Eventually, we will all hate Obama too

Started by Grand_Moff_Gav16 pages

Eventually, we will all hate Obama too

An interesting little article this one:

It amuses me that some of those who criticise the present US Administration for its Manichaeism - its division of the world into good and evil - themselves allocate all past badness to Bush and all prospective goodness to Obama. As the ever-improving myth has it, on the morning of September 12, 2001, George W. and America enjoyed the sympathy of the world. This comradeship was destroyed, in a uniquely cavalier (or should we say cowboyish) fashion, through the belligerence, the carelessness, the ideological fixity and the rapacity of that amorphous and useful category of American flawed thinker, the neoconservative. They just threw it away.

But there isn't anything that can't be fixed with a sprinkling of genuine fairy dust. What Bush lost, Obama can find. Where the Texan swaggered, the Chicagoan can glide. Emotional literacy will replace flat iteration, persuasion will supplant force as the preferred means of achieving what needs to be achieved, empathy will trump narcissism. Those who hate America may find their antipathy waning, those who were alarmed by unilateralism will warm to softer, moral leadership. A new dawn will break, will it not?

Some on the Left are getting their count-me-outs in already, realising that Mr Obama is, after all, a big-game hunter, a full-trousered American candidate. They, I think, are more realistic than those who manage on one day to laud the Democrat as not being a real politician, and on the next to praise him for his sensible left-trimming when seeking the party's nomination and his equally sensible centre-hugging once it was in the bag. I say the antis are more realistic because, eventually, we will hate or ridicule Mr Obama too - provided, of course, that he is elected and serves two full terms.

George W.Bush, of course, represents a particular kind of offence to European sensibilities. He blew out Kyoto, instead of pretending to care about it and then not implementing it, which is what our hypocrisies require. He took no exquisite pains to make us feel consulted. He invaded Iraq in the name of freedom and then somehow allowed torturers to photograph each other in the fallen dictator's house of tortures. He is not going to run Franklin Roosevelt a close race for nomination as the second greatest president of the US. But even if he had been a half-Chinese ballet-loving Francophone, he would have been hated by some who should have loved him, for there isn't an American president since Eisenhower who hasn't ended up, at some point or other, being depicted by the world's cartoonists as a cowboy astride a phallic missile. It happened to Bill Clinton when he bombed Iraq; it will happen to Mr Obama when his reinforced forces in Afghanistan or Pakistan mistake a meeting of tribal elders for an unwise gathering of Taleban and al-Qaeda. Then the new president (or, if McCain, the old president) will be the target of that mandarin Anglo-French conceit that our superior colonialism somehow gives us the standing to critique the Yank's naive and inferior imperialism.

Often those who express their tiresome anti-Americanism will suggest, as do some of the more disingenuous anti-Zionists with regard to anti-Semitism - that they, of course, are not anti-American, and that no one really is. But, coming as I do from an Anti-American tradition that wasn't afraid to proclaim itself, I think I know where the corpses are interred. For example, the current production of Bernstein's Candide at the English National Opera is a classic of elite anti-Americanism, in which we are invited to laugh at the philistine invocation of “Democracy, the American Way and McDonald's”. The laughter that accompanied this feeble satire showed our proper understanding that we, the audience, had a proper concept of democracy, and would never soil ourselves with an Egg McMuffin.

The true irony went way above the sniggerers' heads, which was that Leonard Bernstein was the American cultural import that we were, at that very moment, enjoying. But the prejudice is that American culture has had a negative influence on the world, tabloidising our journalism, subverting the gentle land of Ealing with the violent pleasures of Die Hard 10 and commercialising our most intimate lives. And so we have ever complained; my father, back in the early Fifties, once wrote an entire communist pamphlet about the terrible effect of Hollywood and jazz on the land of Shakespeare and Elgar.

