The Decline in America's Reputation: Why?

[Fuchs]

Just two details:

Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law. I know that U.S.Americans have a strange relationship to international law, but that's as I said one reason for their drop of reputation.

Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO. But this one isn't trusted any more.
Prominent politicians of all parties have openly criticized Bush during the recent visit and expressed their expectation of improvement after the election. That has never happened before.
The French government is not truly US-friendly. Sarkozy is merely erratic, which yields some superficially U.S.-friendly actions.


Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed.

Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)

- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.

- misinterpretation using a pre-fabricated opinion and ideology instead of accepting the words that I read as what I meant

That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments. It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.
This topic is really one that doesn't need much discussion. Most people easily agree. Just centre/right Americans have problems to understand it, as it collides with their fancy understanding of the USA.
Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans.
Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

[marct]

Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed.

The crucial thing that is happening here is that everyone seems to be concentrating on the reality of Fuch's laundry list, rather than on its rhetorical status. At the level of rhetoric, and that is where a lot of "reputation" lies, it doesn't matter if the list is "true" or if other nations do/did it either; all that matters is that the US is perceived as doing it.

If you boil all of the points down, one main pattern comes out: a dissonance between rhetoric and action - basically, the "talk" and the "walk" don't jibe for the international audience. International politics, at the level of influencing the general populace of other nations (Strategic Communications as Mountainrunner like to call it), requires a constancy between rhetoric and action that is quite different from the realpolitik behind closed doors.

On the tu quoque defence, specifically dealing with the old Soviet Empire, it doesn't work because almost everybody expected them to be lying bastids. No one with two neurons to rub together thought that their system could or would produce a better life for the people under their control or in their sphere of influence (aka imperium). But most people do expect the US to be better, and feel betrayed in that expectation when something happens that disabuses them of that expectation.

[Steve Blair]

The crucial thing that is happening here is that everyone seems to be concentrating on the reality of Fuch's laundry list, rather than on its rhetorical status. At the level of rhetoric, and that is where a lot of "reputation" lies, it doesn't matter if the list is "true" or if other nations do/did it either; all that matters is that the US is perceived as doing it.

If you boil all of the points down, one main pattern comes out: a dissonance between rhetoric and action - basically, the "talk" and the "walk" don't jibe for the international audience. International politics, at the level of influencing the general populace of other nations (Strategic Communications as Mountainrunner like to call it), requires a constancy between rhetoric and action that is quite different from the realpolitik behind closed doors.

On the tu quoque defence, specifically dealing with the old Soviet Empire, it doesn't work because almost everybody expected them to be lying bastids. No one with two neurons to rub together thought that their system could or would produce a better life for the people under their control or in their sphere of influence (aka imperium). But most people do expect the US to be better, and feel betrayed in that expectation when something happens that disabuses them of that expectation.

And, sadly, given the nature of the US system I don't think you're going to see many of those perceptions engaged or actually changed. Our political system focuses almost exclusively on internal perception (as in the voting public...no matter what campaign lip service might want outsiders to believe), and lacks the policy continuity to focus on anything other than getting back in office. It is what it is, and I suspect many just don't understand how dangerous that process is to focused policy. And major perception changes require focused policy.

There are times when I think the US would be better off disengaging from much international activity....

[patmc]

Fuchs, there was no assumption that you couldn't. The US is involved everywhere in the world, so of course there are failures, but many of the ones you listed were either not US failures, or failures at all. You stated that the US has no more influence than any other major power, which is clearly false by your own list, which demonstrates that we are expected to solve the world's problems. Yes, the US has lost influence in some areas, but has gained in others. Other major powers are on the rise due to population and economies, while traditional powers are losing theirs, in zero sum arena.

When multilateral attempts are made, failure can be shared by multiple parties, so "others can be at fault." I don't believe anyone on here chose those words to insult Europeans (as you did), but reality is that European defense has weakened. If other European countries could have handled Yugoslavia, why didn't they? Having a rifle doesn't mean much if you're unwilling to load or fire it.

Polling people on the streets often nets great material for late night comedy shows, but is it an accurate test for the success of US policy? The fact that world citizens even have an opinion on US policy shows our influence, which you claim we lack.

Snapperhead, when people run out of facts, they resort to name calling, so thanks for showing your cards.

