Good Morning America - A Letter from the Free World
70Good Morning America - a Letter from the Free World
Here is the News. You will soon be electing a new President, the 44th man (as Hilary is out of the race) to hold that greatest office of state. Will it be Obama or McCain? I promise you now, I will mention neither name again in this hub. That is not my purpose in writing.
The Leader of the Free World
This honorary title will inevitably be applied to the eventual winner, if not by the man himself, then certainly by many of his supporters. Grudgingly perhaps, also by some of his opponents. Leaving aside the elusive question of exactly what constitutes the Free World, let's assume for the moment that such a World exists, or is desired to exist, and that many people inside and outside USA feel they are, or would like to be, a part of it. Hard on the heels of any such assumption must come the question - what is freedom?
Let's not get sidetracked into the details of tax thresholds, health provision, oil prices, etc. Such things fluctuate by nature and are the stuff of politics and market forces. The truer measure of freedom is empowerment of the individual. Empowerment to think, believe, speak and act, or even to choose to do none of these things, with impunity, and without State interference (except in extreme cases which we needn't itemise here).
It is further generally accepted that even in a 'free' society everyone can't have a direct say in everything: special cases make bad law, while the sheer logistics of putting everything of consequence to a referendum makes nonsense of the very idea. The familiar answer to the problem of reconciling individual empowerment with centralised power is universal suffrage. If you don't like your leaders, vote them out at the first opportunity. Again, while it's a truism that the available choice might sometimes seem to be between undesirables, the fact remains it's one choice more than you'd get in a totalitarian state. Citizens who don't vote are more socially irresponsible than those who vote against your candidate!
Two Types of Leader
I am a British subject (technically we're subjects of the Crown, not citizens). Prime Minister Gordon Brown is the leader of the country whether I like it or not, and I am bound by the laws enacted by his Government. He was voted into Parliament by his local constituents, and into the highest office by his internal party machine, as successor to Tony Blair. Our system is very different from the American, though both are considered democracies. Gordon Brown is, in a sense, my de facto 'leader' insofar as his policies directly affect me. (As an aside, I've chosen to live mainly in Qatar, but let's not complicate matters!) Though I can't vote directly for or against Mr Brown, I can support or oppose his party at the next election.
A very different type of 'leader' is my favourite Scientific and Political Philosopher, Karl Popper. He's dead now, but continues to inspire me by the clarity of his thought and the boldness of his ideas. But my point is not to discuss Popper here - it's merely to demonstrate that there are leaders who are thrust upon us, albeit by a majority vote, mainly our political masters, and leaders we choose for ourselves, as individuals. These may be from almost any field, as befits our individual leanings - religion, science, politics, sport, even mere 'celebrity'. Call them role models if you like; they are still our chosen personal leaders.
As President of the USA, the eventual winner clearly falls into category one - elected political leader - with a mandate to act on behalf his constituents, American Citizens, and within the bounds of his constituency, the USA. Many Americans express the view that they would prefer their elected Administration to confine its attention to domestic affairs and leave the rest of the World to its own devices. This, of course, is a politically naive expectation in a modern globalised economy.
However, as Leader of the Free World, the new President can have no mandate whatsoever, as the Free World outside USA cannot vote in the American election. He can only aspire to be a category two leader - the role model type. Before he (or his Government) can claim to lead the Free World, it is incumbent on him to win the hearts and minds of Free World Citizens outside the USA. To do this, he must understand the different cultural values, predilections and aspirations of non-Americans. He must not act unilaterally in flagrant disregard of such Free World Citizens' wishes. Because to do so is to change his status overnight from leader to pariah. This requires no election.
American voters - do you want an isolationist USA, self-sufficient but crouched behind razor wire, taking no interest in the greater world? Then by all means find such a 'leader' and instruct him to stay at home. Or do you want to pull your weight for the greater good and hold due influence abroad? If so, please do your homework before you vote. Learn something beyond the stereotypes about Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Learn what these people think about America's recent foreign policy adventures. Learn what your friends around the World think. Learn even what your enemies think. Read their newspapers - visit their websites - watch their television. But do it for yourself. Don't rely on any domestic service for all your information.
The American and World News Agendas
The American domestic news agenda is dominated (at present) by the US economy, mortgage foreclosures, oil and gas prices, illegal immigrants, off-shore drilling, Iraq and the so-called war on terror. Plus or minus daily variations. While not denying the importance of any of these, they hardly constitute a World Agenda.
I'm going to close this hub by juxtaposing RSS feeds of CNN World News, Al Jazeera English Channel and BBC World Edition. (N.B. not CNN or BBC Home). As they are RSS feeds, clearly I have no control over what they feature, but here are my observations:
- Usually two or three of the top four stories are the same (allowing for time zone variations)
- This suggests a wide consensus on what's important in World affairs
- The difference is mainly in the journalistic interpretation. (E.g. Jazeera and CNN may disagree over Palestine, but not over an earthquake in China)
- When we focus on our common humanity, we begin to tolerate, respect and eventually appreciate each other
Have a read, from all sides. In your largesse as a great nation, please take your responsibility seriously. And remember: the only possible Leader of the Free World is a leader that the Free World respects. When you cast your vote, please respect our wishes too. Thank you for reading.
