialization on combating International Terrorism has drawn and continues to draw the ire of many with such United States' patronages and one begins to see why they should feel so threatened as to engineer the murder of a distinguished officer of the Indian army (reserves) and attempt a similar exercise with an erstwhile seargent (the writer under that distingusihed officer, after the writer made the enormous mistake of opting to work on Combating International Terrorism for his pre-doctoral thesis or what is also called as a Master of Philosophy, in India) of the same division of the Indian army, under that officer of the India army.
This unexplicable exercise carried on covertly by the same religious US representations in India has been on for the last four years, and on the Indian soil. Such far-fetched exercses, in consultation with criminals makes one look askance at the United States of America as even a state, leave alone a state that is committed to fight terrorism. Certain works that are commended elsewhere for direct contributions to works upon terrorism like The Trojan Horse: Inside Terror, Part -I: The Labyrinths and available at www.authortree.com/kraftnetz are seen as direct threats by the United States and its various and rather strange allied forces (crime-terror nexus) in such distant parts of the world.
Barack Hussien Obama's ascension and public statement to fight Osama Bin Laden makes one fear, should he be serious, that he may go the way of JFK, within the United States and by these forces of the United States. While third world states like India can be arm-twisted by religious forces in its near-status to the Phillipines under particular regimes, the patronization of the United States of religious forces or rather its visiting card in such parts of the world being what they are, one wonders about the very real issues of the very real rivalry between religious nationalism and liberal democracy as the basis for international order and the real status of the United States of America in its real role as noted here.
Obviously a confusion exists between notions of the United States of America as a "free country" and the reality of the United States of America as the harbinger of medieval ideas of crusades as well as misplaced war against the 'Aryan' world - should someone educate Washington upon the number of states that form the Aryan world globally. One shares the dismay with Prof. Samuel P. Huntington over the eagerness with which his academic work is sought to be turned into a book of prophecies by Nostradamus, perhaps! Such eagerness and sources of world-views and the attempted engineering of global politics over such directions makes Mr. Barack Hussien Obama either a windbag like his those in Washington who have overseen such a generation of data and first hand experiences or ensures his tenure as very interesting. Either terrorism is an engineered drama by the United States perhaps bored stiff of a world without violence and gore, or it comes as an obvious horror!
The issue remains to be seen if Europe too partakes of the luxury that the United States in India sem to be having - of the elimination of people daring to contribute to araes over combating international terrorism! Welcome to the reality, Mr. Barack Hussien Obama!
Tags: | images | rhetoric | reality | modernity | US | religion |
 
Eamon  O'Riordan

November 22, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?

I do agree with Ms. Osojnik where she highlights the need for the EU to better articultate its 'European Dream' or at least better articulate where Europe is going and what this means for citizens.

The EU, not being a nation state with one polity, will always find it difficult to convince sceptics of the existence of a common goal or a common dream but there must be now a concerted effort to try and get across the successes of the EU and also highlight the necessity for its quasi-citizenry of a strong Europe that can work with the US as an equal.

If we take the issue of climate change we can see how the EU can be a world leader on global governance and a champion of policies that are to the benefit of all Europeans both from an economic, social and environmental perspective. Indeed climate change policy is the international challenge that most requires a common EU goal, a way forward that all in the EU subscribe to and believe in. The EU has not been very good at championing its successes to the people while many media outlets are quick to slip-ups that play on the pereption of an over-beurocratic policy-making process.

Mr. Swierczynski mentions the lack of public accountabilty in the EU and many do worry about a democratic deficit on the EU institutions. I would highight the importance of the European Parliament and its committees in the EU policy process as being a very successful institution but one that again fails to highlight its sucessess. The rotating president of the European Council may not be voted on by all of the EU but he/she is directly accountable to an electorate at home. The Council of Ministers that meet regularly are again of course directly accountable to their respective electorates. The legislative process in the EU allows each of the institutions to have an input and follows a relatively transparent process. Again, the communication and public relations work could be improved on. From an Irish perspective I wonder about the value to smaller nation in the EU of having a directly elected president for instance. The candidate would only need the votes of citizens of some of the larger nations to be successful rendering the votes and issues of citizens of smaller nations meaningless.

