Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Politics are not exactly my strong point, but it seems to me Barnett produced an excellent argument for preferring Obama over McCain. He also produced a brilliant if abbreviated explanation of the real meaning of globalization. Well done indeed.

I read your posting today about your comments on Clinton and McCain regarding their view of the global political spectrum. You stated that you like Obama better- but did not offer his position verse the other candidates position. Is this the Obama mistique?

I agree Thomas, personally I would rather see President Bush try to get China and Russia into Nato, than continue along with some silly missile shield.

The young people get it. There has been a dramatic change. When I was in boot camp I remember sitting in a hot quanset hut watching a movie about "Your Enemy-The Russian Soldier". There was old Ivan in his knee length boots and his "Sam Brown" belt. But now, our friends our age have grown kids who have adopted children from Russia, China, Korea and South America. The "kids" have traveled all over. They are working in France, England, Italy and Ireland. We live in Poway, which is a "suburb" of San Diego. Go to one of our high schools. My wife has students whose parents are from China, Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Honduras, you name it. I went to a High School football game and at half time the girl's "Flag Drill" team came out. It looked like that old soft drink commercial. The whole world was represented. There was an East Indian couple in the stands, the bearded Sikh father cheering his daughter on. This is the way it is. These young people look at Obama and they see themselves.

I'm not sure why you would lend support to Obama, after looking at his views on world trade.

"And that's why I like Obama most."

Obama seems to be a well-spoken blank slate (or perhaps a just a hidden slate) with maybe "plenty of growth potential" and therefore people can project their hopes and dreams onto him. Yikes.

Sorry, I didn't mean this to sound snarky.

I just don't buy into him.

He votes hardcore left and associates with the hardcore left (and seems to have a small cult of personality forming around him). I have no reason to think he won't try to govern that way, regardless of his speeches, campaign spin, or positive photogenic qualities.

By "allies" do you mean those that had enormous under the table oil-for-food deals with Saddam? I don't think it is hard to understand why we mostly had to "go it alone" on that one.

Very well put. I could not agree more about why Obama is the best person running for the job.

Randall: search the weblog for Obama to find more on Tom's view

DougM: iirc, Tom believes that if Obama is elected he will back off of some of his sillier campaign promises, including immediate withdrawal from Iraq and protectionism

Kev: simplistic view. we need our old allies, plus some new ones, warts and all. can't shrink the Gap and expand globalization by adding new enemies, shedding old allies, and adding no new allies.

I am not sure McCain will get too far with the league of democracies. All are either politically unmotivated to help or too financially challenged even if they wanted to.

What growth potential does Tom see for the Mullahs? Does he think that Obama's super smart FP crew are going to teach him the secret for deconstructing them? No thanks, Tom. The great changes that you see in the future are blinding you to the present danger. We need the old unreconstructed blood and guts warrior for this one. We need a Churchillian leader to deal with these apocalyptic theocratic backward looking killers. And when their dead, buried and gone then a Barack Obama would do fine.

The question that stands before us today is whether or not the first half of the 21st Century ends up being a repeat of the late 19th Century (1870 - 1914: Globalization I, international rivalry, the New Imperialism).

The second half of the 19th Century, much like today, was an era significantly defined by global economic connectivity and by new rising powers (in this case, the United States, Germany and Japan). Great Britain v. Germany, during this period, is often compared with the United States v. China today.

Considering these similarities, one wonders: Could the horrors of the 20th Century have been avoided, by way a British statesman who, early on, achieved an alliance with these new rising powers (especially Germany)? This seems feasible.

Which candidate is more likely to consider this option today?

Obama is no more than the same old Emperor in a slick new suit . .

His changing, or sometimes hidden agendas show he is first, a "Mortal Politician" who will go Hard Left once elected, and as he has shown in both the Senate, and before that, the Illinois Senate, not too strong on Bi-Partisanship or "Conciliation" . .

And we shan't go into his close friendship with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and his explanation for that . .

This man is just another politician with more than a little Charisma . . which both McCain and Hillary lack . . .

Dr. Barnett makes an interesting point that what the President is may be more important that what policies the President has. Given that every President is manipulated from all sides by politics and events, how they respond to that manipulation is more about what they are. We have certainly seen Bush and Clinton (and many before) abandon previous policy positions when cornered by history -- and act based on what they are.

So we have two children of the 50's and a child of the 70's as potential navigators through the tricky years ahead. The cat of globalization, with its political, economic and security issues, is very much out of the bag. Whichever becomes president will ultimately fall back upon their "hard selves" when the hard decisions need to be made.