AL JAZEERA ENGLISH
- Petraeus urges Nato Afghan boost
US commander says Isaf force must "get ahead" of Taliban as Washington mulls extra troops. - 2 hours ago
- Suicide blast hits Peshawar
At least four killed in reported car bomb attack on Pakistan intelligence office. - 73 minutes ago
- Palestinian poll delay recommended
Electoral body informs Mahmoud Abbas about its inability to organise polls on January 24. - 6 hours ago
- Fort Hood shooting suspect charged
Army psychiatrist will go on trial for premeditated murder of 13 people. - 7 hours ago
CNN - WORLD NEWS
- U.N. troops sought to fight drug cartels
In the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez, business leaders are so concerned about spiraling drug cartel-related violence that they have asked the United Nations to send in peacekeeping soldiers to restore calm. - 14 minutes ago
- British Airways, Iberia move closer to merger
British Airways and Iberia announced late Thursday that they have agreed the basis for a proposed merger between to the two airlines which is expected to be completed in late 2010. - 69 minutes ago
- Report: Seven dead in bomb blast in Peshawar
A bomb exploded Friday in Peshawar, causing casualties, local media reported. - 16 minutes ago
- Al Qaeda blames Blackwater in Peshawar
A senior al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan has blamed the U. - 12 hours ago
BBC NEWS FRONT PAGE - WORLD EDITION
- Obama orders base killings probe
The US president orders a review of how intelligence agencies handled data on an army major suspected of killing 13 people. - 4 hours ago
- Blast 'hits Peshawar security HQ'
A bomb hits Pakistan's intelligence agency in the north-western city of Peshawar, killing at least seven, officials say. - 23 minutes ago
- Greenland ice loss 'accelerating'
Satellites, models and ground stations give scientists a better view than ever before of how the Greenland icecap is melting. - 7 hours ago
- BA and Iberia agree merger deal
British Airways and Iberia reach a preliminary agreement to merge, a deal which would make it Europe's third biggest airline. - 5 hours ago
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I did include the phrase 'choice between undesirables', not necesarily thinking about the present choice, but about how the system can seem to conspire against the voter. Nevertheless, while acknowledging the mess the US is currently in, my impression is that any honest assessment of 'the rest of the world' should steer the vote in a clear direction this time around. And it doesn't all come down to parties. The invasion of Iraq was led by a US republican and a UK labour man.
Great hub, Paraglider.
If I am permitted to give the US (and US voters) some advice: drop the role of “Leader of the Free World”. The (free) world may have needed such a leader after WWII and back in the days of the cold war, but not anymore. Each American president (and so do the current candidates) has emphasized how important democracy is. The US intervention in Iraq has created a lot of opposition for a number of reasons, the most important being that Mr. Bush (together with Blair, mind you) without bothering about consensus. Put your money where your mouth is at the international level too. Submit to the United Nations, when it comes to international matters. Plead your case and accept the outcome.
Great Hub Paraglider. Well thought out and well put together. As a South African I dont believe I am in any postion to offer advice. But look at us from Mandela to Zuma(?). Mandela a great man and a great example. and know what I think of Zuma (South Africa Ouch).
We (the Dutch) have been putting up with the worst of the worst prime ministers for a couple of years (and 4 elections, mind you), Sixtyorso. So things, can always be worse than they appear. It's like what Shadesbreath already points out: the party that happened to remain the largest (and know what I thnk of them) has appointed the sissy, grenhorn Mr Balkenende as 'our' (yeah right) leader... Not much you can do about that.
Ananta - thank you. Personally I believe US has forfeited any right it had to assume the leader of the free world mantle, partly through its 'war on terror' but also through signally failing to show leadership or even moral responsibility on world trade, international law, the UN and the environment. Nevertheless, for as long as they continue to aspire to lead, I am happy to challenge them to try to do it properly (or not at all). Because all I can do is play word games on a website. I have no personal inclination to join either side in their imaginary war on terror! And who knows, it's just conceivable that a good President might repair some of the damage.
I have nothing to add there, Paraglider, I completely agree.
Thank you for this hub, it is excellent and well said. I would like to see the U.S. stop trying to lead the Free World and instead think about joining it as a co-equal member. We have forfeited many freedoms here since 'the war on terror' began and people are so upset about the price of gasoline you can't get them to think past that 80% of the time. There is a good chance that our current leaders will eventually be tried for war crimes and I hope they are, and I hope they are convicted too. In the meantime, we would do well to adjust our aspirations and just try to be decent world citizens for a change. That's my two cents.
Sixtyorso - Mandela to Zuma, yes. Similarly, the change from the young idealist Mugabe to the thing he has become. And unless we believe that it is possible for a good president to redress the balance, even in part, of a bad predecessor, then we might as well turn out the lights and yield the day to the cynics and conspiracists. Hope springs eternal in the human breast. At least I hope it does :)
PGrundy - thank you for commenting! Especially since it was while commenting on one of your recent hubs that I suddenly got the notion to write this one. In practice, the US will continue to be hugely influential, but I agree with you entirely that they should aim to influence by example and concensus, not by force of arms, both at home and abroad. Some staemanship wouldn't go amiss either.
Hey, a double typo. My statesmanship resembles more a steamship...
Thanks so much for this thoughtful hub, Paraglider. In sum, I agree with you totally and with pg too. Recently we have not been good citizens in the global community, having been led into a war that many of us did not want and into domestic policies based on greed and arrogance that may yet destroy us.
"leader iof the free wiorld" is a Cold War term that has no relevance today and harks back to another time and another set of political conditions. We ar not the only great nation in the world--only one of many. In fact, perhaps the entire concept of nationhood is becoming outdated. I don't know.
I am always amazed at how intereted in and knowledgable about our politics people from other places are. Likewise, I am often astounded at the zenophobia and ignorance of my fellow Americans. The last eight years havre not been a pretty picture--they have shown us at our worst.
Like you I can only hope that our next president will be someone with the vision to repair some of the damage that has been done and someone willing to take a global, international view of our role in the world not a parochial, outdated one.
Hi Robie - Thank you for that insightful comment. I always enjoy your 'visits'. I think outsiders are interested in US politics because we have to be. Here in the Gulf, the falling dollar is seriously hurting the immigrant workforce whose send-home pay is eroding fast. The US economy affects the World. Meanwhile, recent gung-ho militarism has simply hurt millions and disgusted hundreds of millions. We (whoever we are) hate to see the US hell-bent on self-destruction. So, we are interested! We're hoping for a change for good, not more of the same.