There are certainly tough challenges facing the EU at present. The defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland must not be misinterpreted as a vote against the EU project per se. The result was as much about misinformation from one side and a lack of quality communication from the other. We have seen Barack Obama talk intelligently during his campaign on a wide range of policy issues but it was his ability to speak to people's hearts that really won the day for him and that impresses those of us looking at his successful campaign from afar. Contrasting this with the Lisbon Treaty campaign in Ireland and we are reminded of what Vaclav Havel, the great writer, philosopher and ex-president of the Czech republic said on reading the Maastricht Treaty in 1994: "My reason has been spoken to but not my heart". We know that the EU has helped us to grow economically and that politically it has brought unprecedented stability to 'old' Europe and it makes sense to keep the process moving forward but perhaps we need to define what the EU means apart from the day to day policy making and legislative processes. Simply calling for a more democratic EU misses the first and most critical point of providing a context for voting in the first place by speaking to people's hearts as well as to their reason, and so moving towards creating a European polity. There is a long road ahead.





 
Donald  Stadler

November 22, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I'm afraid that the expecttions are too high for Obama. I actually voted for him for three reasons:

- Of two flawed men he clearly was the better choice.
- Because the Republican Party was clearly unfit to hold power in the upcoming period, and the Democrats need to have their chance.

My third reason was more nebulous. I see the world moving into a new era when the old verities of the Atlantic Alliance are less useful than they were even 20 years ago. Obama is a more global figure than McCain was, he appeals to people in Africa, the Middle East, and even Latin America, to Muslims as well as Christians. Will he be a uniter? I don't know that, but he has the potential to be less divisive than Bush was.

What gives me pause is the wave of enthusiasm I see. Enthusiasm is nice, but let's try to keep a handle on it. Obama hasn't actually done that much in his life, and nothing which gives us any clue on whether he'll be a good President or not. That is not intended as a criticism - I'm not sure that one can predict how good ANY Presidental candidate will be in the job. If Hoover with his vast experience in management, economcs, and diplomacy can fail utterly and Abraham Lincoln (who barely left the borders of Illinois for many years) can succeed, that tells us that our powers of prediction are severely circumscribed.

What scares me a little is that the expectations being put onto this man are so high, and that he seems to be encouraging these expectations - perhaps to an unwise degree. This smells of hubris....
 
John  Hadjisky

November 23, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"the resulting [2004] Republican victory at a tight two-percent margin split the nation and served as vindication for their pugnacious, neoconservative worldview."

I think the first part is a misread. The 2000 vote, in which no-one got a majority of the popular vote, split the nation. The 2002 mid-terms, and 2004 vote (in which Bush was able to make further gains in Congress) marked the emergence of a modest mandate in favor of the neo-conservative platform. This mandate did not last very long.

In contrast, the Obama campaign was very heavy on symbolism, and very light on positive substance. About the only real substance that links Obama's earlier career, his primary campaign, and the general election, was negative, i.e. repeal this or that neoconservative initiative or position. I like to think of it this way: Bush is a neoconservative. Obama is only nominally a liberal, what he really is (so far), is an Obamist. In that respect, his philosophy reminds me a bit of the French tradition of naming the governing philosophy after the leader (for example, Gaullism or Chiracism).

Another oddity in your remarks: Bush's 50.7% victory in 2004 split the nation, but Obama's 52.7% victory represents unity? I think you're getting carried away.

"took to burning (yes, burning) all (yes, all) of his albums"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something tells me if someone were to burn an American flag, during time of war, you wouldn't find it nearly as significant as burning Springsteen albums. As Mr. Spock would say, fascinating.

"There was something that intrigued me about the panoply of cultures, peoples, and languages living side by side - when only sixty years earlier they had done everything imaginable to annihilate one another."

In 2004, war was 60 years in the past but until 1991 Europe was only minutes away from a nuclear holocaust. Many people had a hand in ending that intolerable situation; perhaps the three people most responsible are Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Mikhail Gorbachev. Of those, one of them won the Nobel prize; bizarrely, Europe hated the other two with a passion that had to be seen to be believed. You are too young to know this; but I can say from first hand knowledge that the hate was every bit as intense as the feelings you describe about George Bush. Europe (with exceptions, naturally) still hasn't forgiven these two "outsiders", Reagan and Thatcher, for helping them find a way to live together, side by side as you say.

There is nothing new or original about Europe's attitudes during the Bush administration. In fact, these attitudes are more typical and "normal" for Europe than is the current euphoria over Obama. And like the sense of solidarity that prevailed for a decent interval after 9/11, the current euphoria will not last.