I consider myself a Tom exangelical; I've shared TPNM with friends on both sides of the aisle numerous times, and even bought a copy for a local ROTC detachment (my claim to fame! http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/01/pnm_bfa_rotc_demand.html ). I bought the C-SPAN video way back when to share with the book-challenged in my circle of friends. Tom has challenged my views about China (which I really basically shared before I read his stuff) and Iran (which I'm still trying to come around to). I think he's a super-smart, personable guy. I'm happy he's on our side.

I'm also a lapsed Democrat who left the party after 9/11 because I felt they had no answers to the foreign policy problems at hand, and when they tried to say the "right thing" (to my ears), it sounded awfully disingenuous, which in hindsight I believe it was.

So it pains me a bit to say I just don't get Tom pushing Obama.

I just don't get Obama's appeal on anything other than a shallow, inspirational level. His speeches are wonderful, moving events with text that falls apart in my mind about a quarter of the way through. Yes, I'm sure he's an inspiration to many, and we're roughly of the same age, so I "get" the generational thing supposedly at play. But, aside from angling for a cabinet/advisory position of some sort, I guess I just don't see the convergence on the Zen diagram between PNM and Obama. I'm not trying to be crass when I say that, but that's the most likely explanation in my mind. Such a move would make Obama a much more serious candidate, as would a Zinni as VP, etc., but certainly not enough to overcome what I've seen and heard so far.

Spare me the argument that Obama is saying one thing now for political expediency and truly meaning another. There's only two possible reasons for that scenario, and neither is a good one to me. I'm also not swayed by the argument that he's going to grow in office, although I accept that he's more likely to "grow" than McCain is to change. But I'm not convinced he's growing any way I want the country to move.

From free trade to Iraq to defense spending, the more I read about Obama, the less I like, and it tends to confirm my views in 2002 that the Democrat Party no longer wanted people like me in it. I don't see Obama "uniting" anyone but the left wing. They can have him. I still want to see a post where Tom explains the Obama attraction at a deep level other than --at its root-- a post-boomer desire. I just don't get it, and I think I get most of Tom's other arguments.

John, fwiw, Tom's argument that Obama's views will change accuses Obama of naivete, not political expediency

To Bill C:

The British had a politician who tried to negotiate with Germany. His name was Chamberlain.

China. That's all that counts (well almost all). The greatest danger to America and the world is that America will be driven to adopt jingoistic/protectionist policies that will lead to hostility with China. The result would be an economic and security catastrophe. There are pressures coming from both the Left and the Right that could push American policy in that direction. The question is, which candidate is most likely to resist those pressures. Not McCain, who remains mired in this "League of Democracies" nostalgia. Not likely Clinton, who is very much a product of interest group politics, and if nominated, I suspect will wind up sounding more and more like Lou Dobbs. That leaves Obama. I don't like the protectionist noises he has made, but I am impressed by his advisers (Power, Goolsby). Most of all, I am impressed by what seems to be his genuine intelligence and willingness to move beyond ideological straitjackets.

Sean M says, Quote:John, fwiw, Tom's argument that Obama's views will change accuses Obama of naivete, not political expediency,Unquote . .

Sean, Tom, "Political expediancy" is what got Obama to this point . .

He chose the district he could get elected in . . He chose the church that would help him get elected, and no more than a quick study of his history will show that Obama is nothing more than a good Politician, not a charismatic saviour . .

And whoever inherits this mess had better have a really sharp learning curve, because none of the candidates are going to carry their past experience further than the first crisis, be it either National or International, domestic or diplomatic . . Even McCain will have to change his ideas to cope . . and I'm sure he can, simply because up to now, he's one of the few in Congress that have made any attempt to do so . .

AND . . Today, "Our allies" stepped up . . NATO approved the "Missile Shield" in spite of Putin . .

so, I guess we're not as bad off for friends as some might think . .

And while I may disagree once in a while . . Tom, you're still a Hero in my books . . and a damned smart one at that . .

Mike:

My proposed negotiations and alliance between Great Britain and Germany is designed to have been contemplated and undertaken "early on" in the period I identified -- the second half of the 19th Century -- long before things got out of hand.

This early period is suggested so as to be a reasonable comparision with our time today and with the similar circumstances of the United States, globalization, and rising China.

Is it my imagination, or are everyone's arguments for or against particular candidates turning into shadows of one another?

