I am against you!
Yes: if I were to believe a certain category of people, I would want America's downfall. And because I am supposed to want America's downfall, I want the worst presidential candidate possible to win the upcoming election. That's supposedly why I supported Kerry in 2004, and that's why I supposedly support Obama in 2008.
In 1999 I had already read an article published in a British newspaper explaining why G. W. Bush would be a bad news for America and for the world. However, the world population didn't know him and couldn't care less. By 2004, Bush #43 was a known entity and the message of the citizens of the world to the American people couldn't be clearer: do NOT under any circumstances elect Bush for a second term.
I remember clearly when, 4 years ago, I was reading a US political forum: a Republican supporter justified his support for Bush thus (paraphrasing): "Let me see. The world is jealous of our power. The world wants our downfall. They want us weak. They support Kerry because he is the candidate who will weaken the United States. Ergo, we should re-elect Bush to that the US can stand up to the rest of the world."
(Note: in every quotations in this diary, the emphasis has been added by me.)
I was profundly shocked by this remark. This is a classic display of "us vs. them" mentality. According to this logic, I support Barak Obama to be the next President of the United States only because I am not a US citizen. I supposedly want the United States of America to be weak.
It is sad that I have to clarify this, but here you go: I am NOT against you! I want the United States to be morally and economically strong (in a sustainable way).
In this diary, I am going to argue unequivocally about why Obama is the best choice at this stage both for the Americans, and for the whole world. This diary should give you ammunition to prove that Obama/Biden's foreign policy is by far superior to that of McCain/Palin.
But first, let's go back 20 years...
==================================================
President Reagan: alien threat
==================================================
I am no fan of President Reagan and never have been. I was a bit too young to care either way when he first was elected president, but when, during his presidency, my own political consciousness awakened, I already found myself in the other side of the political divide.
However, I am not here to spin anything or to promote partisan politics. Call me a maverick, if you want :). I must give him credit for some of his nice speeches.
Here is a small portion of a speech he gave at the 42nd Session of the United-Nations General Assembly, N.-Y. 09/21/1987. I often ponder on the deep truth behind those words:
http://tw.youtube.com/...
Here is the same video for those wanting to practice their French. :)
Perhaps we need some outside universal threat. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. Yet, I ask you: is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?
Please, do not scoff at this remark simply because 1) they were uttered by a Republican and 2) they speak of alien beings. Even a cursory look at history would reveal the profound significance of what Reagan was pointing at.
Any excuse is good enough to foment divisions. Religions has been the most oft used pretext for war, like the French Wars of Religion and the conflict in Northern Ireland, both between Protestants and Catholics, like the Christian led Crusades against Islam. Race is another. I don't need to explain to you how blacks were discriminated against.
But that's not the point. The point is that times and times again, history teaches us that a divided group of people will be reunited again when facing a greater enemy. The Chinese Communists led by Mao Ze-Dong and the Chinese Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-Shek brokered a truce when China was attacked by Japan. At the end of WWII, once the greater Japanese threat was removed, the Communists and Nationalists resumed their war, leading to the creation of two Chinas: The People's Republic of China which just hosted the Olympics, and the free and democratic Republic of China, where I live.
Closer to your home, we have all witnessed how divided each major political parties were during the primaries. MyDD and DKos, usually working towards the same goal, were bitterly divided because one site supported Hillary Clinton, and the other site supported Barak Obama. Once the primary over, the Democrats have to face the greater threat represented by the Republican candidate. The fear of loosing against that greater threat has encouraged Democrats to forget about their past divisions and to reunite the party behind the official nominee. Watching the National Democratic Convention, one would never have guessed how divided the party appeared a few months earlier. Of course, exactly the same thing happened on the Republican side, where we see Mitt Romney praising John McCain, and their own convention making the same show of how united they are.