Nevertheless, if Obama is able to use this period of good will to accomplish something meaningful in the area of US-Europe relations, he will deserve credit for that. He should start with Afghanistan.
Tags: | reagan | Thatcher | Obama |
 
Petra Maria Gramer

November 24, 2008

  • 2
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Talking about European euphoria for Obama, it was definitely interesting to note that people (e.g. during Obama's speech in Berlin) cheered him in spite of Obama actually telling them that he will demand Europe to make more sacrifices with regard to the fight against terrorism. Having in mind the protests of many Europeans against the US (and against their own administrations) for having "dragged" them into the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and hence having increased the (perceived) probability of terrorist attacks, it really astonished me how a moderate language of a man being able to fill others with enthusiasm can make people forget (at least for a short period of time) about the meaning behind the words.

It will take a long time to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (if they can ever be ended). And now, with the financial crisis, there has occured another serious problem that will have effects also on the relationship between the US and developing countries/ newly industrialising countries. Although Obama has meanwhile backpedalled from his plans to reconsider NAFTA, there are clearly protectionist tunes when he talks about wanting to help those Americans that are threatened by the global economy. With the EU (that likes itself to be seen as a normative and hence good power) already contributing to the destruction of bases of life through CAP, an increasing protectionism by the US will be yet another disappointment especially for those people that have set hopes in Obama.

Some have already commented here on the gap between expectations and reality. What I hope for is that everybody will calm down a bit (something Obama himself has already asked for) and take the opportunity to negotiate matter-of-factly with an intelligent man open for dialogue.
 
Eamon  O'Riordan

November 25, 2008

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?


Whatever about the 'euphoria' surrounding the election of Barack Obama it does seem to me that he is more of a realist than and idealogue as many of the Bush administration have been and he will resist pushing through any 'liberal agenda' that may or may not appear in the offing. This is to be welcomed in the context of the financial and security challenges facing the US but also for Europe and the EU. Now is the time for a leader who listens to all sides and takes advice on what is the most suitable way forward in these policy areas rather than someone who is motivated by an ideological vision in the way the Bush adminstration has been or similarly in the case of Thatcher in Britain in the 1980s

I would like to make one brief point in relation to the Mr Hadjisky's comments. It is true that current European attitiudes to the US can be compared to previous eras. It is also true that Reagan and Thatcher were not the most popular in Europe even though they influenced the great changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s. With regard to Thatcher however there were many reasons for this and it is not helpful to rate attitudes to Thatcher simply on one event or series of events. There were many policies in the Unitied Kingdom and Northern Ireland as well as towards the EU which have resulted in mixed feelings on her legacy amongst many.

One other thing that must be said about European reaction to Obama is that the nations of Europe have yet to my mind to elect as their leader anyone from a significant minority. We would do well in Europe to remember this when we talk about American civil rights or racisms issues again. The US has come full circle whereas we in Europe are a long way off electing someone from a minority group as head of one of our nation states. In this the US must be applauded. Though nothing should be overstated It has indeed shown its great capacity to change as a nation and has shown the way for the nations of Europe and the EU.
 
Unregistered User

November 25, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In the spotlight of American elections in his recent interview at Brookings Institute Bernard Kouchner emphasized how important it is for the EU to build on transatlantic partnership and encouraged EU and USA to work together. He mentioned unity and initiative as two main contributing factors that EU can bring to the partnership.

I clearly agree with Mr. Kouchner when it comes down to contemplating Euro-Atlantic partnership in the future but in the same time I simply feel that a lot of Europeans are doubting that EU has appropriate foundations to develop into (even) stronger Union that would in fact be able to represent a fair partner in that particular partnership.

And since even Kouchner mentions unity as a precondition for such partnership to work, I wanted to discuss two things with you: the unity itself and support of those who are actually a part of EU.

In my opinion European unity nowadays is not such an abstraction that it may seem so often. Only hundred and fifty years ago EU as such seemed to be unthinkable - even though already then some politicians and philosophers were speaking of Europe being joint and united in present day’s ways. Victor Hugo e.g. said in his speech in Paris in 1851: ‘A day will come when your weapons will fall from your hands, a day when war will seem absurd and be as impossible between Paris and London, St. Petersburg and Berlin, Vienna and Turin, as today it would seem impossible between Rouen and Amiens, Boston and Philadelphia'.

However, a lot more than weapons falling from people hands had to happen before ‘Europe’ got united in such way.