The world is adapting quite fast, Paraglider. Investors (including banks and national banks) have shifted already and many countries have decreased their dependency of the US Dollar. I think the financial markets are indicating what will happen in other areas too: spreading interests.
Yes. Most of the Gulf currencies (which are based on oil reserves, not history) are only awaiting unification into some form of 'gulf euro' before breaking the link to the dollar. When that happens, as it will, the ripples will take a lot of prisoners.
The upside of the financial shift is that now when tragedy strikes around the world, the other nations can find out how easy it is to piss people off when everything you do is in the spot light and nothing you do that is good ever gets remembered past the moment it takes place. Though I hate to see my country being weakened by it's own stupidity, the silver lining is that all those other countries and peoples who are so sure they know how to "do it right" and do it better than the US, those people who have hated on us and cursed us from the sidelines because they read their wordly newspapers will finally get their turn to show how much smarter, faster, better and more efficent they are as they get to practice their high morality for real now that the wealth of the U.S. has been siphoned off. I dont like the U.S. having bungled so bad, but I am eager to see how all those smarter and more moral countries will do given the chance. I expect a happy, peaceful place now, without war and with pristine blue skies! It will be great.
Wouldn't it, Shadesbreath? I'm not convinced that I'll live long enough to see that happen.
Mind you, I'm not bashing the US. I just hope things to become better balanced.
Shadesbreath - aren't you being a touch defensive when nobody's attacking? America's not about to be replaced in the world no 1 spot, at least not soon. The theme of this hub is simply that a more consensual approach to the rest of the world would restore much of the credibility and respect that has been blown by the present administration. The 'free world' wants to partner US into the future. And it's not about republicans bad, democrats good either. It's more to do with intelligent communication. Thanks for (re)visiting, and Ananta too.
i really dont care who the no 1 in the world is , point is whosoever stays there should look to help or give a hand to those nations which are facing turmoil. To be a leader of the free world , i think first there should be a free world, which exists only in writing ,so we should create one first .
Great hub.
Thanks adeshwar. I think a lot of freedoms have been eroded recently. It may have to get worse before it gets better, but we can keep hoping (and speaking out).
I agree, there is no free world. In our ‘free’ nation, the Netherlands, left winged politicians are criticized by their confessional colleagues for attending the Gay Pride parade. In our ‘free’ nation there are video cameras everywhere. In our ‘free’ nation we are not allowed to renovate our house, our property at will, because some Commission to enforce the code regarding the external appearance of buildings has to approve it. In our ‘free’ nation we’re not allowed to take a bottle of water onto the flight in order to create an illusion of security. In our ‘free’ nation the voices to go back to the moral values of christianity grow louder and louder, thus restricting anyone who has a different attitude towards life. The free world is an illusion.
It is indeed an illusion and getting more illusory by the day. But as long as the politicos spout free world rhetoric, I will feel 'free' to challenge them to deliver their utopia. I expect to visit your country for a few days in September, by the way. It's an annual trip I've been making for many years.
Do you know which places you're going to visit? It might be nice to have a cup of coffee or a beer.
I'll be working in RAI, but I always make a point of having a beer or two in Karpershoek, the town's oldest bar, diagonally opposite Central Station.
I think I know that bar, probably have been tere a couple of times too.
I'll drop you an email nearer the time, when I have my movements planned, OK? It'll be around 14/15 Sep
Sure thing, Paraglider! I don't have any plans to be out of the country by then and live in the vicinity of Amsterdam
Pity I can't join you two. I am going to Budapest 13 September for a conference then on to holiday by cruise ship from Spain to France, Italy, Greece, Turkey and back to Italy !
PS I hope South Africa can carry on with its role as the only truly free African country. But we need an effective electricity supply so that lights don't turn theselves off!
I like Budapest. The City Museum is fascinating.
Wow - a powerful look for us into the minds of those fellow world citizens. I hope we can elect someone who will understand the significance to the world of a free, strong and healthy America. There is another man who has written a hub about leaving America -- a ridiculous thought that our nations' loss of sound Democracy would not matter that much in the world. There may be many beautiful places to live in the world....but America is a beacon of light and freedom when she's got her act together..and the loss of that would unbalance the world.
We must help our country so that other countries also can keep their lives together..we are all connected with a deep rhythm of life...when one falls, they all weakne and who know what that chaos would result in?
I enjoyed reading your powerful message-you understand just how important our election and the way we run our foreign affairs is, more so than us, since you are affected by them. Thanks!!! and keep writing.
Marisue - thank you! I'd never want to tar a whole people with the same brush. I've met many US citizens in Europe and the Middle East who understand very well the importance to the world of a healthy America. But I think too many stay-at-home American citizens simply have not yet made the connection between US foreign policy and world unrest. Even Churchill saw that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and he was hardly a pacifist!
We'll drink one to your health, sixtyorso :)
With all due respect, Mariesue but I think that the US should drop the idea that they are a beacon of light and freedom. They are AMONG the civilized democracies in the world, but should not try to monopolize the concept of democracy. This doesn’t mean that America should no longer care about freedom and democracy, don’t get me wrong. But if you do, do it for your own good and do not try to impose the American interpretation of what is right and what is wrong onto the rest of the world. If anything characterizes George Bush’ administration it is the lack of respect for different views. The US try to prescribe how we Dutch should deal with drugs, the US have already prescribed how we should deal with airport and travel security, the US have granted themselves the right to tap into our phone traffic. The world doesn’t tell you what to do, so stop telling the world what to do. In my opinion the US would be more of a beacon if the US less sees themselves as one. Running foreign affairs is not the same as interfering on them. One of the most blatant examples of how interference and deciding on behalf of others work out wrong is the state of Israel.
ananta65 we are in total agreement, still if one giant falls, it makes a big thud and I don't think the world wants America to fall, just mind more of their own business and we Americans want the same thing. We know we're important, but not everything. I'd like more attention to some domestic issues. We had no business in Iraq, we could have continued pressure on Saddam in other ways. We have done an enormous deed, the outcome of which we will see for perhaps decades if not centuries. Bush has been the naked emperor, we must be wiser with our votes!! I appreciate the views of citizens in other countries..we need their prespective and you know what?? I am very impressed with the common sense and intelligence that is plentiful across the waters -- as they live their lives and wish certain things for America. We are all just people, wanting to make a living and do no harm. At least I think we are...