When America is threatened by a force greater than the two major parties, we can see Republicans and Democrats fighting shoulder to shoulder. We saw this during WWII when the whole nation supported the war effort against Japan and Germany. We saw this right after 9/11 when people who had voted against Bush supported him against this new terrorist threat that had presented itself. We saw this one more time only a couple of days ago, when both Republicans and Democrats agreed (for show or for real) that Hurricane Gustav was a threat that transcended political divisions.
And president Reagan is right: should the Earth be attacked by an alien force, the whole world would suddenly be found united.
It is important to understand this, because the implications in matters of policy and political activism are great.
In the words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it".
Should the white supremacist prevail and, God forbid, manage to eradicate the Earth from coloured people, they would then prove how much a genius Jane Elliott really is. If you haven't seen it already, please do take a moment off reading this diary to watch a class divided featuring her famous Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes exercise. To us, liberal, progressive activists of all colours, this shows how misguided any kind of racism is. But please take a moment to turn inwards and apply that feeling to a level higher: see how much of the inner-party division was misguided during the primaries. Go one level higher again, and see how much of the Republican vs. Democrats war is misplaced. Yes, there are policy differences. Please be kind enough to understand that I am not disputing this, and that it is not the point in this discussion.
Then apply this Blue Eye - Brown Eye ridiculous division at the international level. It is ok to love your country. Patriotism can be defined as the love for one's country and it is a good thing. Nationalism however can be defined as the hate of other countries and is to be condemned.
Think again about Reagan's words. Do we really need a bigger threat to force us to fight together? Do we really need the imminent threat of a global environmental collapse for all the nations of the world to work for a common cause?
Can't we cooperate and wish each other well simply because we are together, sharing the same space (whether that space is the planet, a country, a web site, a city or a room, or the comment section of a diary)?
Can we do so without the need for a bigger threat?
Whatever you might think of president Reagan, please always keep his words about the alien threat in your heart, and ponder their very profound significance.
==================================================
Country First
==================================================
The foremost duty of the president of the United States is to serve the American people. The president should have the best interest of the 300 million Americans at heart. We, non-US citizens, do not dispute this fact. This is the way it should be. It is perfectly natural that American people should be patriots, i.e. love their country. Obviously, I agree with those who say that patriotism is not the prerogative of one single political party.
However, the Republican party campaign slogan Country first makes me uneasy.
Please, allow me to pause my narrative for a while to state unequivocally that I wish the best for America and for the American people. I am sure that the regular DKos diarists would intuitively understand what I mean, but this diary will be read, now or later, by Republican voters and might be used against me or against the Democratic candidate. I affirm truthfully that I fully support the American's loving feeling they have for their country. I wish continued peace and freedom for the American people, including the freedom from all kinds of internal and external threats. I wish the American's economy to be strong (in a sustainable way) so that all American people live at ease and contented.
So, unlike what the 2004 Republican voter I mentioned at the start surmised, we, non-US citizens of the world, supported Kerry in 2004 and support Obama in 2008 not because we want America to be weak, but because we believe they are the best choice for your country as well as for our countries.
So, why does the slogan Country first sound a bit scary to us? Again, it seems natural that a country's president should serve that very country. It should go without saying. So, why mention it? If the country is first, what comes second? Has anybody asked this question yet? And why do I get the feeling that what is first will come at the expense of whatever comes second, third, or last?
Does the Republican slogan mean that America first will come at the expense of all other countries? As someone said: "when the American President farts, the whole world smells it."
Am I mistaken in my belief that Country first is an expression of the "Us vs. Them" mentality, an expression of a nationalist sentiment?
The fact is US foreign policy abroad during the last 8 years has shown a complete disregard for the fate of the people of other countries. Well, to be fair, all the policies of the Bush government has shown a complete disregard for the well-being of the majority American people, too, let alone that of the future generations.
[...]