Today, when we have actually reached the ideals of those who were enthusiastic about making grounds for united Europe, when war between Germany and France, France and Italy, Italy and Spain, etc…is practically unthinkable, we still do not think of ourselves as ‘united’. EU has higher goals now and I don’t claim they are wrong. I am one of those actually, who believes our unity is much stronger than it seems. We maybe don’t share the common language and we don’t share historical memories, but we for sure share the fifty seven years old basis for the first post war supranational structure that was built in the world and we need to show some patience.
So, the problem might not be the European unity as such but attitude towards the EU itself. European Union is not so special only because of its political status, it is special because of the scepsis of the wider political (and apolitical!) public which accompanies its politics and ideals. It has always been stigmatized with the negativism and doubt; every single mistake (of European leaders) is marked with sharp criticism. What would happen if WE, the citizens of European countries, once for a change start looking at ‘Europe’ with optimism, not indulgence, but patience and higher level of tolerance? Would that, after everything we actually gained from it, really be so inconvenient?
Tags: | EU | transatlantic cooperation |
 
Marta  Osojnik

November 25, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
In the spotlight of American elections in his recent interview at Brookings Institute Bernard Kouchner emphasized how important it is for the EU to build on transatlantic partnership and encouraged EU and USA to work together. He mentioned unity and initiative as two main contributing factors that EU can bring to the partnership.

I clearly agree with Mr. Kouchner when it comes down to contemplating Euro-Atlantic partnership in the future but in the same time I simply feel that a lot of Europeans are doubting that EU has appropriate foundations to develop into (even) stronger Union that would in fact be able to represent a fair partner in that particular partnership.

And since even Kouchner mentions unity as a precondition for such partnership to work, I wanted to discuss two things with you: the unity itself and support of those who are actually a part of EU.

In my opinion European unity nowadays is not such an abstraction that it may seem so often. Only hundred and fifty years ago EU as such seemed to be unthinkable - even though already then some politicians and philosophers were speaking of Europe being joint and united in present day’s ways. Victor Hugo e.g. said in his speech in Paris in 1851: ‘A day will come when your weapons will fall from your hands, a day when war will seem absurd and be as impossible between Paris and London, St. Petersburg and Berlin, Vienna and Turin, as today it would seem impossible between Rouen and Amiens, Boston and Philadelphia'.

However, a lot more than weapons falling from people hands had to happen before ‘Europe’ got united in such way.

Today, when we have actually reached the ideals of those who were enthusiastic about making grounds for united Europe, when war between Germany and France, France and Italy, Italy and Spain, etc…is practically unthinkable, we still do not think of ourselves as ‘united’. EU has higher goals now and I don’t claim they are wrong. I am one of those actually, who believes our unity is much stronger than it seems. We maybe don’t share the common language and we don’t share historical memories, but we for sure share the fifty seven years old basis for the first post war supranational structure that was built in the world and we need to show some patience.
So, the problem might not be the European unity as such but attitude towards the EU itself. European Union is not so special only because of its political status, it is special because of the scepsis of the wider political (and apolitical!) public which accompanies its politics and ideals. It has always been stigmatized with the negativism and doubt; every single mistake (of European leaders) is marked with sharp criticism. What would happen if WE, the citizens of European countries, once for a change start looking at ‘Europe’ with optimism, not indulgence, but patience and higher level of tolerance? Would that, after everything we actually gained from it, really be so inconvenient?
Tags: | EU | transatlantic cooperation |
 
Petra Maria Gramer

November 25, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I'd agree with Marta Osojnik regarding her statement that European unity is actually stronger than often perceived. In contrast to her, I would even say that it is the SHARED historic experience that has made people across the continent receptive to values like peace, democracy and respect for human rights. Europeans are particularly sensitive to violations of territorial integrity and national sovereignty, although or especially because these issues are still hot topics in parts of Europe.

However, I think that meanwhile we cannot see European unity apart from ongoing institutionalisation of European integration. The EU has now 27 member states and others want to join. For many, the EU has become a synonym for Europe. Still, there is a permanent tension between European unity and the developement of the EU. The EC/EU has definitely and significantly strengthened unity; on the other hand it has stirred up fears (often taken advantage of by populists) that pose a threat to that unity. Furthermore, it seems to me that the feeling of unity is rather well developed among those who experience the positive aspects of European integration in their daily life, i.e. those who study or work abroad, travel around etc. Or among those who had experienced war and now enjoy (decades of) peace. It is not that distinctive, I think, among those who feel threatened by foreign labour, stricter rules/bureaucracy and so on.