We have acted like a bully; I am hoping a new Congress and Pres Obama can make a more positive impression on the world.
Our nation's security should not result in the loss of rights for others if they are not doing harm--
Paraglider you are right! We can not quit talking and Bush slammed the door to dialogue with other countries who differed with us. His "Our Way or the Highway - You are either for us or against us" was way over the top! What if he had said "We hope those in the world will share their knowledge and skills in the fight against terrorism. We need you and want to interact peacefully where we can, we seek to co-exist in a safer world." or something to that effect - but no, he stomped in like the Lone Ranger and gave us all a black eye. Many young people here and Iraq will never return home. I am sickened - we can not continue in this vein.
Indeed, we are in agreement, Marisue :) I don’t like to see the US fall. On the other hand, how bad would it be? We’ve seen the Soviet Republic fall and that didn’t affect us (non-Russians) very much. Some of the countries that sprouted from the ashes of the USSR have done well, others are doing less, but at the end of the day it hasn’t made much of a difference for those living outside the USSR. Why would that be different if the USA should fall?
cuz I'm living here. =)
You’ve got a point! There’s no arguing there ;)
But who knows? Maybe you’d be better off if those States were no longer United?
Glad to see I've provided a place where civilised discussion is the order of the day :) The fall of USSR was more in the nature of a dissolution of empire, a regime and ethos change. But the USSR didn't have great interests outside itself, and the rest of the world didn't hold huge reserves of roubles. The US is much more extensive - many economies are pegged to the dollar, especially oil economies in the GCC. China is hugely dollar-rich with vast reserves. But really, I don't think we're looking at the fall of the US. I think it has taken a fall already, in status, and certainly its economy is in a bad way. But most of the blame can be laid at a particular door, and that incumbent is soon to be replaced. There seems no reason why the downward trend shouldn't level out, then rise again. These things don't happen overnight, but they happen.
No, ananta65, there is safety in numbers and unity, our argument is not with ourselves to that degree, nor with the world if we grow up and respect other countries more, we did a better job until Bush fragmented us in the world community. I do apologize on his behalf. =)
we are having a nice discussion, aren't we, the world should take note...what great examples are we!!!
Paraglider you're right about USSR, it did not have the impact that America's downfall would, I don't mean to over estimate our importance, but as you say, we are much more connected -- I don't have the answers, but I know it's not in collapsing, though we do seem to be in the middle of a downward slide, hang on to your belly buttons folks, the waves are gonna be rough!!
I think the reason I come off a bit defensive is that a lot of what people are saying here is utopian. It's so easy to disparage the "guy on top." You didn't hear me argue with the main point regarding the U.S. being more cooperative with other civilized nations. But some of the things being said here are, well, dependent on selective reason. "I want you guys to do this and this for us, but not that and that." It's like saying you want the sun to grow your wheat and warm your face, but not burn your skin or cause droughts. Some things aren't all that easy to control. At least the U.S. has mechanisms, albeit slow moving, to mitigate the damage that it does.
One thing I'd like to add on the discussion about this "leader of the freeworld" idea. I think that mantle is still used by some, or thrown upon us by others, because there isn't a better model anywhere else that has any respectable success on ALL the crucial fronts. There's lots of countries out there that do one thing well, say social services, but who could be conquered in a day. There are other strong examples of industrial power, but whose common citizens are exploited beyond measure and who struggle just to eat (many don't and starve). Others strike a balance between the two and yet could still be conquered in a month by any other country of similar might, and back to a day or two by a nation that is militarily strong. "Leader of the free world" gets stuck on us whether we use the term or not. Most of us don't. It's old rhetoric and it pisses off the countries that don't "get" to be "top dog." But the U.S. doesn't demand that appelation; it's STUCK with it. The fact that absolute craploads of people swarm here from across the globe every year looking for a better place to live than the shitholes they come from, well maybe the label just sticks for reasons like that. Or that countries that hold a popular hate of the U.S. still puke their students into U.S. universities or hope we'll send medical ships and food when nature crafts some horrible act of God for them. They hate us, but love the many, many ideas our society has spawned and they like our help when the shit hits the fan. I figure that might be why that "leader of the free" world thing still hangs around. But I don't hear anyone in the U.S. demanding it, at least not very many, and few that actually mean it as in the U.S. should be the "boss."
In this day in age many may not like the "beacon of light" idea, but think what that metaphor means. What does a beacon do? Yes, it shines outward to illuminate, but that's not really what a beacon is. A "beacon" is a light that guides, and, given how many still want to be guided to our shores for a better life, I think it is selective and popular negativism to so easily disregard why that metaphor remains. I believe that there's a tendency to miss too much of what this country does in the heat of hating Bush and wanting to spit on the knot of horrible, corrupt corporate greed machines that we have reaching their evil mits into the pies cooling in the windows of any number of third-world places that have resources to exploit. I think in the absence of a strong example, if imperfect, there will grow something worse. Show me the replacement candidate for "leader of the free world" before we tear the current one down. Someone will lead. There won't be a global commune. Don't think that will happen for a second. Human nature doesn't work like that.