Oh! I was in the middle of writing this section when another diary appeared that discussed this very slogan. In the comments, it is stated that the slogan Country first was created in anticipation of Joe Lieberman being nominated as McCain's VP. So, that would answer the question: what comes second?. The political parties come second to national interests. This is exactly what I discussed above: people from different parties will unite when, and only when they perceive a higher level threat. Lieberman has a liberal voting record, and the only reason for his presence at the Republican convention is that he supports the Bush/McCain war on Iraq. Terrorism is here the threat to all Americans.
The problem is obviously that the war on Iraq was started on false pretences in order to squash a phoony threat. The only people who benefited from that war are the military contractors, the Halliburtons and the BlackWaters, of the corporate world. The American people themselves benefited nothing, so even increased security, which was the supposed goal.
And those whose suffered the most are the Iraqi people. But then: the life of an Iraqi civilian is worth less that the life of a man or a woman in an American uniform, isn't it? The life of an unborn American baby is worth much more than the life of an Afghan already born infant.
So my intuition was right: the slogan was hiding something very sinister indeed.
==================================================
Defining Evil
==================================================
"We don't need four more years of the last eight years" is a catchy campaign slogan. It is too easy to get caught in a partisan environment and hear only the slogans without stepping back to check whether the slogan matches the reality.
I don't believe in coincidences. I am a big fan of Carl Jung and believe in synchronicity. A couple of days ago, I was taking some notes in preparation for this diary while distractedly listening to C-Span (long live C-Span and broadband!). As I was organizing my own thoughts, something caught my attention. C-Span was broadcasting a speech by McCain. What he said was a reminder to me about why I think he would be a bad president for America. I paid better attention to the broadcast and found out it was his speech at the 2004 Republican convention.
Above, we discussed that the slogan Country first was prepared for Lieberman, the only (ex-) Democrat still supporting the war in Iraq. With that in mind and after listening again to McCain's 2004 convention speech, I am reminded that "We don't need four more years of the last eight years" is not only a catchy slogan, but one that properly reflect the reality, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned.
http://tw.youtube.com/...
(transcript)
{can't seem to be able to embed this video. sorry}
The awful events of September 11, 2001, declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was and how terrible were the plans of our enemies.
It's a big thing, this war.
It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honourable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil.
And my friends, should our enemies acquire for their arsenal the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek, this war will become a much bigger thing.
Here McCain develops two memes that are symbolic of the failure of Bush's presidency, two ideas that he has developed throughout his speech.
The first meme is the bigoted view about Good and Evil. The Christian right know themselves to be sinners. But by dying on the Cross, Jesus redeemed their sins in advance. Thus, Christian believers are loveable, Good people. Evil on the other hand is externalized and personified in broadly defined "terrorists". The Bush/McCain camp is fighting a righteous battle to be likened to the Holy Crusades against Islam during the Middle Age.
The second meme is that a greater (necessarily Evil) enemy is posing a formidable threat to the country. As we have seen above, people are much more likely to bind together if there is a perceived threat from outside. Thus, the neocons' ideology needs the terrorist threat for its survival. As long as the American believe that the threat is real and immediate, they will stick with the warmongering Bush / McCain / Lieberman / Republicans / Neocons.
When the above is well understood, it is easy to understand why this sick and decadent ideology needs to give the impression of fighting terrorism while feeding it; why it needs to make people believe they are now safer (but never quite safe enough) while feeding fear into the heart of the people they are supposed to protect.
This manichean world view can never lead the United States to be at peace with the rest of the world. Should, by any chance, the whole world be at peace, they would invent a Reaganian alien invasion (à la War of the Worlds) to bind the American people to their ideology through the power of pavlovian fear. It can be deducted from this that the ideology of which McCain is the new designated standard-bearer is not only bad for the world, it is also bad for the American people.
You remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.
We were united, first in sorrow and anger, then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are: a nation united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.
In that moment ... in that moment, we were not different races. We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries. We were Americans.
