Obama: He's big in Germany!

"the kind of voters Obama needs to cross over to vote for him -- are they really going to be impressed with the fact that Europe loves Obama?"

One would hope so. Doesn't America's standing in the world matter to Americans anymore? Bush did such a terrific job of destroying that standing, you'd think all Americans would embrace the chance to enhance it, restore it to what it once was.

I agree, as a former $25 buck a month donor to Obama I now don't know if I'll even vote for him in the fall (in fact only reason I probably still will is the republicans have shown themselves to be completely incompetent and borderline corrupt over the past 8 years).

So, let me get this straight: McCain and the right jump all over Obama for his flimsy passport. Now they're jumping all over him because he's shaking hands and talking to world leaders, who, if Obama is elected, he'll be dealing with on a daily basis.

And Rod calls this hubris? Look, why don't we call this for what it really is: At this point, there is nothing Obama can do that will make Rod or Ross or anyone of their political stripe happy.

And why does meeting with world leaders make you an elitist? Doesn't Obama have a 50-50 chances of actually working with these guys next year?

Having a president on good terms with most Europeans and with whom most Europeans are on good terms would be advantageous for everyone involved.

That said, isn't our most pressing need for a president on good terms with most *Americans* and with whom most Americans are on good terms?

Obama and those who support him are "cosmopolitan" enough to find affinity with those in other countries who are just like them in their points of view.

But they are *not* cosmopolitan enough to find affinity with those in other parts of their own country that are different from their own, where their countrymen-and-women hold different points of view.

Obama and the rest of us would be much better served if he would spend less time mugging for the cameras overseas and more time not only listening to but *hearing* what people in this country who are different from him have to say.

Also, while -- needless to say -- Obama has nothing whatsoever in common with Hitler other than the very heavy emphasis his politics puts on stirring up ecstatic emotion in crowds through vaguely messianic appeals to atavistic instincts, the fact that the two of them have even *that* in common makes me and others like me feel a queasiness that isn't being helped by the staging of this spectacle in Germany.

I don't think that Obama's messianism will let him to make too much more mischief than a merely mortal president would make. That's not my complaint.

My complaint is that he is fomenting even more of the emotivist irrationality that already is the bane of our politics in an age of mass demagoguery.

However much more of this bane we must endure will be unhealthy for the body-mind-and-soul politic, both individually and communally.

Let me append to my post above that I am *not* a Republican and *don't* plan to vote for John McCain.

Given our generally short attention span and lack of concern for anything outside our borders that doesn't require bombs, will most Americans even notice?

I love my country dearly, but its disregard for the rest of planet rubs me the wrong way.

I'm proposing that a presidential candidate, especially one that has Obama's particular political challenges to deal with, does himself no good by scheduling a political rally in a European capital.

Oh, I don't know, depends on the speech he gives and the narrative that comes out of it.

Some talk about how he and Merkel discussed how German companies could build manufacturing plants in the US or how the young people in Germany admire America's spirit of hope and freedom would go over pretty well in Ohio.

Augustus, you answered your own question. You asked...

"isn't our most pressing need for a president on good terms with most *Americans* and with whom most Americans are on good terms?"

Your answer:

"Obama and those who support him are "cosmopolitan" enough to find affinity with those in other countries who are just like them in their points of view."

This seems at odds with your addendum:

"But they are *not* cosmopolitan enough to find affinity with those in other parts of their own country that are different from their own, where their countrymen-and-women hold different points of view."

Which is it, "most Americans", or "those who hold different views", or those "with whom most Americans are on good terms"? They are 3 discrete entities. Those who hold different views rarely if ever change their views.

"Obama and the rest of us would be much better served if he would spend ... more time not only listening to but *hearing* what people in this country who are different from him have to say."

The current "President" never did that. Why would you expect it from another? Besides, from what i've seen reported in various media, Obama does both listen and *hear* what others have said - and finds it (as do I) divisive in the extreme. The attacks on civil liberties in America over the past 7.5 years have had disastrous results. The attacks themselves are a result of only listening to the 'right' ("You're either with us or agin' us.")

"My complaint is that he is fomenting even more of the emotivist irrationality that already is the bane of our politics in an age of mass demagoguery."

Interesting that you would take Bush's actions ('tairist' threat levels = "emotivist irrationality", imo) and their results and blame a potential future President for them. And beware, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" also = "emotivist irrationality", imo, though I am glad that you *don't* plan to vote for John McCain.

Given that there is only one non American journalist travelling with him I think it is clear his focus is on impressing Americans.

I personally find Obama extremely impressive. I think he is conducting himself brilliantly.

