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.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't take up diplomatic relations with these countries and their leaders; what I'm trying to say is that we're giving them too soft of an impression of America on the international stage. When Chavez shakes Obama's hand with a smile one day, giving him a socialist manifesto as a gift, then turns around the next to verbally chastise him, not only does the president look foolish, the American people do as well. Handshake diplomacy is a suitable tactic for fostering relations with our allies, not for countries proceeding with plans to build nuclear weapons with enriched uranium or allowing the Russian navy to park their ships in South America.
But where does this all stem from? Why can our president not show pride in being the leader of the free world? There's a difference between humility and being shamefaced, and for the first 100 days it's been a tightrope that our new president has walked very carefully.
Though numerous members of the press have declared him savior for the United States already, I fail to see anything beyond a politician doing the best to fulfill the office he's sworn an oath to. Decisions like shutting down Abu Gharib prison and opening up the idea of prosecuting Bush administration officials have not only hurt the idea of national security in our country, but also virtually destroyed the chance of bipartisanship of Washington as well. If the wish of the Obama administration is truly to unite the country as they promised to try to do during their campaign, their number one interest should be protecting American priorities overseas.
This means maintaining the missile shield in Poland. This means allowing our navy to traverse the same waters they always have. This means continuing the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan. These priorities of America abroad translate into American security domestically, and our president and government should not have to apologize to anyone for upholding these priorities.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm sick of hearing Americans bemoaning the actions of their United States. We live in the best country in the world, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it, overseas and back stateside. If Obama wishes to kowtow to our opposition and give it a warm smile, that's his decision, not mine. I will apologize to no one for being who I am, who we are. I'm not ashamed to admit I'm American, and neither should you.
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.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
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