America vs. Americans - how the rest of the world sees us Posted by Shadi Hamid

What would a Democratic victory mean in 2008? It's worth considering one additional point (as if you needed more), that isn't often made, at least not explicitly. For a long time, as much as Arabs and Muslims hated our foreign policy, they would still, for the most part, make a distinction between Americans and American policies (former, good; latter, bad). It wasn't as bad in the 1990s as it is now, but let's not pretend that the Muslim world liked our policies then either. But at least, then, they didn't see us as an unfettered force for evil and destruction (no, I'm not exaggerating. As unfair as that may be, that's actually how people view us in the Bush era). It was difficult to hate us - the American people - because Bill Clinton, as the elected representative of Americans, wasn't exactly the kind of guy that easily inspired hatred in foreign lands. Strangely enough, Clinton, today, is one of the more beloved figures on the much-remarked upon "Arab street." I'm pretty sure that every time I've mentioned his name in Egypt, I've gotten big, beaming smiles. "Clintuuuuuuun!" Indeed.

However, beginning in 2004, the distinction between Americans and the American government began to blur. People throughout the world (and not just in the Middle East) began asking an obvious question. Americans had four years of Bush, and yet they voted for him again, knowing full well what he stood for. How could this be? They wondered. If Americans are so good, how did they elect someone so evidently bad? I never had an answer for this, partly because I didn't know the answer, and partly because I think I only actually knew one person who voted for Bush. So, I would plead innocence: "It wasn't me!" That and a sheepish smile would usually do the trick (public diplomacy in action!) Anyway, the anger once reserved primarily for the American "government" or American "policy" began to morph into full-on anti-Americanism. At least that's how I began to see it in my travels in the region. I saw it in the accusatory comments from my relatives and friends. The denunciations of American policy once usually included a disclaimer (of course, we like Americans, but...). After 2004, I was hearing the disclaimer much less often. This shouldn't have been a surprise. Contrary to popular perceptions, Arabs and Muslims know how democracy works: A majority goes to the polls and votes for who it prefers. It follows logically then, that if Bush got elected, a majority of Americans voted for him (50.73% to be exact).

If there is one thing a Democratic victory will do, it will send a very targeted message to those who have begun to wonder whether Americans are on their side, or on the side of blatant aggression and warmongering. It will say: "We have now officially repudiated the last eight years of foreign policy, and we are asking you to give us another chance to show that our country, America, can become what we wish it to be once again - a force for good in international affairs. We have wreaked havoc on the world, but, through the power of democracy, we have seen our faults and acknowledged them. And so we have decided to correct our errors and change course. We will show you something different. This is a new era for not only America but for the world. At the same time, as much as we will change, we will not be - we cannot be - perfect. You will again find fault with us. But, now, with a Democratic president and a Democratic congress, we are moving forward. We want the America of the 21st century to stand on the side of peace, progress, and development. We will begin moving, slowly but surely, in that direction, renewed by a new sense of humility and purpose."

Comments

[Anonymous]

Right, because democrats are poles apart from the GOP. Are you serious?

I'm personally disgusted at the selection of candidates and the only person to really take a fresh stance is Ron Paul. I live in Finland and as an outsider who researches US affairs even execssively I can say that the US is falling behind world affairs and misgudges its role in the world today. The only reason it still thrives is because of some strange agreements the US has with Asia to keep its dollar afloat, but even that's dwindeling before our eyes.

Unless the US has a radical change of governing and decentralizes its media to actually try and care for its people rather than shepard them, we face a very stark future for the country that once was.

[Ben Johnson]

If the rest of the world likes Americans more because we elect a Democrat like Clinton or Obama, its just because they are nearly as dumb as us Americans if they believe either candidate will make real 'changes'. BOTH candidates have explicitly stated they would keep troops in Iraq as long as we have permanent bases there to defend (and since they are 'permanent' I'm guessing it will be a while) and they would also keep troops in Iraq to fight 'Al Qaeda'. This position is nearly the same as Bush's. Also, both candidates have refused to rule out an attack on Iran; both failed to vote against a resolution declaring a large chunk of Iran's army a 'terrorist organization', paving the way for easy war in the future. Only a fool thinks there will be a major difference w/ Obama and Clinton as prez, but considering how many fools voted Bush in 2004, people in general appear quite foolish.

[Chad]

"If there is one thing a Democratic victory will do, it will send a very targeted message to those who have begun to wonder whether Americans are on their side, or on the side of blatant aggression and warmongering."
Speaking as an Australian, I think regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican (or a third party/indepent) wins, the world will judge America by its policies. If Clinton wins and continues the war indefinitely, how is that going to help US image as an agressive warmonger? The democrats control congress, and could stop the war if they so chose. Isn't that the unofficial mandate the American people gave them when they were voted in?
The world doesn't care so much about partisanship in America, but we do care about America's foreign policy.
If the government changes but the policy remains the same, then it is the responsibility of the American people to demand change from their leaders.

[Anonym Svensk]

As a Swede I must agree with the anonymous Finn, voting Democrat will not be enough to save any face, at least not in the long run. Sure, our media salutes Clinton and Obama as some who will change the US for the better (actually they believe that anyone will be better than Bush) but neither of the candidates offer any radical improvement over Bush (or any other generic Republican candidate), and has both acted as Bush little helpers in the Senate.
Kucinich or Ron Paul would have been real change, but obviously change is scary to Americans.

But what is needed for any real reputation boost is to impeach, trial, convict and imprison Bush and the other criminals in office. And yes, I am aware that is not going to happen.

[Miss Kelly]

Given that in the last election, President Bush was running against the uber liberal, do-nothing Junior Senator from Massachusetts, it was actually a pretty easy decision to vote for Bush. Can you think of even one accomplishment of John Kerry in his 20 plus years in the Senate? Just one?