I do agree that the interests of the USSR outside itself was less than those of the US, but don’t underestimate that either. Apart from the (quite often military) support that the USSR provided to countries throughout the globe, the economies of Eastern Europe were depending on that of the USSR. We’ve seen that due to the collapse many of those countries have turned their attention to the West in general and the EU in particular and have succeeded in making changes. Not that the inhabitants of all of those countries are better off now, but living there hasn’t got worse either.
We’ve also seen that developing countries with vast dollar reserves are converting their investments (to Euros and gold) to reduce the risk. The Middle East, China, India and others have sold large quantities of dollars, which probably is one of the causes of its free fall on the financial markets.
Should the US ‘fall’, then it would have a big impact on the world as we know it, but on the other hand we shouldn’t underestimate the ability of that world to adapt. Some ten years ago the recent (economical) developments in the US would have taken Europe and Japan with them. Now the problems mostly remain isolated. The world economy in influenced by the situation in the US, but not nearly as much as it would have ten years ago.
Shadesbreath, I recognize that the US have always welcomed people from abroad. But don’t think you are unique in that regard. Europe has a similar problem.
Unique in principle or unique in the manner of scale?
And you are right, if the U.S. "falls" the world will certainly go on. New "Empires" will arise as they always have and always will, some more bloody and merciless than others, but inevitable.
Uninque in the manner of scale. Europe is dealing with problems regarding both legal and illegal immigrants too. I don't have the figures here and the problems in the US may be bigger or smaller. I just wanted to point out that the US is not the only safe haven for people. It's a global problem.
Shadesbreath, you bring up many valid points...we do "lead" in many areas of light albeit a dimmer one than past years. I title we don't necessarily want...and you cleared up one of my points such as if not us, then who? Certainly some countries have great strengths and we can learn from them, we like to think we're well rounded in technology, science, humanity, helping and being charitable. We're embarassed when comparing our lack of common sense to oil and energy issues, even leadership in freedom has waned.
We have been there for many and destroyed others, I wish our wisdom and help was less political and more universal just because we "should." I see our weaknesses, but am loyal to the older ideals upon which we were founded. We have strayed, but we are still a powerhouse - and needing to use that wisdom and power with wisdom not desire for $$.
We do draw many here...I just can't help but feel as others may about their country: "It's my country right or wrong...let's make her more right than wrong."
That statement does not limit the "rightness" of other countries. I want America to right her wrongs and rock the world with wise and compassionate connections.
I don't think America needs to be the boss, either. We need to rub elbows and stand side beside other countries, with a Patriarchal attitude. MM? Maybe that's a contradiction in concepts. (Patriarchal-but not boss)
We're getting there, slowly. There doesn't need to be a 'leader' of the 'free world'. but, as long as politics is married to the soundbite, people will make that claim and others will challenge them either to deliver or desist. Even today, US (well, Texas) has proceeded with an execution and stated that 'international law does not apply to US' Many of us are genuinely saddened at US refusal to join any international community. Saddened, more than angered. We'd like you to be more adult.
We have joined the International community. We just don't always disregard our sovereignty because others haven't convinced us of their points.
Marisue, perhaps more of an older brother. Not "Big Brother" just, big brother, the guy who's not gonna let those he loves take any crap. That's my vision. But first, out with Bush. I don't think there's anyone disagreeing with that.
The notion that a free world needs a leader is out of date, if not downright oxymoronic from the get-go.
Maybe that's why some of us Americans cling so tightly to the role of #1. Transition is tough.
What I hope (foolishly?) is that an ever widening circle of nations is evolving, one where nations build on each other's strengths and virtues, and help each other to overcome weaknesses and flaws. Sounds like a pipe dream. Unfortunately, it also seems the best chance for survival.
There is always a leader. Humans by nature cannot always agree. In the absense of consensus, humans turn to someone they respect. No human enterprise has ever been leaderless no matter how cooperative it might seem. Ever. The question hinges on the "respect" element, not the "someone;" that part is a given.
*picks up the phone and calls Washington DC*
Hey...George...yeah, it's me...spryte...AGAIN. Look...could you perhaps stop picking on other countries, start to play nicer with everyone mebbe? The rest of us are really starting to get a bit pissed off having to explain to friends that...what? You don't have to? Of course you do...that whole government by the people, for the people thing...'member that? No? Yeah...you do have a point there...I guess it doesn't work that way really...huh?
*shrugs*
Well I tried...
Perhaps...and I may be going out on a limb here...perhaps the actions of our governments isn't really the voice of the people...and I mean all of us...not just Americans. I don't run around yelling..."We're number one! We're number one!" And I'm sure I'm not the only American to feel that way. But face it...a lot of us shop at Walmart, work 9-5 and barely make ends meet. I can't speak for everyone, but I've just been too busy to depose any dictatorships, undermine any small governments or negotiate oil purchases from the middle east.
And THAT is the problem. It's so damn easy to point a finger at another country and blame the entire populace for the actions of its government. And while we all wonder why we aren't doing something about it...it's more a case of ...why aren't YOU doing something about it...I'm too busy and ineffectual and who would listen to me anyway...so YOU do it.
It's a big problem...and not one that the U.S. is going to solve on its own. It's going to have to be a global effort. You know it...I know it...
So who will lead us into this age of enlightenment? Beats the hell out of me. I'm not holding my breath that the current candidates for the US are going to pull it off. How about anyone else...do you see it emerging from your government?
So I agree with all of you...in one respect or another. It frustrates me...it angers me...it fills me with a sense of hopelessness occasionally. But at the heart of it, I'm still an American...and if you waggle your finger in my face in disapproval for the actions of a government that I didn't vote for...I just may have to punch you in the nose for it.
I can only speak for myself of course, Spryte, but I can ASSURE you that the voice of my government is NOT my voice. It’s the price you pay for democracy. Most votes is what counts and apparently the majority of the Dutch voters is a lot less intelligent than I am. I know this sounds arrogant, but hey, which nation elects a (not even good) Harry Potter lookalike for its prime minister?