This week you could hear the author Andrew O'Hagan on Radio 4, reading from his collection of self-conscious essays, The Atlantic Ocean, in which - despite his own claims - every impact of American life on Britain is somehow configured negatively. He writes of an exported popular culture “born in the suburbs of America” and defined as “Spite as entertainment. Shouting as argument. Dysfunction as normality. Desires as rights. Shopping as democracy.” This in the country that has sent Big Brother, Pop Idol, Wife Swap and Location, Location, Location over the Atlantic in the other direction, while taking delivery of Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Wire.

I should admit that I am irked by O'Hagan's dismissal of the “idiots who supported that bad and stupid war (ie, Iraq)” and am willing to match my idiocy against his intelligence in any debating forum that he cares to name. More interesting, though, is the desire to blame America. For all that O'Hagan claims that the US has lost its purchase on the world's affections, it remains the chosen destination for the most ambitious of the planet's migrants. For all that he claims that this change in sentiment is recent, I can't help recalling those - the most honest - who commented, in journals he writes for and on the very day after September 11, that the Americans had had it coming.

In part I think that anti-Americanism is linked to a view of change as decline. The imagination is that dynamic capitalism, associated with the US, is destroying our authentic lives, with our own partly willing connivance. It is a continuing and - at the moment - constant narrative, uniting left and right conservatives, which will usually take in the 19th- century radical journalist William Cobbett (conveniently shorn of his anti-Semitism), and end with an expression of disgust over the Dome, the Olympics or Tesco. Just as bird flu is a disease from out of the East, runaway modernity is a scourge originating to the West.

So Barack Obama, en fête around the world, will one day learn that there is no magical cure for the envy of others. What makes America the indispensable power (and even more indispensable in the era of the new China), is precisely what makes anti-Americanism inevitable.

What are your thoughts?

(Article found here.)

Re: Eventually, we will all hate Obama too

If elected, his popularity will wan to and fro, depending on his policies and the state of the U.S./world, just like any president. But not everybody will hate him at any given time, that is nonsense.

There are still people who firmly believe GW is saving us form the "evil-doers" and he alone is keeping America standing. As the greasy fat warden said in 'Cool Hand Luke', "some people, you just can't reach."

Edit: Decent article overall though.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308

Obama to take 2,500 dollars from each American citizen to give to the U.N.

BUT HE WONT RAISE TAXES!

Kid Rock,

"He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid"

Knee-jerk reaction, I say"**** that", but how much are we currently spending on foreign aid?

I do find it funny that a staunch Bush/war supporter such as yourself is crying over potentially losing $2,500.00 over a thirteen year period (aka $192.33 per year), when you don't bother asking how much it will cost you when it comes time to pay for the $600 billion and currently rising war bill and the cost that will continue to incure after it's over.

Bush was a retard, that's why thinking people hate him and America. Obama is your more common American president, a big speaker and a poser, although not really got much going upstairs. I admit, I don't like him as much as I used to, but I still favoured him over most candidates, because I believe he will make America and the world a better place...for a while.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kid Rock,

"He said the legislation, if approved, dedicates 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product to foreign aid"

Knee-jerk reaction, I say"**** that", but how much are we currently spending on foreign aid?

I do find it funny that a staunch Bush/war supporter such as yourself is crying over potentially losing $2,500.00 over a thirteen year period (aka $192.33 per year), when you don't bother asking how much it will cost you when it comes time to pay for the $600 billion and currently rising war bill and the cost that will continue to incure after it's over.

The point was Obama claims he will try to help out the lower classes and hides behind his shield of lowering taxes for the poor while raising taxes for the rich..yet they dont know about programs such as this that he is pushing that will take money out of the pockets of all Americans. And for what? The U.N? One of the most useless organizations ever created?

By the way I am not too concerned about the cost of the war in Iraq since it consists of 5% of our entire debt..there are more important things to worry about im sure.