McCain reinforces the two memes mentioned above: 1) We were a good, serene American people who minded our own business when 2) inhuman Evil attacked us for no other reason whatsoever that it hates freedom. Again, the indented result is that Republicans AND Democrats get united (behind president Bush for a second term) while facing a greater threat.
McCain made this speech on Bush's behalf four years ago, and it worked :(. This year, he is trying the same schtick for himself hoping to get the same results.
As an aside, let me honestly tell you that there is one thing that irritates me a lot in the American political debate: it is the notion that, somehow, the life of a "man or woman in (US) uniform" is worth more than countless lives of Iraqi civilians. The life on an unborn baby trumps the life of any child or adult non-US citizen. Peace takes the courage to recognize that a human life is worth as much as any other human life. During WWII, the Nazis would routinely shoot 20 prisoners dead for every single German soldier found murdered by the resistance. In order to avenge the deaths of 3000 people in New York and Washington on 9/11, Bush started a crusade that cost the lives of 4000+ American soldiers and millions of Afghanis and Iraqis.
What is wrong in those equations?
What will you do?. Today the answer seems obvious: elect Barak Obama president of the United States, because those lives matter as much (no more, no less) as the lives of of US soldiers, as well as the lives of all those poor people across the globe who smell every single American fart.
Terrorist (Note: this is a short, flash animation which I formerly tried to embed here, but it didn't work. Please open in a new tab.)
At the 2004 convention, McCain continued:
Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
This line drew a big applause from the convention goers: don't listen to anyone who tells you that the threat is phony, a decoy. This is a pre-emptive measure lest the people be awakened to the truth.
As the president rightly reminds us, we are safer now than we were on September 11, but we're not yet safe. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight.
We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them, a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest.
And this president will not rest until America is stronger and safer still and this hateful iniquity is vanquished. He has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him.
Obviously, by definition, for the scheme to work, America can never be safe enough. The con is to make Americans believe that progress is being made. But the finished line is somehow never crossed. It cannot be crossed lest the party / national unity be undone by the disappearance of the threat.
That's why McCain promised 100 more years in Iraq. And should the situation in Iraq become better, they have a new spare enemy: "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"...
http://tw.youtube.com/...
5 Years Too Many.
Still, McCain 2004:
For their families, for their friends, for America, for mankind, they sacrifice to affirm that right makes might, that good triumphs over evil, that freedom is stronger than tyranny, and that love is greater than hate.
Again this dualist, simplistic world view: We are Good, Love, Human, Right, Free. They are Evil, Tyranic, Hateful.
Here is the right place to plug a quote from the Civil Forum on the presidency at the Saddleback Church with Rick Warren. Remember what McCain replied to the question about Evil?
http://tw.youtube.com/...
(transcript)
WARREN: How about the issue of evil. I asked this of your rival, in the previous debate. Does evil exist and, if so, should ignore it, negotiate it with it, contain it or defeat it?
MCCAIN: Defeat it. [applause]
A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. (APPLAUSE). No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.
Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.
Not long ago in Baghdad, Al Qaida took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.
And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al Qaida continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.
Here McCain left no doubt about what he means about Evil. Evil is alien to the American mentality. Evil is an external force to be fought by the US army on foreign soil. What is scary is the reaction of the public. McCain gives an unequivocal: Defeat [Evil] and the public applauses as McCain steers straight away the answer on foreign policy, mentioning Iraq, Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and places "throughout the world".
Evil must be fought by the "brave men and women in uniform", meaning more US military interventions abroad, more suffering by civilian population around the world. Again, McCain emphasizes that it is a "long struggle". War is a necessary element for the survival of the neocons/Republican ideology. They thrive on alien attacks.
To give some credit to Rick Warren, even though the questions were friendlier to McCain, Rick devised the format so that both candidates would be asked exactly the same questions, so that we could compare. Let's do just that and see what Obama had to say in reply to the same question:
WARREN: OK, we've got one last time -- I've got a bunch more, but let me ask you one about evil. Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.
REV. RICK WARREN, SADDLEBACK CHURCH: In the name of good.