Please bear in mind that I’m not pointing my finger at the citizens of the US (although there must be plenty that should feel spoken to, as you managed to re-elect your enlightened president). And – to be honest – it wouldn’t hurt if Americans would stop saying: “We’re such a good nation that everybody wants to live here”. You’re not a good nation. And nor is the Netherlands or any other Western European country, mind you. We’re just f*cking rich. And THAT is what draws people to us, they want their piece of the pie. It’s so easy (for me as well) to address people from underdeveloped countries to shut their mouths and be grateful for all the money we invest in their economies. We (the ‘civilized’ Western world) are the haves; the rest of the world (which is the vast majority) are the have nots.
Exactly Ananta :) Frustrating isn't it? I felt like one voice in a sea of insanity during the last election...and now I'd really like to jump up and down and say "told ya so...told ya so!" But ironically enough...it still doesn't feel so good knowing I was right.
As for rich lands of opportunity...we're definitely not a third world nation true...and in a lot of respects we're better off than perhaps...hmmm..3/4 of the world, but I've heard Lichtenstein is the place to be...yep...I'm gonna move to Lichtenstein.
If some other countries had accumulated wealth and not our nations, the conversation would still be exactly the same as it is now only with different people having the same debate. To simply shrug off the success of the U.S. and western Europe as if there was no merit or reason for why wealth accumulated here and there as opposed to elsewhere is to harbor a world view blinded by utopian idealism and with no appreciation for vision or the ability to carry it off (and quite besides any arguments to be made on the grounds of Imperialism... which can be traced back to the same idea and falls under the category of "yes, I know, but you missed the point.") If it hadn't been us, it would have been someone else; the real question is, would "someone else" have allowed the conversation at all?
Paraglider, I don't know why it's taken me so long to get to your work but I certainly regret it. Your writing is exceptional and your level of awareness likewise. Sadly I think it would simply take many more people who think as clearly and rationally as yourself to create the conditions you posit. I don’t think those people presently exist in adequate numbers. I fear the change that comes will come in the usual, needlessly bloody way. What literally brings me to tears is knowing that we CAN do it right but are simply too obdurate to change our ways.
Here is the "global effort" someone mentioned.
Spryte, Marian, CWB - welcome to the conversation. As I'm halfway round the world from you, I slept through your entries. As I'm sure you've picked up, this hub isn't a US bashing session, but it is a plea for global awareness in voters and consensual politics from leaders. America is, and will be, too big and powerful to be just another western country. It is bound to be the most influential, at least until Europe gets its collective act together. That's why we hope that a new leader in US will pull you out of the mire created by the incumbent (and his team).
CWB - it's too much to hope that governance will be characterised by intelligence, rationality and humanity, but let it at least not be stupid and wicked.
@Shadesbreath ...
Yes, there will always be a form of leadership, but the whole concept of leadership has evolved (with setbacks) over the centuries. For example, the concept of an elected leader who was not necessarily born into a narrowly defined aristocracy is fairly new, and still evolving (with setbacks). I hope (foolishly) that a similar conceptual breakthrough -- something like a shared leadership -- can and will occur among nations.
@Ananta 65 ...
Speaking of setbacks -- actually, many Americans do not believe Bush was elected in 2000, and more than a few harbor some suspicions about 2004 as well. We do bear a great deal of responsibility for just taking it, and by extension forcing the world to take it, over the past 8 years.
@Spryte ...
Yeah, it sometimes sucks to be right ...
@ColdWarBaby ...
I share your fear and frustration. Thanks for sharing that petition link.
@Paraglider ...
I'm going to read more of your hubs forthwith. This one was no valentine, but I cannot argue with it.
Marian - thanks! I don't usually venture into politics in my writing, at least not directly. This one, in a sense, is my 'war effort', my small contribution to the election fever. I've been pleased by the quality of discussion it triggered.
Shadesbreath, as to the whys of our wealth are a whole lot of answers. And in Europe’s case these answers don’t include many virtuous endeavors. We have exploited the world in a way we should be deeply ashamed of. The reason why the Netherlands is so rich is because we’ve traded shiploads of slaves. Slaves we simply submitted (how’s that for a profit margin?) and then sold throughout the world. We’ve emptied the lands we conquered, taken their resources and made things a lot better for ourselves. Again, I’m not bashing the US but a little self-criticism has never hurt anybody. I’m not going down the “what if”- road. Hypothetic conversations lead nowhere in my opinion.
Marian, I know which is exactly why I’m not blaming American individuals. This makes it so hard, not only in this case, but in any political discussion. True democracy exists nowhere, at least not at any national level. I’ve seen similar things happen at county level as well. Power corrupts.
"We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labour rights not to antagonise China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential".
George Bush lecturing China while passing through Thailand yesterday. The problem is not with his rhetoric but with his credibility. Pots & kettles, beams & motes, choose your analogy. The President of the US is one of the few people whose every (public) word is heard worldwide. But in an Aristotelian analysis (logos, pathos, ethos) the present Administration has blown its ethos (credibility, roughly). So, though he may speak, and on this occasion even speak truth, no-one listens to him any more. It is time for a change. The same words, uttered by Nelson Mandela or Demond Tutu, would carry weight.
Hi Ananta65,
"The reason why the Netherlands is so rich is because we’ve traded shiploads of slaves. Slaves we simply submitted (how’s that for a profit margin?) and then sold throughout the world. We’ve emptied the lands we conquered, taken their resources and made things a lot better for ourselves"
If you're in the Netherlands at the moment you might be interested in taking a look at this exhibition in Den Haag about the Dutch slave trade:
http://www.haagshistorischmuseum.nl/ondrofeni_tori
It was put together pretty much single handedly by a friend of mine, Rita Maasdamme, and it's open until September 1st.