Is Obama's ties to Wright the result of political expedience, or the soul searching of a fatherless child caught between two worlds?
Is Clinton's continued marriage to a serial adulterer the result of political expedience, or of a complex, lasting and somewhat disfunctional love-bond?
Is McCain's continued loyalty to a party and a President he has had a long and VERY stormy relationship with the result of political expedience or a soldier's commitment born of a sense of honor that outlasted his party's principles?

Where does the politician end and the frail human begin? Let's not get too wrapped up in our ideologies and egos that we forget to ask this of all three of them, folks.

What happens if Commander In Chief Obama withdraws our troops and chaos in Iraq ensues ... and our volunteers resign in very, very large numbers as a result? Do you want to see a new military draft enacted?

Is What Our Troops Want politically, espcially during wartime, NOT a viable election issue?

You are too influential, Dr. Barnett, to not consider the cause and effect of your political backing of our next Commander In Chief.

Who do the Islamic radicals want us to elect as our next president?

Michael: great point

Only three choices - 1) don't vote and ignore our troops' majority wishes 2) VoteWithTroops and support their majority politcal wishes or 3) vote against their majority wishes and subvert our troops' majority political wishes.

Which candidate elected as president will embolden our enemies to KILL more Americans so we quit?

Vote Affect Morale (on both sides) - Connect the Dots!

Bill C.:
I don't think there was any particular 19th Century antipathy between UK and Germany, at least while Bismarck was around. Wilhelm II screwed it up by getting bellicose and foolishly thinking that Victoria's "family ties" could keep everything from going up in flames (WII is historical figure most similar to GWB, IMO). I disagree with Niall Ferguson, who tends to give the Germans a pass on starting WWI, and setting back the progress of Globalization I.
The better 19th Century analogy to US/China today is the US/UK relationship, which was really cemented by 2 brilliant diplomats, Palmerston and Charles Francis Adams, when the UK decided to stay out of the Civil War, even though short-term economic interests strongly pushed the UK to support the Confederacy. And, at the time, most of the British elite did not think of the UK as a "democracy" (and at the time, the US political system was a corrupt mess), so it wasn't ideology that drove them together - it was the recognition that the US/UK had long-term common economic and security interests. As TPMB has been preaching, same thing for US/China today.
Michael:
I think we should develop a more mature understanding of politicians and recognize that expediency is always an element of what they have to do - all of them. I often say that politicians are the most under-appreciated class in America. Democracy can't work without them.

Thanks Stuart:

I did not take the US/UK analogy because that relationship did not save the world from great power rivalry, from imperialism, from global conflict, nor did it save Globalization I.

This is the reason I picked the 19th Century German/UK relationship.

I thought that better relations between these two entities might have made all the difference then -- as might better relations between China and the United States make all the difference today and in the future.

Stuart: including political expediency in my view of politicians would be a major paradigm shift, but you could be right!

Let us assume all candidates from the Republican or Democratic parties are equally qualify as President of the United States. If Omaba is elected, the the rest of the world's opinion about the United States, will change from negative to positive, especially 80% of the non-white peoples throughout the world! A black man elected as President of the United States will be viewed as a great nation in this multi-color world! God will reward this nation for the centuries to come.

>John, fwiw, Tom's argument that Obama's views will
>change accuses Obama of naivete, not political
>expediency

I'm not really sure that bolsters the case for Obama, but point taken, I suppose.

I have a hard time believing that, honestly. I suspect a sharp guy like Obama knows exactly what he's saying, to whom, and when.

So, you're saying that because McCain called the Germans and French out for lack of support on the war on terror, that somehow this demonstrates Obama would be better at global economics?

Obama didn't listen so well at his church, apparently. He's not all that articulate, if you'll excuse a white man for using the word. He loves his own voice and speaks at great lengths on very little substance. His great speech on race amounted to rationalization of his mentor somehow being a justifiably racist crazy uncle. He should have admitted he made a mistake. America spent a month once again hashing over re-opened racial wounds while Obama struggled to change the subject and quietly slip away unnoticed.

McCain spoke on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, and started the speech by admitting that he'd made a mistake by not supporting MLK day as a federal holiday. And moved on to business at hand.

McCain is more likely to err on the side of security. I don't think a foreign power is likely to take either Obama or Hilary nearly as seriously.

I don't believe the protectionist measures that the Democrats propose are remotely sound economics. I don't believe proposed spending increases of the magnitudes they propose are even remotely viable given the debt the U.S. is already saddled with.

McCain wouldn't be my first choice, but I think he's a little more concerned with the good of the country, then either of the Democratic candidates, who seem more intent on "taking back the white house", and empty talk about "change we can believe in."