What are the programs Obama is pushing? I'm asking because you obviously have a list in front of you along with their costs.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bush was a retard, that's why thinking people hate him and America. Obama is your more common American president, a big speaker and a poser, although not really got much going upstairs. I admit, I don't like him as much as I used to, but I still favoured him over most candidates, because I believe he will make America and the world a better place...for a while.

Anti-Americanism predates Bush, but he sure as hell didn't help the problem. I'm a fan of internationals things, and I still don't have a clue what the exact origin of Anti-Americanism is.

Why is he a poser?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is he a poser?

Because he doesn't hold his nuts when he talks and speaks proper English.

Obviously, he's not really black. He's a poser.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Anti-Americanism predates Bush, but he sure as hell didn't help the problem. I'm a fan of internationals things, and I still don't have a clue what the exact origin of Anti-Americanism is.

Why is he a poser?

Probably the apparent complete ignorance to world geography, as a whole. It's the fact that 85% of Americans don't own a passport, yet their votes mean so much to world affairs, it understandably annoys people.

Americans are what they are.

Intersting article, I have no real opinion to voice.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
as a whole. It's the fact that 85% of Americans don't own a passport, yet their votes mean so much to world affairs,

Is that true though?

Everyone knows that "the popular vote" really doesn't mean shit when it comes to elections. The people who's votes actually decide who becomes President and whether or not we go to war, etc. makes up a pretty small percentage of the Countries population. Our (Common people) biggest contribution really seems to be public donations and such.

And off-topic.... what is the actual point of having super delegates?

Maybe GW IS just like Batman.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Because he doesn't hold his nuts when he talks

He can't because Jesse Jackson cut them off.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Probably the apparent complete ignorance to world geography, as a whole. It's the fact that 85% of Americans don't own a passport, yet their votes mean so much to world affairs, it understandably annoys people.

So if every American buys a passport tomorrow, peope around the world will stop burning our flags? I don't think so.

It's gotta go further back, and be something a little more important than whether every American can find Lithuania on a map.

It's not that hard to understand imo. Our foreign policy sucks. We have a habit of constantly sticking our noses into everyone and everything business for our own gains, under the guise of "We're doing it for freedom", and we've been that way throughout our entire history as a nation. I think it's hilarious that we spend hundreds of years poking around in other peoples countries and stuff, then WWII comes around and "freedom" as we know it is threatened and suddenly we're neutral. 😂

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
It's not that hard to understand imo. Our foreign policy sucks. We have a habit of constantly sticking our noses into everyone and everything business for our own gains, under the guise of "We're doing it for freedom", and we've been that way throughout our entire history as a nation. I think it's hilarious that we spend hundreds of years poking around in other peoples countries and stuff, then WWII comes around and "freedom" as we know it is threatened and suddenly we're neutral. 😂

French citizens were waving American flags as our tanks were rolling through their towns. 60 years later they don't like us: what happened?

You were a convenience, live with it.

You were also fighting in a war way into it's later stages, with an enormous death count. Then, for some strange reason, you expected France to fight Iraq and Afghanistan with you, for no real reason apart form the formidable 'axis of evil'. I wish the UK had reacted the same way as France did, but as a country, we're a sucker for power.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen

You were also fighting in a war way into it's later stages, with an enormous death count.

Right on. We didn't get involved in the War until it was specifically within our interests to do so. "**** our allies for 2 years. Our harbor gets attacked? It's on now!"

I can see why other countries hate us so much... but again the hatred should be aimed at our Governmen and it's shitty foreign policy, not the citzens themselves. As I said earlier we really don't play as big a role in the elections of our own leaders as everyone pretends we do.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You were a convenience, live with it.

You were also fighting in a war way into it's later stages, with an enormous death count. Then, for some strange reason, you expected France to fight Iraq and Afghanistan with you, for no real reason apart form the formidable 'axis of evil'. I wish the UK had reacted the same way as France did, but as a country, we're a sucker for power.

No one expects France to fight. I wish the UK would've too, instead of helping in a war that never should've happened.

But Anti-Americanism was around long before the 2003 invasion.