The only true advantage that McCain has over Obama is foreign policy, and Obama is taking away that advantage. In a few weeks the Berlin rally won't be that big a deal, but it will provide a foundational subtext: "What the Republicans are saying about my foreign policy credentials is not true. I have been welcomed over there, and many citizens in countries we are allied with are eager for me to become president."

If McCain were to go to Berlin, how many people, here or there, would really care? I wouldn't.

I'll confess, when the Bush administration first started "dissing" our allies, I was in favor of that. "Who gives a damn about world opinion? It's time for us to remind our allies that they can't take us for granted." I remember enjoying Rumsfeld calling certain countries "Old Europe." Now I look back and regret the way we treated our allies, and my foolish appreciation of that kind of disrespect. The simple fact, obvious in retrospect, is that countries like France and Germany were right to oppose the Iraq war. They could foresee the consequences. We should have listend to our allies.

So now, I'm eager for a president who treats our allies with respect, generosity, and an open ear. And if the citizens of those countries appreciate him that much, that is one more reason to think he represents the change we need. To state the obvious: the more popular Obama is abroad, the more likely it is that the leaders of foreign countries will listen to him, which will allow him to promote American interests in an atmoshpere of civility and mutual respect.

The speech of US Presidential candidate, B. Hussein Obama, as transcribed by Deutsche Welle:

... and therefore, recalling the words of President Kennedy who said so many years ago "Ich bin ein Berliner", and President Reagan who said "Mr. Gorbachev, take down this Lebkuchenhaus, I mean, wall", I, too, take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Marmortorte."

When queried about the speech, Chancellor Merkel remarked, "I think American presidential speechwriters intern at the Food Channel."

recovering ex-pentecostal,

You seem to be assuming that one cannot be on good terms with those who are different from oneself and who hold views that are different from one's own.

That's not an assumption I make, and my comments on Obama are perfectly coherent from the point of view that difference need not mean animosity or disrespect.

George W. Bush is irrelevant to this conversation -- a conversation about Barack Obama.

Emotivist irrationality exploited by mass demagoguery did not begin with Bush nor will it end with the Obama regime.

The fact that I invoke the ghost of Hitler (and of many others like him) should indicate I don't think that this sort of thing is anything new.

As for McCain. no crowd has been brought to orgasmic ecstasy by anything he's ever had to say, and no one has ever put him forward as some rough best who is slouching toward the Brandenberg Gate to be born.

Turmarion: "The Republicans have spared no effort to project themselves as 'folksy' and 'just plain folks' (think of Reagan riding his horse and clearing brush; George H. W. and his country music and pork rinds--bet he loved those growing up!; W. and his ranch, and brush clearing ..."

Turmarion, this is no act. It's just what these Republican Presidents were (and are). Reagan took up horseback riding when he was in his early 20s when he was a sports announcer in Iowa. Being in the outdoors cleared his mind. In his mid 20s, GHWB and his wife chose west Texas over Wall Street ... and never looked back; it's natural that he developed a love for country music and pork rinds. As for "W", he was raised in west Texas and if clearing brush on his land is what he enjoys doing, well, who are we to look down at him? Apparently he'd rather do that than blog on the internet.

Germany seems to have a soft-spot for well-spoken, articulate politicians with totalitarian impulses.

If there's one place whose practices and beliefs America should not emulate is present-day Europe. Remember, these folks gave us the most well-read and multi-lingual despots in the history of the human race. I suspect that if you were sharing a table with Hitler at a French restaurant he would have known exactly what wine to order and could do so in the waiter's native tongue. And I'm sure your conversation with him would be littered with references to history, philosophy, political theory, and other mind-stimulating thoughts, with the sound of Wagner emanating from barroom piano. Martin Heidegger, a Hitler chum, would probably chime in now and then to offer his profound insights about the Not and the Nothing.

Look, it's not a virtue to be able to explain "final solution" in a half dozen European languages and one from the Middle East.

Daniel: "Utter nonsense. Reagan was a Bel Air living, my-wife-wears-couture kind of guy who spent his entire career currying favor with millionaires and corporate elites."

Daniel, I kind of feel sorry for you. I suppose you need to feed off the bile and inhale the hate. No one is claiming that these guys lived in log cabins. But they did enjoy the outdoors. A lot of people -- a lot of Americans -- do as well. After spending hours as most of us do cooped up in cubicles and staring at computer screens and dealing with annoying bosses ... a lot of us find a kind of therapy in doing simple things outdoors. That includes weeding the flower bed or growing vegetables in the back yard or clearing bush.

