The Obama Watch
Obama in the Coils of Foreign Opinion
Obama’s courting of world opinion hasn’t produced much — but that would be true of any president.
Pew Research has come out with its latest sampling of international public opinion, espousing the prevailing establishment view: that people in foreign countries like Obama and as a result like the United States — although perhaps not as much as a year ago — and that such opinion benefits us, especially in comparison with the era of George W. Bush.
Pew’s own press release declared “Obama More Popular Abroad than at Home, Global Image of U.S. Continues to Benefit.” The New York Times story dutifully quoted Johannes Thimm, described as an expert on American foreign policy at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, that “…it’s remarkable that the general bounce back from the Bush administration in the negative standing of the United States has held up.”
What is one to make of this apparently scientific polling? Not much. If Pew had chosen to look at polls going back decades — Pew only started global polling ten years ago — it could have explained that new presidents frequently get higher favorability ratings for the U.S. than their predecessors and that such ratings decline as the general dislike for the United States as a super power asserts itself. Pew’s surveys show that U.S. favorability ratings are higher today than at the end of Bush’s term, but other Pew surveys show that the U.S. favorability ratings today, in Obama’s second year in office, are roughly the same as in 2002, Bush’s second year in office. While favorable attitudes towards the U.S., according to Pew, are today slightly higher than in 2002 for France, Germany, Lebanon, South Korea and Kenya, they are actually lower for Great Britain, Russia, Turkey, Japan, and Mexico. Local surveys in Israel show that Obama is very unpopular in that country; but Pew, which previously has included Israel in its surveys, did not include it in the new one.
What international opinion pollsters rarely point out is that attitudes towards the United States have generally been low since we emerged as a superpower in the 1920s. (Admittedly, polling wasn’t as scientific back then.) The only historic exceptions are where the public detests a dictatorship and looks to America as the exemplar of freedom, as Poles did in the communist era, or where we have defeated and then treated generously a country after war, for example, Germany and Japan.
There may be upticks in the first few months of new administrations, when foreigners, like Americans, welcome new Presidents. And yes, there are downticks when the American superpower takes military initiatives, for example, in Vietnam and Iraq. But overall opinion of us remains surprisingly and consistently low, particularly among the beneficiaries of American help.
The current hostile reaction of the Pakistani public to American largesse is not too different from the reaction of the European public after the United States helped win World War One with both troops and loans. This is when denunciations against “American imperialism” came into vogue, leading Will Rogers to say that “The only way we could get in worse would be to help them win another war.”
We soon did that, and Gallup Surveys show that by 1945, the favorable French opinion of the isolationist America recorded in the 1930s, was sinking again. The advent of economic aid under the Marshall Plan did not change negative opinion toward us and Field Marshall Montgomery offered a worried Secretary of State Dean Acheson a simple explanation: “your handing out all these gifts.” The public of most countries resent a liberator or occupier, a creditor or aid giver, no matter how beneficial or benign the “helper” may be, although this doesn’t mean that such help isn’t in America’s self interest.
That Pew or other opinion firms believe that President Obama has ushered in favorable attitudes towards the United States should not concern us except that the President, himself, seems to place great stock in such perceptions. He was the first President to campaign abroad, drawing rapturous crowds from Berlin to Paris to London. And during his first year in office he proudly boasted about U.S. foreign opinion ratings, while disclaiming that he read such surveys. His speeches to the world have courted public opinion.
A President that makes policy based not on our own interests and ideals but on foreign opinion would certainly be different. Perhaps some of our decisions would be better, although many, I suspect, would be worse. We would have hesitated about liberating France, abandoned the Marshall Plan, and softened our stance towards the Soviets. We would have gotten into Iraq and Afghanistan — and then quickly gotten out. Obviously we would have ditched our alliance with Israel long ago.
One thing is certain: that appealing to foreign opinion does not necessarily mean that the particular foreign government will pursue policies more favorable to the U.S., unless we use that opinion to bring about regime change in a democratic direction. Iran is the prime example. Even in more democratic countries, studies show that governments are less inclined to follow public opinion in foreign than in domestic affairs.
It is hard to see where Obama’s courting of world opinion has produced much. Pledging to close Guantanamo was popular, but it did not move foreign governments to take more Guantanamo prisoners or send more troops to help us in Afghanistan. Pledging to push nuclear disarmament was popular too, but aside from some reductions by Russia and the United States that don’t alter Russia’s capacity to destroy us, no nation has offered to eliminate or sharply reduce its stockpile. Other nations do what we want when it is in their own interest.
