Unlike many of my fellow conservatives who have made their voices loud and clear, I do not wish President Obama failure. In fact, I wish quite the opposite. I hope he improves the state of the economy, secures our borders and restores the dignity of America abroad. In the case of that last point, however, it's the manner in which he performs this restoration that concerns me.
At the end of the first 100 days of the Obama presidency, we can safely say that America's diplomatic involvement on the international stage is changing, but at what price to our image as Americans? We can acknowledge that the Bush administration made mistakes, but we cannot and should not acknowledge shame in being Americans for those reasons.
My problem with President Obama so far is that there's been a failure on his part to foster any pro-American sentiment.
On the contrary, it seems as if he's been an apologist for America, speaking about previous transgressions abroad without the bipartisan nature he promised in his campaign. Instead of showing pride in his country, the president has shown only regret for our past actions. This attitude combined with increased cooperation with countries seeking the downfall of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is probably the root of my frustration.
I was born and raised a military brat. In the situation created by that, interacting with people outside of the U.S. whose perspective differs completely from Americans, it's easy to become ambivalent about the foreign affairs of our country. Because I grew up overseas during the Bush years, the downfall of America's international reputation was quite apparent during my family's travels.
Friends of my family outside the military would often remark about how our previous president was a monkey, a buffoon and an ignoramus. It would've been all too easy to say that he was, but nonetheless George W. Bush was commander in chief, fairly elected and in service to his country. If there was one thing I can say I absolutely liked about George W. Bush, it's that he was unapologetically American. When he went overseas, the mission was to protect American interests and values and not to attempt to preserve some aesthetic of America's international reputation.
The reason why I'm bringing up George W. Bush is because we're failing to see the same idea of America preserved by President Obama. Instead of being firm with leaders of a firmly anti-American mindset like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez or Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he's shaking hands, smiling and taking photo opportunities with them.
Leave a comment 31 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
So, essentially you're saying Obama is anti-American? Seems to align with the way he's been destroying our country.
Reply to this Top
On Obama's latest trip to Europe, he said in front of a French audience, "In Europe there is an anti-Americanism that is casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there are times when Europe chooses to blame America for so much of what is bad." Also, someone would have to explain why conservatives think it is a punishment for the President to meet with foreign leaders. There is video of Nixon (Republican) shaking hands and smiling with Mao Zedong. I don't think anyone will try to argue that Hugo is worse than Mao. Finally, Obama did not shut down Abu Gharib, he just transferred it to Iraqi control. Maybe the author meant Guantanamo Bay, in which case he is moving the prisoners to facilities inside the US where they can have an actual trial and real justice can be done.
Reply to this Top
"Unlike many of my fellow conservatives" This is where I stopped reading.
Reply to this Top
You guys need to get your facts straight. Obama has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib. The US turned Abu Ghraib over to the Iraqis in 2006 when Obama was a first-term Senator with less than two years in office. He hadn't declared himself a candidate for President - that's how long ago it was. It was even before the surge. But, hey, if you want to give Obama credit for turning Abu Ghraib back over to the Iraqis... why not?
Reply to this Top
You lost me when you said Bush was "fairly elected." Then why was the Supreme Court involved. If if you mean "unapologetically American" as "arrogant and simple-minded certitude in the face of world-wide condemnation", you nailed it. Obama treats Chavez like the clown that Chavez is, by laughing Chavez off. Bush and Cheney gave Chavez credibility by declaring him an enemy, and thus making him worthy of concern. The root of your frustration is recognizing that the arrogance of the past eight years didn't work and the re-emergence of the U.S. as a worldwide leader (the "change") is at the open-hand of political nuance and savvy rather than at the end of the barrel of a moron's gun. Good riddance to Bush's "same idea of America."
Reply to this Top
"The re-emergence of the U.S. as a worldwide leader...?" The U.S. has not just been a leader, but THE leader of the world for decades, so how can Obama change something like that when it's not broken in the least bit? I do hope Obama's presidency is considered a success, I just know it won't be with lack of experience and plethora of arrogance.