As for Reagan, he and his wife had different interests. Yes, she was a couture-wearing type of girl. He was a horse-riding, blue-jeans type of guy. So what?

A few thoughts on the Obama Summer Tour in Germany:

(1) The choice of Berlin's Victory Column by Obama and his staff was goofy. The "victories" that are commemorated are Prussia’s successful invasions of Denmark, Austria and France. Worse even, the monument was a favorite of Adolf Hitler. He ordered the column to be moved to its present location and incorporated it into his plans to rebuild Berlin. One can only imagine what Germany's neighbors -- Poland, Russia, France, Britain -- think of this.

(2) Today, Obama cancelled previously scheduled trips to the Rahmstein and Landstuhl US military bases in southwest Germany. Why not visit the soldiers -- many of them wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and now convalescing -- and their families?

(3) In his address, Obama spoke of "remaking the world." How is this different from the "nation building" that we have been engaged in Iraq these past five years?

Of course, the Germans loved Reagan too.

So maybe your theory is correct.

Daniel: "The Germans loved Reagan too. So maybe your theory is correct."

You are wrong on the history. The East German government both feared and despised Reagan. In West Germany, Reagan's policies were routinely the object of massive demonstrations organized by the political left. What was true for Reagan in the 1980s was also true, though to a lesser exent, for JFK ... who also visited Berlin and gave a famous speech.

Obama's speech today largely pandered to EUROPEAN ambitions for the United States. In November, however, the voters will be more interested in electing a President that will promote American interests. Perhaps Obama should apply to be General Secretary of the UN or President of the European Union. Those jobs would suit him better.

I suspect the only people who would be upset that Obama is popular in Europe are the "moronocons" (thanks Rod, I've got a new word!) who were never going to vote for him anyway.

Daniel and Jillian: I think you've got it exactly.

Reaganite in NYC: "Apparently [W. would] rather do that [clear brush] than blog on the internet." The cattiness is unnecessary.

"Daniel, I kind of feel sorry for you. I suppose you need to feed off the bile and inhale the hate." I'm not seeing where the hate is in Daniel's post.

"After spending hours as most of us do cooped up in cubicles... a lot of us find a kind of therapy in doing simple things outdoors." Agreed, but that wasn't the point.

First, many who would find it therapeutic to "do simple things outdoors" are unable to do so because they have to work so hard and long just to make ends meet.

Second, while I don't doubt that Reagan's love for horses and the outdoors were sincere, it is still true that he, a man from a modest background, did indeed curry favor with millionaires and corporate elites. That's a simple fact. George H. W. may have moved to Texas but he was raised in privilege in New England, and at the time he ran for President, his legal residence in Texas, if I remember correctly, was a hotel room. The family compound has always been in Kennebunkport. Finally, despite growing up in Texas, W. was born in New England and despite going to public school for at least some time in Crawford, he eventually went to Phillips Academy, a school which is, shall we say, elite.

Third, the point wasn't whether outdoorsy activities are good or whether brush clearing, country music, and pork rinds were sincerely liked by the presidents in question. The point is that the media handlers for Reagan and both Bushes have played up such things to sell the idea that the men in question are not "really" any different from ordinary people, and that implicitly they would be on the side of ordinary people, unlike (implicitly) those nasty latte-sipping, Europhilic, limousine liberals. I think an objective look at the policies pushed by Republicans over the last three decades gives the lie to their being on the side of ordinary working people. I therefore find it digusting that they push a working-class image of themselves to appeal to the very people whose interests they undermine.

Finally, I give as a counterexample FDR. No one could think Roosevelt was anything other than upper-crust old money, and he felt no need to act otherwise. He practically dripped patricianism. However, he always worked tirelessly against corporate and business interests and for the working people of America. I might also point out that during WW II at his Inauguration Ball, he had simple chicken salad sandwiches and a subdued atmosphere, rather than the record-setting bucks that W. spent on his second Inauguration, despite our being in one of the costliest wars in history at the time.

Bottom line: It's better to be for the people than like them, whether you are sincere in your "down-homieness" or not.

The way you help ordinary working people is to (1) stop thinking you can help ordinary working people; (2) don't think of their taxes as your money; (3) don't nurture in them the vice of envy by comparing them to successful fellow citizens who should be emulated and not despised; (4) stop thinking that government "creates" jobs, for government can only make sure that the engines of the free market are in place so that jobs are created by entrepeneurs; the government no more "creates" jobs than prostitutes "make love"; (5) speak highly of the capacities of the working class and their values rather than treating them as children who need your help to get health, celebrate diversity, and "join the 21st century."

The younger generation, nurtured on the soft fascism of multiculturalism and political correctness, are so politically color blind that they can't even recognize the brown shirts picked out for them by their nanny state.

