[lit-ideas] Re: The Guardian says we had better elect Obama, or else!
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 08:49:56 +0900
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Julie Krueger <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lawrence, your reaction to this is odd to me (surprise, surprise).
>
> There are two stances America can make w/ regard to the people inhabiting
> the rest of the globe:
>
> 1) we are self-contained, striking both deeply defensive and agressive
> poses; we trust no one, want and need no one's input; and any commentary
> from the rest of the people on the globe should be met with suspicion,
> immediate and automatic rejection, and a "who do they think they are?"; "so,
> whaddya gonna DO about it?" mentality.
>
> 2) Human beings are spread all over the globe. Let's see if we can do our
> part to work together toward a common goal of human well-being and care of
> the planet that sustains us. That doesn't mean accepting all global
> reaction to our corner of the world w/out question. But it might mean
> listening to it, paying a little attention to why it's what it is, and
> treating it as an element in our continuing self-reflection and growth as a
> democracy.
>
> I know, I know. The second one is frightening, eh? And the first
> infinitely easier. After all, no one put anything over on Matt Dillon, John
> Wayne, etc. Tough, unwillingness to hear, and readiness to throw a punch
> at anyone who's stupid enough to have an opinion is surely the best way to
> positive and peaceful global interaction.
>
> Julie Krueger
> having watched this played out in preschools ad nauseum
>
>
Nice analysis, Julie.
To add a bit of additional context, allow me to note that this morning's
Japan Times front-pages (below the fold) a story from yesterday's Washington
Post. Headline reads, "Global forecast paints gloomy picture for U.S."
But no, it's not those "furriners" who are saying this. It is America's own
most respected intelligence analyst Thomas Fingar (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Fingar). The lead reads,
An intelligence forecast being prepared for the next president on future
global risks envisions a steady decline in U.S. dominance in the coming
decades, as the world is reshaped by globalization, battered by climate
change, and destabilized by regional upheavals over shortages of food, water
and energy.
The gloomy report, previewed in a speech by Thomas Fingar, the U.S.
intelligence community's top analyst, also concludes that the one key area
of continued U.S. superiority--military power--will "be the least
significant" asset in the increasingly competitive world of the future,
because "nobody is going to attack us with massive conventional force."
Later in the story is this following,
The new view is in line with that of prominent economists and other global
thinkers who have argued that America's influence is shrinking as economic
powerhouses such as China assert themselves on the global stage. The trend
is described in the new book, "The Post-American World" in which author
Fareed Zakaria writes that the shift is not about the "decline of America,
but rather about the rise of everyone else.
So it's not exactly a silly question to ask: Who is better for the U.S.A.
and our relations with the world during this period, a team that will
continue the Bush administration's belligerent paranoia, whose palpable
result has been a steady deterioration in U.S. global influence, or someone
that the rest of the world likes and respects, who knows the importance of
working with others, instead of acting like a playground bully? In a
playground where the bully's growth spurt has slowed, and the other kids are
getting bigger?
John
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