OBAMA: In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good. `
Obama's answer was much more nuanced. As a Christian and as an Hummanist, he equally believes in Evil, which needs to be defeated.
What is interesting is where Obama sees evil. Where McCain sees evil in places requiring US military intervention, Obama sees evil in places where civilians suffer from such military intervention (e.g. Darfur).
Much more significantly, Obama sees evil in our every day life, in much more mondain things: in our cities, in our families, throughout the world AND within America. The soldiers Obama speaks about are everyday, non-uniform-wearing citizens who can combat evil where and when we see it, in our every day life.
The most important is Obama's insistence on humility. Obama gently directs our attention inwards, to see the Evil that each of us have within us. Jesus said: let the one who has never sinned cast the first stone. As a Christian, Obama recognizes that we are all sinners. But to the contrary of the Christian right, he does not use the pretext that Jesus supposedly absolved us from our sins to go on a crusade against other people. Obama seems to recognize that we should have a good, humble look at the "evil" (with a small "e") aspect of each one of us and see where our good intentions lead to unnecessary sufferings for others.
No human being on Earth - and no country - is perfect enough that they can cast the first stone. With this answer, Obama has shown that he has the humility necessary to be a great leader for the United States, who will strive to lead the US to an era of peace with the other countries on this isolated planet.
Back to McCain's 2004 convention speech.
This line drew a sustained applause:
We are Americans first, Americans last, and Americans always.
McCain is no patriot. He is a nationalist appealing to the nationalism of the American people. Remember: I define nationalism as the hate of other countries. This hate is necessary to lead his people to a never-ending war.
Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express -- they fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible.
Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our president and fight.
We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will.
More of the same two memes. Having a common, external enemy, an Evil entity to be found in some Middle East or Central Asian country, we can stick together.
Note that McCain's POW meme fits perfectly this whole they are here to hurt us narrative. It shouldn't have come to a surprise that that McCain's experience as a POW was displayed in graphic details during the National Republican convention.
To conclude:
The whole of McCain's foreign policy is based on the belief of the existence of a Reaganian's alien invasion.
This man is dangerous for the world. This man is dangerous for the American people.
He must be defeated, i.e. he is the alien that the Democrats need to win back the White House :) .
==================================================
Obama's positive message
==================================================
Let's contrast a bit the Bush/McCain machavelian ideology with Obama's message.
McCain's message is drawing power away from the people: put your trust in us while we send the military abroad to fight Evil. It is like Bush saying after 9/11: go back shopping while we prepare to invade foreign countries (whether or not they had anything to do with the terrorist attack).
Obama is striving to give the power back to the people. His slogans about giving the White House back to the people are not completely empty words. He has already shown his commitment to this idea by refusing donations from lobbyists.
Obama's alien invasion is not some terrorist threat from abroad but the specter of a Bush's third term. But this is only a campaign necessity to bring a message across to a not-so-well informed American public who does not yet know what Obama stands for, but who does know what they don't want: more of G.W.Bush.
Yet, if one takes the time to listen to Obama's vision for America, his platform is based on an inherently positive message.
In his acceptance speech, like in many/most of his speeches on the campaign trail, Obama laid out a vision of America build not on fear (of an alien enemy) but on dialogue and mutual respect.
http://tw.youtube.com/...
(transcript)
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise — the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
At the core of Obama's message, there is no invocation of an alien threat, like there is in McCain's. Obama is trying to replace fear mongering with the offer of a meaningful dialogue on the issues. It is up to the American people to accept this offer.
Obama's duty, as the future president of the United States, is to serve the American people, and they first. He IS the candidate who is truly putting the country first (and not some private lobbyist nor some corporate agenda). I have no doubt that under his presidency much will be accomplished that will directly benefit the 300 million American people (minus the tiny minority who currently benefits from war-profiteering). Much more can be accomplished via an honest, non-partisan dialogue, striving to find what people have in common instead of where they differ.