If one were going to parody Freeper extremism on the far right, they couldn't come up with a gem like this sentence. It's every unhinged idea and buzzword of the last 20 years of far right nuttiness.

Yes, social democracy is totalitarianism, Francis. That's why the EU is such a dictatorship and a disaster everyone's fleeing.

As for your Settlement Era ideas about the working class and government, I can see you've never actually been a responsible 20th or 21st century employer or entrepreneur. And since you're good at math, just how much is your health care in the next 10 years going to cost the rest of us beyond what you pay in?

Jillian: "That's why the EU is such a dictatorship and a disaster everyone's fleeing."

Jillian, perhaps you meant to be sarcastic ... but I'm afraid there's a good bit of truth to the sarcasm. The EU is hardly a model of direct democracy. The bureaucrats of Brussels are trying to push through a revised EU Constitution but only in Ireland were the voters allowed to DIRECTLY vote on its ratification. And, of course, those Irish voters gave it thumbs down.

In every other European country the governments refused to let the voters have a crack at approving the proposed EU Constitution. Even in the United Kingdom the Labor Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, reneged on a campaign vow to let the matter be decided in a plebescite.

Dictatorship comes in many forms, and we're learning about new ones in Europe's recent experience with EU governance.

What does that actually mean?

That the good professor is looking for op-ed work or a book deal?

The bureaucrats of Brussels are trying to push through a revised EU Constitution but only in Ireland were the voters allowed to DIRECTLY vote on its ratification. And, of course, those Irish voters gave it thumbs down.

Have you ever read up on how the Constitution of the United States was ratified? It was not pretty. Small minded and retrogressive people hate good Constitutions, whatever their merits. The ratification of the Confederate Constitution, on the other hand, was easy. (And people like Glenn Reynolds still believe, in their heart of hearts, and act as if the Confederate Constitution has superceded the federal one.)

That being said, as an EU/US dual citizen I agree the proposed EU Constitution should not be adopted, though not for the reasons you claim. I urged the people I know in France not to vote for ratification. What is wrong with it is not complexity or emphasis on complicated administrative authority and traps within minutiae and the like per se. What is wrong with it is the political prematurity that underlies all its objectionable characteristics.

Anyway, things are going so "badly" that Italy, Ireland, Poland, Spain, and Portugal are booming and famously becoming countries of reimmigration and net immigration rather than emigration. One social and economic basket case country after another is being lifted to its feet and made to walk with help of monies and demands emanating from the Benelux countries, northern France, and western and southern Germany. Things are so "bad" that the youth of Serbia quite uniformly want to join, as to those of Bosnia and Kosovo. Even Israel and Georgia would like to join. EU expansion and strong influence will very certainly reach a line extending from the White Sea to Smolensk, through the Dnieper basin, to the Bosporus and to Crete. Further than that, hard to say.

As I recall, David Hasselhoff is/was quite the celebrity over there as well. That doesn't say much for Barry...

Dear Mr. Beckwith:

Re: Health Insurance Coverage

Let me preface this by saying that every man, woman and child should have access to adequate health care here in the US of A, regardless of financial status, class, race, whatever!

I've mentioned this before on Rod's blog, but perhaps you weren't paying attention, so here goes again:

The Swiss Model:

I have close and dear friends in Switzerland, whom I see several times a year here in the US of A. I've quizzed them on the health care situation in Switzerland.

Here's the story: Everyone in Switzerland must have health insurance! Mandatory! It's bought mostly through private insurance companies and costs approximatly what it does here, say, for a family of three, about $800-$900 per month.

There is no Medicare when you become 65, you just continue with your private insurance.

If you have problems paying, i.e. if you are poor or low-income, there are is government assistance with the premium payments. (Not that the looney right would approve of that, would they, Francis, hey, let them eat cake)!

And, No, they don't have socialized medicine in Switzerland! Doctors don't work for the state!

What's not to like?

Upon reading many of the blogs posted here, I must clarify something.
Most Americans agree with the lofty words and visions for world peace that Obama so eloquently pontificates in his speeches ... It's Obama we don't trust. those of you who hypnotically fawn over Obama take everything he says as gospel. But, you don't even know the man. You assume that because his words are worthy, he is trustworthy. People they are just words! Obama, the man who is speaking those words has a horrible track record. He did nothing as a senator. He spent the last 20 years accepting an anti-American racist as his mentor. His associations have been with extremely unsavory people. However, you Obamabots keep trying to characterize the rest of us as disagreeing with what Obama says ... when it's Obama himself we don't trust ... nor should you!