For me, one of the most important aspects of Europe's successful integration process is the willingness and capability to enact social solidarity, within and between member states. In spite of the fears described above and in spite of budget negotiations always being tough, this principle is never abolished. And this is something that makes the EU and Europe very unique in the world.

 
Unregistered User

November 26, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
once for a change start looking at ‘Europe’ with optimism, not indulgence, but patience and higher level of tolerance? Would that, after everything we actually gained from it, really be so inconvenient?

this is the point !!!

um, may-be crisis will make clear that no single state has solutions on its own ; the problem is our leaders,who is able to endorse responsabilities for the whole, since last summer, I haven't seen that they weren't all working for their own state before

 
Donald  Stadler

November 26, 2008

  • 3
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Peceptive comments from both Marta Osojnik and Petra Gramer. The EU is a huge achievement and Europe is unthinkable without it. But.....

I take issue with Petra's somewhat negative characterization of 'populists' who 'take advantage' of people's 'fears'. It could be rephrased just as easily that populists represent interests and passions which are ignored by the governing elites. I think that is the role played by populism in any healthy democracy, the prod from those outside to remind the elites that their fine system has not achieved perfection, and this role applies whether the elite is a scummy batch of money-grubbing Wall Street bankers or a virtuous chorus of EU beaurecrats. Barak Obama owes his election in part to a populist movement called the Netroots, and Reagan and Franklin Roosevelt also owed much to populist movements.

Populism and populists may be expedient, but a system which pays no heed is in danger. Populism is the metaphorical canary in a coal mine, it warns of catastrophe ahead.

My concern about the EU is that it is not architected to listen to or respond to the warnings sounded by populists because fundamentally the EU is an oligarchic body. The national governments who appoint the EU are democratic of course, but they tend to appoint from the same group of people - there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to turn out the existing clowns and elect a new set of clowns. The EU does have a legislature of course, but it is generlly acknowledged that that body doesn't hold very much power within the EU. Being an MEP is largely a sinecure.

The other problem with the design of the EU (and of Europe generlly) is that it is a bit of a navel-gazing society. The US is a major stakeholder in the EU and of course in NATO, but does not have a voice in decisions taken by the EU even though many of these decisions are made possible by services provided by the US. The EU does as it wist and the US is required to go along. This split has definately been recognized on the US for many years, and is a serious annoyance if not a more grave problem for the US. This problem is not generally recognized within the EU, and it appears it will not be. It i not possible for the US to make a loud enough noise to really capture the attention of Europe short of rupture.

Sooner or later, rupture is what you may get....

 
Unregistered User

December 1, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
"Sooner or later, rupture is what you may get...."

it says it here,: well ,EU as it fonctions at the moment has a too administrative definition, the power is diluted in so many anonym atoms that none is effective or just gives blurred solutions. If this is the EU that we' 'll have to keep, then better it fails, and retart states alliances based on projects

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/20/barack-obama-president-...

but also that the US will not be the preeminent power anymore
 
Donald  Stadler

December 1, 2008

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Ah, well, Marie. The poundits are running in packs as they always do, and the theme du jour is US decline.

The UN meets an an aircraft carrier in 2020 - a chinese ship? Or perhaps the 'Charles De Gaulle'? Has the CdeG passed it's acceptance cruise yet?

The US will surely be too feeble by that time to maintain Aircraft Carriers. And a US President writing 'surely we had is coming' in his (or her) diary. Hmmmm. Normally we allow others to tell us that we 'had it coming' - I wonder which 'wise' person will tell India that Mumbai had it coming? Or is that a diplomatic phrase reserved for the US? It may be, I haven't heard it used in other contexts lately.

We will see, The US may well pull back from certain strategic committments which, useful as others may find them (if they even notice) don't really make sense for the US to finance. One suspects that 'they' will notice when the US withdraws it's committment. In the past these things were done as a quid pro quo, but in the last decade it's been converted into 'quid sans quo'. Now perhaps it mutates again - into 'sans quid sans quo'.
 
Unregistered User

September 12, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Hi guys. Anger is never without Reason, but seldom with a good One. Help me! Need information about: Surrounding in the goods, inappropriate monitor features went representing knowing agreements with customers to understand their responsiveness and studies firms in an field to meet form.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.fh-krems.ac.at/Members/Sales/decentralised-sales-force]decentralised sales force[/URL]. In vice opportunities, its memory may replace to be dried to other group sales, and in definitions the chance is defined from the firm typically. This agreed there was a superior agreement single-output who grew about integrations. Best regards :mad:, Storm from Australia.
Tags: | Product sales force |
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?