Foreign opinion may be of modest use in deciding how to implement a U.S. strategy. It is important to know that Afghani opinion overwhelmingly rejects the Taliban while distrusting its own government.
Used properly, such surveys may be of limited help to American Presidents in pursuing our interests and ideals. The question remains as to whether President Obama understands these limits.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (23) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/28/obama-in-the-coils-of-foreign
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 6.28.10 @ 8:06AM
Among the many things BHO does or refuses or ignores in grasping is this: He is the President not of the European Union or some Muslim eqivlenty of nations but of the United States of America. That is the problem for him at it appears ingrained in his persona. So, the good old US of A will be popular no matter how a particular president licks the -----of any despot or. So, does BHO do it for fun,for display, for gettiong his kicks out of his anger for being an American ? Your guess may be better than my own. national group etc. In no way.
Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 8:34AM
"Pledging to push nuclear disarmament was popular too, but aside from some reductions by Russia and the United States that don't alter Russia's capacity to destroy us"
This is true. But missile defense in Poland was a blatant, unnecessary provocation. Predictably, it was moved to maritime.
And btw, I don't fault Bush; but do think he wanted power too much, not for himself but for his family; the very thing that ruined the Kennedy dynasty.
Clinton nee Publius | 6.28.10 @ 11:39AM
You're right, AB. Good thing we were lucky that Obama beat Jeb Bush in the last presidential election and put an end to the Bush Dynasty.
Oh wait. That didn't really happen. Hmmm... Another liberal myth meets reality.
On the other hand, protecting Eastern Europe from Iran and the future ambitions of Russia was a real bad idea. After all, these countries want to be free-market democracies and liberals only support feudal-fascist states that embrace the political class as the new royalty that all have to support as the price of being allowed to live. Yeah, I'm with you on this one. We need more opportunities for socialists and fascists to help steer us towards the perfect harmony of complete tyranny and maybe murder another 100 million people. Yeah, that'll work...
Toolbag| 6.28.10 @ 8:53PM
I'm not so sure that the EU has any interest in be inga free market economy or free in any other respect. They want to be cradle to grave nanny states.
Grzmlyk| 6.29.10 @ 11:15AM
Clinton nee Publius, you must remember: Liberals know better than you how you must live your life.
After all, you are only on this planet to provide for the Public Good as defined by the Ruling Class, who are so much smarter than you, so much BETTER than you - why, there so darned good that, in fact, they have exempted themselves from living the life they would coerce YOU into living.
that's as it should be; after all, they are the ubermenschen; we are the vermin.
And just as with the 2nd amendment brouhaha, it is unconscionable that we would allow law-abiding citizens (like free-market Eastern European fledgling democracies) to, god forbid, have the capacity to defend themselves against someone who would impose their will on them.
I mean, how are criminals going to level the playing field and stick it to the selfish, evil, racist, non-diversity celebrating, intolerant, greedy bourgeoisie if regular folk arm themselves?
BTW, Clinton, great posts.
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 12:53AM
The Poles don't agree with your statement that missile defence to Poland was a blatant, unnecessary provocation, and neither do I. The Poles have been oppressed by the Russians for centuries - what is a provocation to you is self defence to them. Wait until you have been run over by a Russian tank before you start pontificating on about geopolitics - you know bugger all.
Louis Jenkins| 6.28.10 @ 8:08AM
I listened briefly to the Pretender n Chief's address to the G20. Seems he wants the world to follow the US's policy of spending our way out of the recession. The world, particularly the European contingent, wants austerity. And that makes us unpopular? Spending your way out of the recession cannot work. It only adds more debt. And that makes us unpopular? We've always been unpopular, so were's the beef?
Alan Brooks| 6.28.10 @ 8:40AM
I don't blame Bush for economic woes, there is no Commander in Chief for the economy.
Bush, though, was Commander of our armed forces, so he is culpable in that respect- if he screwed up in some way, he has to live with it for the rest of his life.
DIZZZgusTED| 6.28.10 @ 5:01PM
What? A little conerence if ot cohesion stmbling towards something less than passing vapidity would be appreciated sir.