Cheers,
Jim
Hi Paraglider,
"I don't usually venture into politics in my writing, at least not directly. This one, in a sense, is my 'war effort', my small contribution to the election fever. I've been pleased by the quality of discussion it triggered."
As an accomplished musician yourself, perhaps you might be interested in my own modest contribution to the "war effort"?
http://econnexus.org/projects/water-connects-us-al
Cheers,
Jim
Thank you, soulsurfer. I might have a look, but I can't make any promises :)
Great discussion. I won't venture into this discussion as a South African living a free country with a great constiution but if you read my hub South Africa ouch (if you haven't done so already), you may see things in an interesting light from a different perspective. Also perhaps we don't always understand the motives behind some of the actions layed out on the world stage but if the South African government (the apartheid one) was not "betrayed" by the US during the Angola War 1975-1989 ( Reagan left office in 1989 and coincidentally enough replaced by George Bush Senior 1990 who withdraw covert support by US military advisors) , we may not have the freedoms we have now! So who knows what is needed when.
Hi Jim - seems a good site on a quick trawl. I'll look again at the weekend.
Sixtyorso - "So who knows what is needed when." That is very much in line with my non-attached philosophy, as regards outcomes. We certainly can't know what is for the long-term good. However, it's still incumbent on us to act with the best of intentions and judgment, and hope the results pan out well.
thank you paraglider, good way of putting thoughts into words. As a matter of fact, the term Free World, as opposed to totalitarian regimes, like fascism and the Stalinist regimes from USSR and its eastern european satellites, has no meaning anymore if it ever had. The illusion of American (and let´s say west european as well) Freedom is created by allowing their citizens to vote and decide between two political parties with pretty similar ideologies, backed by major companies, which are the ones as we all should know who pull the strings through their think tanks and lobbies. TheWorld Democracy comes from greek meaning power of the people, power to decide their future and to stand for themshelves. I don´t see any similarity between the meaning of Democracy and the actual state of things in the orwellian post 9-11 scenario where secret laws are drawn and citizens can be arrested for years without knowing even the charges they are facing(Guantanamo Xray Camp for instance). Not to say that the "Free world" has supported totalitarian puppet regimes since world war 2 world wide, the list is very long(Franco´s Spain, Pinochet´s Chile,Apartheid South Africa, Stroessner in paraguay and the whole of Southern America´s Dictators (all the way from Guatemala untill Argentina)Marcos in the philippines, Saddam hussein until he got too big invading Kuwait.. and on and on and on).
It´s all an illusion of Democracy. It´s a brave new world.
Hi Joe - thanks for commenting. Everything is relative. I live in a country where no-one has a vote, where leadership is by family succession or by coup. Where 80% of the population are immigrant workers who are denied freedom of assembly (i.e. the police move them along), denied entry to shopping malls, denied even the right to walk on the Corniche at weekends, because the rich should not have to see the poor. Where the internet is heavily censored. A country which you cannot leave unless your sponsor gives you an exit visa. Where you cannot give in your notice and go to work for someone else unless your sponsor gives you a letter of no objection. Need I go on? The abuses of power in the US and the erosion of human rights are to be resisted. But we are not comparing like with like. There may not be a 'free world', but if you want to be Orwellian - all nations are unfree, but some are unfree-er than others. Don't give in to despair.
yes paraglider, i agree with you in that everything is relative,
beginning with time and space.
What i was trying to point out is that if the supposed established democracies (US, UK, etc) act cutting down civil rights and torturing citizens,creating a de facto Big Brother State.. what is the message that dictators in countries where there is no democracy will get? it´s clear to see that they won´t feel a need for changing their civil rights policies for good,but for worse.
where do you live? and why did you choose to live there? if i may ask.
Hello,
Paraglider, your hub is well written and thought provoking. Regarding your reference to the imaginary war on terror - have you not seen the clip "Obessession"? There is another clip too (the name escapes me right now - starts with an F) that is equally as scary.
I agree that it is ludicrous for Americans to let isolationism pass over their lips and I also think that it is important to consider everyone's point of view in today's global community. I do not however believe that doing what one thinks is right (whether it be as an individual or as a sovereignty) should ever be surrendered just because popular opinion sees it differently.
Joe - I live in Qatar. It's not my home. That is still in UK, but I'm in Qatar for about 10 months per year. Why? Partly for work, partly for the experience. Once you accept you're a second class citizen with no rights, life becomes quite interesting.
Peacenow - many things are 'scary' The scariest thing in the world is the world's biggest nuclear arsenal in the hands of GWB. Help to change that for the better, OK?
Paraglider wrote:
"Peacenow - many things are 'scary' The scariest thing in the world is the world's biggest nuclear arsenal in the hands of GWB. Help to change that for the better, OK?"
A lot of us are working on it, as best we can. (And I'm afraid we'll need to keep working even after the White House changes hands.)
Marian - I'm not a utopian; I know there is a lot to fix and a lot of vested interests who like them unfixed. So yes, work and vigilance continue after the election, whoever wins.
Good morning America - Here is some more news:
http://econnexus.org/solzhenitsyn-dies-putin-invad
As you so eloquently put it Paraglider - "There is a lot to fix and a lot of vested interests who like them unfixed. So yes, work and vigilance continue".
Jim
This is a very well-written and practical hub. I'll be open by saying I don't like to talk politics. To me, it's useless most of the time. Although it does make for great reading and rhetoric. And I do like to poke fun at it.
The true power in the US lies with the courts and the military. I challenge people to tell me otherwise. The president of the US is indeed a powerful man (or woman). But their term of 4 or 8 years is merely temporal in its ability to bring about, ratify, and set up enduring change.
The buzzword over here is change. Sure, we would all like change in some shape or fashion. But change simply to make a stance against current events is not always for the better. We may very well be picking up a rotten pear in place of the bad apples. I don't know.
