Rebrand or re-Bush?

OP-ED: Rebranding the U.S. With Obama, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times, October 22, 2008

Nice piece by Kristof that echoes what I've been saying in speeches for more than a year now: going post-Boomer in the U.S. White House gets us a chance to recast our relationship with China by reaching past the 4th generation and starting to connect with the 5th and 6th generations.

Kristof expands that sort of argument to big chunks of the world.

I agree with his analysis here and the underlying notion: in our moment of financial distress, it's a neat trick to instantly rebrand ourselves from distant and harsh global authority figure to something much more in line with the frontier-integrating nature of our age--the self-made man who rises to incredible heights and beats the prevailing odds. The shift taps into a lot of things that the world has always loved about America.

The value of that shift, which would not occur with McCain whatsoever (and could possibly even backslide given his strong identification with punitive warfare) should not be underestimated.

America is indeed rebranding itself for the age, whether it wants to or not. Our success in spreading globalization simply forces this function.

And if we listen to the world in this way, our recovery back to where we once belonged is greatly accelerated. The alternative? What the last three years of the Bush administration has felt like internationally.

(Thanks: Tyler Durden)

Comments

[Paul Cajka]

Tom, is being another one of the EU socialist leaning to doing crowd worth it? The world needs the USA as a strong country, not another weak sister like most of our NATO allies. Heck most of these countries have less military capability than the NYPD. We are the sole remaining superpower, the inheritors of the enforcement of Pax Brittania in a modern form. A President Obama might even entertain the latest thoughts of Cong. Barney Frank (MA) and his 25% cut of the DoD budget. If so let's just bring in India to take over the GWOT in Asia before we're too feeble thanks to Rep Frank.

[dan Hare]

This election is the most challenging in all my years. Voters vote based on a wide variety of issues. Some vote for how 'good looking' a candidate is, others vote on single issues (abortion, small government, taxes, etc.), some by party lines.

For me there are two competing interest.

One is the bloated bureaucracy mostly at the federal level where archaic programs keep draining our tax dollars. Then there is the deep rooted philosophy that another government program will be well run.

Obama loses in my book on this note. His record is short but the $900M in pork he has requested is a solid strike against him.

I like Newt's "American Solutions" organization in this sphere.

On the other hand, the question of how we approach the world is also critical. The idea of getting past the 'boomer' footprint in terms of how they see the world (cold war, etc.) and understanding this new age of globalization which will have the best effect of elevating people from poverty and away from disease than ever before. The soft tools of war need to be sharpened and utilized before hard tools are used.

A $50,000 investment in a school to compete with the radical Madrasa's who teach hate and polute the minds of young people and then sending them off to a suicidal death is far more cost effective than $1M smart bomb in many occasions. The smart bomb is needed sometimes for sure, the point is that a soft tool of war, a school, will have better chances for long term success in changing the minds of people.

Biden talks about this while I don't hear this from McCain's camp.

Maybe its a write in of "T Boone Pickens".

The lightbulb will turn on Nov. 3 before the day of reckoning for the USA.

[Patrick O'Connor]

Paul,

"weak sister?" "feeble?" Focus on Barney Frank?

I tire of the phallus measuring school of analysis. America's strengths and potential are more varied and, dare I say, potent than our military capabilities.

Can you define socialist outside of the the prism of your personal tax bill?

[Jeff Thomas]

Tom, as a first-poster and fellow diehard Packer fan (stockholder since ’56) I’m a little reluctant to disagree with you, but …

I think the flip-side to Kristof’s coin is that the world’s expectations for an Obama presidency are, in fact, so high that disappointment will likely ensue almost regardless of what he does internationally. If his policies are “good” for the country (however one wants to define that) and loved by the world, then all is sure. But what of those times when the two are at odds? Which will take precedence in an Obama administration? I fear that the allure of reclaiming world affection – and of meeting expectations – will prove so irresistible to a President Obama that other, perhaps more critical, imperatives will become subservient. Nowhere in Obama’s scant resume do I see an occasion where he took anything but the course of least resistance. Nowhere. I think the odds favor a continuance of that trend should he become president.

[William R. Cumming]

If the policy shifts since 9/11 in the US foreign policy arena are still largely undocumented and not understood by the average citizen, then the rebranding and dribbling out over the next decade of analysis of Bush era errors (and truthfully I think the last 30 years of foreign policy were not a demonstration of skilled foreign policy by the US) then I really think the rebranding may have some merit. But if the same old, same old, foreign policy types that signed up with Clinton and Bush return then rebranding not likely to have an impact. Proof as always is in the pudding.

[farhad]

If U.S lost its political clouds globally with Iraq,it has lost its economical clouds,with the meltdown.the trick with just having Obama alone won't get U.S back to where once belonged.for one, you can't have a strong militerey,without a strong economy,and thehuagh difference this time from 1930's is,eventhough there was a%25 unemployment,the factories were still there,and it was able to put peoople back to work.not mentioning the deciding factor;WWII.I think we need start with DEPARTMENT OF PEACE,instead of dept.of defence(offence),bring all bases back home,and start the economicconectivity (globalization) from back home,take care for the American people, the %85-%90. I won't go back to 60's,where %50-60 of theGNP was industrial sector.in 1980 industrial sector of the GNP was %21,where as in 2008,it is %12.also in 1980 the monetary sector was%15,where as now is over %21.in 1930 America was a complete industrial country.

[Tom Barnett]

We haven't had a president with great symbolic impact since Reagan. I suggest you look there for the precedents.

Reagan knew how to use that. I believe Obama is smart enough to manage that.

[Mark in Texas]

I hope that your opinion of Obama is correct and than mine is wrong since it looks like we are going to have a long time to live with the buyer's remorse if an Obama administration goes like I think it will.