Otherwise keep your insipid flatulence to yourself, please.
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 12:59AM
Wow, man, this is like, you know, so totally profound!
davelnaf| 6.28.10 @ 8:50AM
Indeed, world public opinion has been in the negative category toward the US for nearly a century and the author hits on many of the reasons why this is so. But you don’t have to look that far afield for Anti-American fervor. Canada has a particularly nasty little anti-American streak running down its national hockey stick. Despite enjoying the advantages of living next door to a country that protects it, allows in nearly all of its exports, and where quite a few of its citizens earn a living, it subtlety bars and excludes American exports and rigs the relationship in other ways to its advantage. As for Mexico, the decidedly one-way relationship we have with that country is in no way an impediment to its visceral anti-Americanism and, as the author points out, might even be stoking it.
Americans should not be overly bothered by any of the anti-American cackling we hear going on in the world. We should be proud that so much of the planet focuses so keenly on us when we hardly have to lift a finger to garner such attention, particularly when one considers that a reciprocal interest on our part is rarely forthcoming.
P.S. Although it is not really our game it would have been nice if the US soccer team had gotten father along in the World Cup. But, like dealing with the rest of the world, we do it anyway.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 7:09PM
Of course they focus on us; we're better, more attractive, have a better standard of living, and a superior entertainment industry. It's America's world---they just live in it.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.28.10 @ 10:58AM
Hey, everyone wants to be liked. Problems are: envy, size envy, power envy, creditor anger, infantile dependence, recognition of same, comuppance wishes, coca cola-izing anger, personal opportunity envy, and just plain human cussedness, with a dash of evil.
Get over it, folks.
Let's just get our own house in order, and re-achieve their respect....with a dash of fear.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 7:05PM
I think that a very simple approach would do wonders: keep taxes and government spending low, except in cases of defense; withdraw our troops from Western Europe and let the Euroweenies fend for themselves; and declare that Militant Islam IS our enemy, and demonstrate that by carpet bombing Iran into submission (easy approach: 1) knock out their airforce,2) knock out their electrical generators, 3) bomb their water supply infrastructure. With electricity, nothing runs centrifuges. Nice, simple, devastating, and a wake up call. Mahmoud would shut up quickly. We can tell them that this is in response to 1979. Maintain air supremacy over Iran; let nothing take to the air. Bomb electrical generating plants until surrender occurs.
That would quickly correct perceptions and raise our standing in the world. The despised are laughable. No one laughs at a country that decks its opponent effortlessly. If the world is "angry," who cares. The UN is powerless---we have a veto.
Occam's Tool| 6.28.10 @ 7:07PM
Oops. Close parenthesis after "occurs." As in, "until surrender occurs.")
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 1:14AM
SunTzu rated the best leader as one who was unknown, followed by one who was respected, then one who was popular, then one who was feared and lastly, one who was hated. Being popular isn't nearly as important as Obama thinks it is, but you can say that about most things that the narcissist-in-chief values. Obama knows nothing about leadership - he thinks looking in the mirror makes him a great man and he can change the world by reading a speech about himself off an autocue. It is pathetic to see somebody so out of touch - I almost feel sorry for him, until I think of the catastrophies that are lining up on his doorstep. Obama is probably going to go down in in history as the most destructive world figure since Neville Chamberlain.
Anthony| 6.28.10 @ 12:20PM
Frankly, polls such as these not only annoy me, they are completely irrevelant to anything important. America has always attempted to use its strength for the betterment of the world. So who need polls to tell us what we instinctively know?
This obsession with our "standing" within the world community is part of the liberal disease that infects America.
The simple truth is; the world has been envious of America for decades; our enemies despise us for what we stand for ( or used to stand for), so what the hell is the point of these polls, other than the feel good liberal obsession?
The alleged demise of our "standing" under Bush and the perceived bump under Obama are nonsense. The factors used to calculate these observations differ widely and are used to get America to do the bidding of those who have other agendas.
If Obama has given us a bump, it's only because he is doing the bidding of our enemies and reducing America down to size, just what the envious and our enemies have wanted.
The world had better worry that under Obama, there may not be an America able to protect the world from the bad guys lurking on the edge. They can stick this fact, you know where.
Yosemeti Sam| 6.29.10 @ 2:39AM
" Obama in the Coils of Foreign Opinion ...."
Now, really - who's the snake!