Respectfully,
A psuedo-intellectual juggernaut

Just two details: Come on, I was asked to provide a list of failures, with the implied assumption that I couldn't. I provided a long list in few minutes of writing and thinking, but the responses are excuses, effectively denying that these are U.S. failures albeit I mentioned lots of high-priority political initiatives of the U.S. that failed. Most of what I read here is a mix of

- "others are at fault"

- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)

Make the test. Travel around, ask foreigners whether they think that the reputation of the USA has declined and if yes about the reason.
You can actually go into forums on the internet. European or Australian ones for convenient English but few Americans. Go into an English soccer/football forum, for example. Every forum has an off-topic are. Post your question about U.S. reputation's decline in a new thread. See what happens.

[Ken White]

Just two details:

Article 2.4 of U.N. Charter defines international law...

I again ask you who is the enforcement agency for that 'law?'

Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.

Agreed.

- "Europeans are pussies" (which is an embarrassing misunderstanding of facts. The mere idea that the Europeans wouldn't have been powerful enough in the past years is a joke. Several European countries could have crushed Yugoslavia on their own.)

True -- but they did not due to lack of political will. Then got annoyed at the US for having the will.

- some ignorance about realities, using interpretations which are solely accepted in the U.S. and irrelevant in 95% of the world.

Perhaps on the part of some, for myself and many others it's not ignorance but a total lack of concern for what the rest of the world thinks. The world has broadly been anti-American for many years, certainly all my lifetime and I first went overseas in 1947 and have spent over 12 years in one part of the world or another. The feeling is not as intense now as it was at the heighth of Viet Nam. Now we're just disliked, then there was almost hatred in some place. That stuff comes and goes.

That's quite disappointing, but it's also typical for military-related U.S.-dominated environments.

May annoy you but it seems like a quite logical reaction considering the environment, I'm unsure what else you would expect.

It's quite easily possible to discuss such matters much more fruitful in other arenas, even with Americans.

Fruitful in that you get more agreement with your opinions elsewhere?

This topic is really one that doesn't need much discussion. Most people easily agree. Just centre/right Americans have problems to understand it, as it collides with their fancy understanding of the USA.

I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."

And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him...

[Steve Blair]

to the discussion. Full story is here, but this quoted snippet was an interesting summation/comparison. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but Frei makes some interesting points and observations.

The world needs to come down to reality and experience the cold turkey of American electoral politics.

Despite the lofty dreams ringing in campaign ears this remains the 50-50 nation.

American elections tend to be decided by a whisker-thin majority in the swing county of one swing state.

Obama may be a global citizen but to voters in West Virginia or parts of Ohio that sounds as pretentious as a double decaf Venti latte.

But before the German politician who wrote that Obama was a cross between John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King gets too sniffy about those hillbillies in America, just remember this:

Germany has a minority of four million Turks, but has elected only a handful of ethnic Turks to the Bundestag.

An ethnic Pakistani Prime Minister taking up residence at Number 10 Downing Street is even less likely than England winning the World Cup.

In Beijing, the overt racism shown to African students brought over under the bygone days of international Communism is truly shocking.

Even if America is not ready to elect a black president, the rest of the world has no right to point the finger.

And there is always the possibility that Obama failed not because he was black, not because he was too global, but simply because his vision of America's future did not add up.

[marct]

I'll give you my favorite quote from Ms. Christy Blatchford, a Canadian newspaper Columnist; "...most Americans don't give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks."

And no, Marc, I will not quote McQuaig to him...

.........

[Stan]

... Nobody should attempt to tell me that the present German government is Bush-friendly. It's not.
It consists of Schröder's SPD and Merkel's CDU. Merkel is chancellor now, but unable to do much or anything against the will of the SPD.
Merkel is playing nice, but does nothing that helps Bush. In fact, she's waiting for a Bush successor and merely avoids useless conflicts in the meantime.
She was a decisive obstacle to getting Georgia into NATO.
And yes, a better U.S. government might have succeeded in convincing us to let Georgia into NATO.

Please don't pretend for a second former Minister Schröder, as a German diplomat, has done battle with President Bush by precluding Georgia's nomination to NATO (for the sake of Germany). He's been in bed with Putin for years... Remember the '3 fat pigs' I mentioned ?

One being Gazprom (or for the German government - Nordstream). In spite of overall opposition from every country between Russia and Germany, Schröder and his cronies (and invested interests) are groping around over a pipeline and Russian gas, without mere regard for the former German and Soviet States and their concerns.

Let's get the story straight while we're accusing the USG of foul play abroad.