Obama is the true maverick.
I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as president of the United States.
What is that promise?
It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves — protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.
Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.
That's the promise of America — the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
Note the part about creating American jobs. The Republican agenda has led corporations to outsource job to India, The People's Republic of China, and other countries. This of course is not beneficial to the American people.
Obama wants to create the jobs on the home soil by creating an economy based on renewable energy.
Remember who is writing this diary: why would a foreign dude who has never set foot on US soil care about a presidential candidate promising to bring jobs back from abroad to America?
Yes: what's in it for me?
It's simple: I do not subscribe to the "Us vs. Them" mentality. I do not believe that America's well being must come at the expense of the rest of the world (though to a very large extent, it has so far been so). In this time of environmental crisis, it makes sense that we all purchase and consume goods produced locally. Stuff that American people consume should be produced and recycled locally, and we French, Chinese, Taiwanese, Kenyan, Germans, Brazilian s, etc. should strive to achieve the same thing. Thus we will achieve a globally sustainable economy that will benefit everyone. Relation between countries would no longer dominated by a struggle for economic and military supremacy, but by friendly and peaceful cultural exchanges. Instead of living in a world where every body wears the same clothes, eat the same food, drive the same cars in every corner of the world, we would have a world celebrating its diversity with a multitude of regions each having their own customs, habits, clothes, food and language.
I strongly believe that whatever is good for America in the long term is also good for the rest of the world.
There is much, much more to say about Obama's positive message. If he could get away with it, he would stop speaking about "four more years" altogether in order to speak about positive goals, such as mutual respect, dialogue, a fair and peaceful world.
I would like to invite the entire DKos community to put together the positive aspect of Obama's platform within diaries and videos. Let these replace the negative attacks on the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates on the recent diary list.
==================================================
Berlin's speech
==================================================
Do you remember Obama's famous speech that he gave in Berlin?
I mean: do you really remember what he said in that speech? What kind of world he depicted?
I would like to invite you to revisit that speech. (Full transcript)
Part 1:
http://tw.youtube.com/...
Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.
People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.
Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.
The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.
The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.
As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.
Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.
In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them.
When McCain speaks about foreign countries, it is almost always in confrontational terms (e.g. "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", Russia/Georgia, etc.). America can only survive by fighting off foreign countries and foreign influence.
Obama takes the opposite stance: he recognises that we share the single known habitable planet. We can live in peace together only by cooperating together. While McCain mentions other countries in ways that suggests that their suffering is about to become greater, Obama mentions all those places around the world in a way that suggests he's ready to cooperate with other countries in order to lift suffering and real threats.
Some have taken this speech as a proof that Obama in in favour of a New World Order based on a world government. It is not America's role to police the world, nor does Obama offer to do so. On the contrary. The world can police itself through respectful cooperation among sovereign nations.
Obama's foreign policy would cost many, many times less on the American taxpayers than the failed Bush war that McCain offers to continue ad eternam.
Obama's foreign policy is a good news and a welcome relief both for the American people and for the non-US citizens of the world looking in at your election from across your borders.
Part 2:
Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.
That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.
[...]
So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.
Some criticized Obama's speech in Berlin to be vague, devoid of specifics. Being on a foreign soil, it was not the place for Obama to present his precise policies. He said it at the beginning of the speech: he was not speaking as a presidential candidate.
However, in the quote above, Obama perfectly depicted the mood that would and should prevail among nations and people. He is trying to prove Reagan wrong: we do not need an alien invasion to start talking respectfully with each other. Once again: however homogeneous a group might be, the members of that group would always find traits to divide themselves. Obama is challenging us to look beyond our differences - and to respect our differences - in order to build up on what unites us. He dears us to do so in the absence of a menace supposedly threatening us all.
The following quote is important enough to stand on its own:
We can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.
This stance is a far cry from that of the current administration whose view is clouded by Fundamentalist Christian ideology: for them Muslims, any Muslim, is evil by definition.