Reply to this Top
It's also interesting to note that I looked over at the "nay" list for congress's vote on authorization to pretty much go to war and Obama's name wasn't on there. So he didn't vote against the war and he transferred power of Abu Gharib to the Iraqi's. Can anyone else think of ways to rewrite history?
Reply to this Top
everyone is a monday morning politician these days. people need to stop caring so much about what these jokers do. the fact is americans have it good enough in life to be able to complain about foreign policy and let gays marry instead of worrying about mass starvation and genocide. if arrogance or saying im sorry is what it takes to be in that position, fine by me.
Reply to this Top
"...when it's not broken in the least bit?".....sounds like someone needs to get their head out of the sand if you think the world has been following the US the last 8 years. Our major export was stupidity and arrogance. We were like the French, only without the intelligence. Bush set the standard for an unsuccessful Presidency with "lack of experience and plethora of arrogance" but unfortunately it didn't get better with experience.
Reply to this Top
american arrogance, what does that mean? i hear it a lot but i am not exactly sure how we are so arrogant. im not arrogant. it sounds like a stereotype or blanket statement of an entire group of people probably coming from individuals that dont like stereotypes. who exhibited/exported this arrogance and how? was it just george bush? im trying to understand why people feel this way.
Reply to this Top
"We are a beacon of light around the world. At least that's what we can be again. That's what we should be again." Statements from Americans like that are arrogant.
Reply to this Top
"We are a beacon of light around the world. At least that's what we can be again. That's what we should be again." Statements from Americans like that are arrogant.
Reply to this Top
"We are a beacon of light around the world. At least that's what we can be again. That's what we should be again." Statements from Americans like that are arrogant.
Reply to this Top
"American arrogance" is a shorthand rightwing term used to attack the President's speech critiquing the United States' European foreign policy of the last 8 years when he said: "Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you, there have been times where America has shown arrogance, been dismissive even derisive." For those of you with short memories, Bush's arrogant posturing with Russia last August was the latest. It's policy, not people. People like Sean Hannity don't know policy, so they personalize it by calling it an attack on YOU, so you should hate the President. Seriously. That's how simplistically stupid the attacks of the Republican party have become.
Reply to this Top
"American arrogance" is a shorthand RIGHT wing term? Are you kidding? Democrats have been using this phrase for the better part of the last eight years to describe Bush's foreign policy.
Reply to this Top
"We are a beacon of light around the world. At least that's what we can be again. That's what we should be again." Statements from Americans like that are arrogant. No, it's true. Do you really think there are nearly 11 million illegal immigrants here because it sucks? The fact is that America has done far more good for the world than bad. Maybe you should read some history. Millions of people around the world live in freedom and democracy because of the US.
Reply to this Top
HokieHi don't go gettin all rational on us. Our history is enslaving people, killing off indians, blah blah...of course not one of us were alive then but we should still be guilty! I mean, we waterboarded people! How good a country could we be?
Reply to this Top
well it's good to know Sean Hannity is posting in this forum. Either that or soembody decides to bring him up for no apparent reason. Stop watching so much tv dude, it's bad for your health. He's an entertainer just like Bill O'Reilly or John Stewart. Not everyone formulates their opinion from a tv talking head.
Reply to this Top
No, President Bush was not fairly elected. The Supreme Court gave him the presidency. Al Gore won the popular vote and if all votes had been recounted in Florida, he would have won the electoral vote. Yes he was Commander in Chief and he avoided the Vietnam War as did most in his administration - Cheney received 5 deferments from the Vietnam War. America's credibility and standing in the world was greatly diminished by the Bush administration. The cost in blood and treasury for a "war of choice, not necessity' in Iraq by a commander in chief who lied about WMDs is tragic! We now have an adult in the White House and it is refreshing to see him reach out to all leaders of other countries. The Bush administration attempted to undermine the election in of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mr. Chavez provided free fuel to many unfortunate Americans so Yes, he can, President Obama can shake his hand and hopefully invite him to my country. As Winston Churchill stated, "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war. As a tenth-generation American whose people were among the founders of this country, it is profoundly sad to witness the hostility by so many whose people immigrated to our country after the founding. America has been far to generous to these insidious ingrates.
