I don't know if this has been diaried here, but Fareed Zakaria has a very good article in Newsweek about Obama's view of the world and how/why he's not naive about foreign policy, but instead is a realist. I, for one, am simply thrilled that someone finally took the whole "Obama is naive on foreign policy" myth and debunked it. Of course, this article has probably been and will probably continue to be largely ignored by the corporate media hacks that some of us (or you) watch/listen do daily. I thought that as our focus around here has been on the world view, people here would appreciate it.
Zakaria first illustrates what has been pumped about Obama, that he is "a softheaded idealist who thinks that he can charm America's enemies. . . a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers. . . naive." In fact, Senator Obama is none of these things.
Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.
This is one of the things I love about Senator Obama, he doesn't just look at things in terms of "black and white" (no pun intended), he tries to look deeper than the surface. As a result, he's not very good with soundbites and sometimes can be a bit too nuanced for the media to comprehend or disseminate accurately to the public. Even listening to his press conference today, he demonstrates that he looks at all sides of an issue when discussing Israel and Palenstine:
In Amman today, though, he suggested again that the fault in the region is not the Palestinians' alone, something you'll rarely hear from Republicans.
"It’s difficult for either side to make the bold move that would bring about peace," he said, noting (generously) that the weak, scandal-tarred, deeply unpopular Israeli government is "unsettled," while the Palestinians are "divided."
"There’s a tendency for each side to focus on the faults of the other rather than look in the mirror," he said.
Obama condemned today's attack in Jerusalem, but he also cast it in tactical terms: "That’s why terrorism is so counterproductive as well as being immoral," he said. Attacks make "the Israelis simply want to dig in and think about their security ... the same would be true of any people when these kinds of things happened."
And he stressed the role the desperate Palestinian economic situation plays in continuing the conflict.
"What I think can change is the ability of a United States government and a United States president to be actively engaged in the peace process," part of which is to "recognize the legitimate difficulties that the Palestinian people are experiencing right now," something he said would be "also in the interest of the Israeli people."
Indeed Zakaria describes exactly what Obama exhibited with the Israel statement:
Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want." This is a view of democratic development that is slow, organic and incremental, usually held by conservatives.
And even without being some sort of "expert" Obama's view makes sense. Even though it's not as serious, how many relationships and families are being broken apart right here in America because the average person has little or no economic stability? Contrary to the opinion of John McCain, it's not all in our heads, or something that can be relieved through psychological remedies. Or look at the immigration debate in this country. Do people really think people would be so concerned with undocumented workers if the economy wasn't so bad and it wasn't so hard to find jobs here? And the people coming here illegally wouldn't be coming if they could get what they think they'll get here in their own countries.
In the interest of not violating fair usage, I'll leave you with the last paragraph of the article:
In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology—temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.
It's a really good article, you should go read the whole thing. People continually try to box Obama into their view of what he should be instead of looking at what's right in front of our faces (see the debate about whether or not he's shifting to the center on policy). The fact that he is so thoughtful about the world and America's place in the world, it's no surprise that he's so well loved in other countries (something else that the Republicans are afraid of).
So now that we know what Obama thinks of the world, what does the world think about Obama? Well, generally they love him almost as much as we do.
Check out this interactive map which allows you to see which countries out there have confidence in Obama or McCain with relation to world affairs. People wonder why Obama's giving his major speech in Germany instead of the UK, look at those numbers! And it's pretty well known that Germans are CRAZY for Obama.
Among those tracking the American election, greater numbers in 20 countries expressed more confidence in Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, than John McCain, the Republican candidate, to handle world affairs properly. The two contenders were tied in the U.S., Jordan and Pakistan. Obama's edge was largest in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Tanzania and Indonesia, where he lived for a time as a child.
The U.S. was the only country where most expressed confidence in McCain. Besides the countries where he and Obama were tied, McCain's smallest gaps against his rival were in India and China, where neither man engenders much confidence.
Source
(took this pic from Al Rodger's Diary)
Also, remember, he kicked ass in the Democrats Abroad primary, he's reaching out to everyone. I'm expecting his speech from Germany to be completely awesome, and I really hope that a million people show up to see him.
Given the fact that our opponent is prone to make jokes about obliterating entire countries (and has apparently already done so in his mind), I think Obama is the candidate to restore our standing as leaders in the world again. Yesterday we were all (rightfully) fawning over the pictures from Obama's trip, but I really did feel proud of him. I wasn't worried that he would embarrass himself OR the country while he was over there. He is showing what a true leader is like, thoughtful, humble, gracious. The fact that he's now having the opportunity to demonstrate that on the WORLD stage is very powerful.