It's true that I don't agree with many of the policies our government plays with. But we've given the power to these people and we must abide for the time being. Time will tell how much change we really needed or what evils or not have been done. Once again, I don't know. This is not my place to judge.
You've received some very well-thought-out comments here. I humbly join them to the best of my non-politically-capable brain. Real change occurs in the hearts of men, not in political candidates or systems.
Thanks Rob. Throughout history, the real power has always lain 'behind the throne', whether barons, dukes, cardinals, or, in our time, courts and corporations. And the extent to which the king or president appears powerful is the extent to which he is pleasing the lobbyists. Nevertheless, I don't understimate the rallying power of the 'throne' as a focus for change. My observation is that the present incumbent depresses, rather than inspires, people of goodwil, making it hard for a groundswell of change to be set in motion. A better man might restore some hope to these people of goodwill, without which they can never become a force for change. I don't see it as a party political matter, though this time around I do think only one party is fielding a viable candidate.
I am certain I shall one day be hanged for saying this, but I have to speak what's on my mind. In the U.S. we view this entire terrorist thing as if (a) it came out of nowhere and (b) we had no role in creating it.
OK, Osama bin Laden may not need any reason to hate the U.S. but I do believe that the U.S. had reason to hate and work against many things that we never completely understood, and with ignorance leading to hatred, we knee-jerked a reaction that if it is an unknown somehow must be evil, and therefore we shall fight against it.
I do not care if the chicken or the egg came first in this matter - whether we first thumbed out noses at Osama, or if he first thumbed his nose at us. But somewhere, way back when, something must have occurred that caused bin Laden and others to target the U.S.
So, what was it? Uncompromising support for Israel? Uncompromising unwillingness to talk before sending in the Marines? Sticking our noses where we clearly had no business, unless you include the oil business, which of course we claim to be our personal domain, our most important area of interest.
Of was it the meddling elsewhere? Something, somewhere, must have occurred that set these extremists into motion. Was it our own extremism? I fear we shall never know, and even if we did learn the truth of it, we would find a way to wrap ourselves in flag and country and sign "U-S-A!" loudly enough to drown out what we do not want to hear.
Personally, I would rather see a U.S. that mostly sticks to its own business. Yes, there is a place where we, as a nation, can make a positive difference, but as we are pretty much nationally intolerant of things that don't go 100% our way. We usually end up thinking only inside the proverbial "what's in it for us?" box.
The U.S., as with every nation on Earth, does not have a special mandate from God to act in certain ways. We have no special rights to beat up on other nations without provocation, and while, yes, we have helped the world out of many of its larger problems, a good Samaritan does not then expect payment forever for a good deed done.
While we often, and arguably rightly, take credit for the "good things" we do around the world, why must we then act so childish and deny any responsibility for the things we get wrong or mess up? Does anyone really believe the kid with cookie crumbs on his face when he denies having raided the cookie jar? Why do we think the rest of the world is so stupid as to not be able to see our flaws, no matter how hard we try to hide them?
There is a place for a world leadership position, and perhaps at times we have been found worthy to occupy that important unelected office. Right now I would say we are not at all worthy and should not seek it until we get our act together, realize that for every ripple we make in the world a tsunami follows somewhere, and that the world has put us, rightly in my opinion, on probation.
Chef Jeff ...
You're right, both about the US and its position in the world, and about the change that's taking over our "land of the free."
A favorite quote comes forceably to mind:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." (Benjamin Franklin)
Chef Jeff - I think 'on probation' is a good description. No-one wants an isolationist US, but a diplomatically engaged non-truculent US seems not to be on offer. At least, not recently. I take the point, often raised, that the two main parties are two side of the same coin, both in the pockets of the multinationals. But even allowing for that, it is the National Executive and not the Corporate CEOs who have the public role of representing the country. And the rhetoric from the two camps is noticeably different. The race may be neck & neck over there, but looking in from the outside we see chalk and cheese. I think if the US votes in McCain/Palin, the rest of the world will turn away in disgust.
Marian - yes, it's a good quote, that one.
You make excellent points. I see our freedoms in America being slowly taken, such as freedom of speech. Government has gotten so big it is infiltrating every apsect of our life. Now finances will be nationalized as they bail out these monstrous corporations. Partisan politics and political correctness is killing the people here. I really don't feel either party is going to affect much change when they get in the White House.
And as far as the voters go. Personally, I listen to national and global talk radio and read sites and some blogs from US and abroad and I STILL don't feel I can make a good decision about voting because there is so much the 'people' just don't know. THE SCARY THING IS, many people do not follow or care what is going on in their own country and are responding to polls about "which candidate would you most like to have a barbecue with?" If you ask them why they are voting for someone, they don't have a clue !!!
Again, thank you for opening this up and making some key points
Hi Newcapo - thanks for commenting. Most of the US citizens I meet over here (Qatar) are pretty clued up on international affairs. But they are among the very small percentage who travel abroad. The economy has taken over centre stage of course, but even prior to the Wall Street debacle, foreign policy seemed to be getting short shrift. Barbecues are clearly far more important!
Shadesbreath says:
15 months ago
We only get to pick from the two guys the system gives us, and the system is horrifically flawed now. We vote, but there's an oligarchy or a hegemony or.. pick your favorite term... that decides who we get to pick from. Bottom line is it comes down to chance. We just hope that the one we pick will be genuine and effectual... not just a tool of the money that got him there (I'm a Republican technically, and look what "my" party gave me the last two terms. And I don't know any literate Democrats who brag very hard on Clinton either.)
I hear your point, and agree with it, but frankly, we got deep doo-doo over here right now. The rest of the world could stand to do some leadership for us for a change. Not just bitching, but actually make stuff happen for the good of everyone... their dime, the whole thing.