Reply to this Top
Chagrined, please recall several key facts. First, The SCOTUS was actually somewhat left-leaning at the time of the 2000 election. Secondly, the aggregate national popular vote is inconsequential in Presidential elections since the founders saw fit to utilize the electoral college as a means of electing that particular position rather than direct election. This is for numerous reasons, none so important perhaps as the fact that the Presidency was never supposed to be permitted to have the expansive power and influence it has today. Thirdly, every subsequent recount in Florida conducted before Bush v. Gore showed an increase in Bush's popular vote lead in that state. Keep in mind also that he won re-election as well, by a wider margin than in 2000. . .
Reply to this Top
holy craminy, are people really still talking about the 2000 election? amazing
Reply to this Top
Like seriously dude, no apparent reason except to provide an example of what "american arrogance" means and as long as people buy the whole "he's not wearing a flag-pin so he hates America" moronic rhetoric, a response is necessary to explain just how stupid it is. Hey HokieHi, who lives "in freedom and democracy" around the world because of the US? That's a little patronizing don't you think? Maybe you should study a few foreign governments or cultures.
Reply to this Top
Who lives in freedom and democracy because of us? There's this continent I like to call Europe. There was a little skirmish over there in the late 1930s and 1940s we kinda helped out with. Or would you rather that National Socialism were the rule over there? Just asking. Then there's Japan. They have democracy because we kicked their asses and then imposed it on them. How about South Korea? Without us the whole of the Korean Peninsula would be run by Kim right now. Try reading some history.
Reply to this Top
Huh? Japan was a democracy prior to World War II. Korea was occupied by Japan until the end of World War II, when the US as an ally of Russia, allowed the Russians to occupy Korea (pursuant to an "international trusteeship" at Yalta), opening the door for Communism there. The Korean people had no say. Yes, we along with about 40 other countries "kinda helped out with" World War II. But then again, they probably don't count in the "history" in your head. But they do in the history books you've never read.
Reply to this Top
Japan was not really a democracy after it invaded Manchuria in 1931. By the time of Pearl Harbor, democracy was dead – it lasted only a few years and Japan returned to military dictatorship, which is all it had ever really known. South Korea is a democracy only because of the US. The US had 11 million men under arms in WW II, and if you think the Nazis would have been defeated without American help you’re dumber than you sound.
Reply to this Top
Everything is fine with this country except people keep arguing over nonsense. You'll know this country isn't great once people stop lining up at the doorstep trying to get in. And what can't Obama go and say I'm sorry to everyone? That's what he said he would do. People should at least respect him for keeping his promise. If you don't want to hear the president say those things then don't vote for him next time. Or perhaps even run for president yourself with all your great ideas.
Reply to this Top
If you think the Nazis would have been defeated by the Americans alone, tell it to Churchill. I think the point is, democracy can't be imposed, it either survives by the will of the majority of people in their own sovereignty, or it doesn't. Giving the credit to America, as if the citizenry of other countries are patsy's to its will, is a prime example of "American arrogance." They live in free democracies because of them, not because of YOU.
Reply to this Top
Hey, you with the reading comprehension problem, I never said we could have defeated Nazi Germany alone. And since you bring up Churchill - he worked for years to get America to join the fight. Obviously HE thought US help was important. I also never said citizens of other countries were patsies, but the odds that the German people would have risen up and overthrown the Nazis was pretty low.
Reply to this Top
wow this arrogance word is all the rage these days. "if you think the Nazis would have been defeated without American help you’re dumber than you sound" is answered with "If you think the Nazis would have been defeated by the Americans alone..." and we blame our politicians for not being able to compromise or constructively debate anything. probably because they argue just like the rest of us. that is reassuring since it means they are representing the people
Reply to this Top
Yup, arrogance is quickly gaining ground on transparency in the buzz word department. People and their words...
Reply to this Top
Conservatives are no longer relevant; didn't read column.
Reply to this Top