This is why the Obama is a Muslim lie is such a powerful one for the Republican base. They will repeat it even when they don't really believe in it.
In Berlin, Obama mentioned several times Muslims and the Middle East. But instead of painting them as "Evil" by nature, he painted a promising future (in part 3 below) where the Middle East has its own, dignified place within our world.
Instead of adding fuel on the fire and feeding the ire of Muslim fundamentalists, feeding a war that the Republican neocons so much need for their own survival, Obama is trying to appeal to the moderate Christians and the moderate Muslim alike, to work together so that real, existing terrorist groups starve to death without unnecessary bloodshed for lack of new recruits.
Obama's foreign policy is the only smart, sane one.
Part 3:
http://tw.youtube.com/...
This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.
[...]
This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.
[...]
Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?
Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?
Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?
People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
If there is anywwhere in Obama's speech an alien threat, it takes the form of the looming environmental crisis that the Republican try so hard to deny. For this reason alone does the world needs Obama to become the next president of the United States.
I repeatedly said in this diary, that I wish the American economy to be strong. The premise is obviously that it should stop being such at the expense of the rest of the world. You certainly can understand that we, non-US citizens of the world, might resent the American economic supremacy because it is the poorest people on this planet (mostly in Africa) who pay for it. But it is also in the American people's self-interest to promote a fairer, more sustainable economy. Any other way, and you yourselves or your own descendants are going to end up paying for your economic crimes. Here I appreciate very much Obama when he makes a passing reference to a world economy that is is free and fair for all.
People of America, people of the world: this is indeed our moment.
Reaction:
http://tw.youtube.com/...
Dan Abrams seems shocked that Obama called himself a "fellow citizen of the world". That is also what I call myself. Obviously Abrams is voicing the disdain of those Americans who seem to believe that America's self interest can only come at the expense of the rest of the world. I am telling you: America's long term interest can only be established in cooperation with the rest of the world.
Dan Abrams:
"Somehow, the fact that he was well received in Germany, is a bad thing according to the McCain camp and some on the right."
This is the same type of statement that started this very diary: in 2004, the world supported Kerry, and that's why some people thought they had to vote for Bush. Obama is welcomed in Europe, by the same token it means that McCain is best for America. This is again an expression of the misguided "Us vs. Them" mentality.
On the contrary: obama is good for America because he is good for the world.
==================================================
Voting methods and political dialogue
==================================================
To conclude this rather long diary, I would like to plug in some electoral reforms that are not (yet) part of Obama's platform.
Obama is the real maverick trying to instore meaningful political dialogue. He is the one trying to do what McCain himself promised he would do: conduct an honourable campaign devoid of personal, baseless attacks.
There is one thing that both Obama and the American voters should understand: the negative campaigning is a by-product of the election method, the result of having a two-party political system.
In a two party political system, negative campaigning and swift-boating works! This is because every vote that one's opponent does not get, is one more vote that one might get. Also, a successful campaign is most of the time dependent on the ability to raise large sums of money (more often than not - Barak being the exception - with the help of lobbyists).
With a better election method, negative campaigning would back fire, because there could be much more than two viable candidates and swift-boating them all would turn voters off the candidate doing the swift-boating to the benefit of the sincere and honest candidate with a positive message.
With a better election method, Bush would not have been elected in 2000 in the first place.
Since this diary is long enough already, and since I am tired, I shall not explain more on this topic. Let me just offer the following links with much more information:
Not much or nothing is really new in this diary. But I hope you found it useful in reminding you of the positive aspects of Obama's message. Also, it is meant to give you ammunition to counteract the Republican spin on Obama's foreign policy.
I will never vote for Barak Obama, because I am not a US citizen. However, I certainly hope that he will be the next president of the United States because I love America, I love your freedom, and because he is the best candidate for you at this time.
God bless America. God bless the world.
Blessings to all of your. Thank you for reading ;)