We are young digital natives reaching out across seemingly impenetrable national, social, political, ethnic, and sectarian barriers, employing the freedom created by media platforms to demand and create our own civil discourse.

On Obama and Tempering Skepticism

November 9th, 2008Karim (Egypt/Lebanon)

-By Karim El Assir

One of the most compelling contrasts offered to us throughout this past election cycle has been the manner in which an exuberant optimism has been met with cautious skepticism. In a debate held in Maastricht’s ravishing Selexyz bookshop on the night of the election, Danny Merideth, a political advisor to the U.S ambassador to the Netherlands, suggested the tempering of expectations held of an Obama administration. Similarly, other members of the debate panel were quick to point to the difficulties that an Obama administration would face in pursuing its ambitious agenda. The restrictions Barack Obama will face are certainly true of any incoming president; a newly-elected chief executive must deal with their predecessors’ budget, is likely to honor the military and trade agreements already established, and must deal with the challenges posed by the international system, in this case two wars and a commitment to fighting terrorism. Add to that the mounting financial crisis, and it may be easy to understand why reality could weaken the winds powering the sails of an incoming administration that has charted a path paved with hope and headed toward significant change.

It would be prudent of us, however, to step back and cautiously monitor the doubts we express of next four years, in lieu of the history that was made on November the 4th; a history that is likely to litter the pages of history books written for generations to come. Watching the reaction to Barack Obama’s victory that night, both here in Maastricht and around the globe, I was reminded of another culturally significant movement that reshaped the image of the United States both within and outside the nation. In 1969, a concert featuring the days’ most prominent rock and roll artists took place in a small suburb of New York. Woodstock, as the event would come to be known, was as significant for the unification of a generation as the peace and love which it exuded. In the only documentary produced on the event, its director Michael Wadleigh managed to capture images of a youth compelled to unity, inspired by potential and motivated by the questionable actions of its government. One can only imagine the narrative with which history will portray Obama’s victory, as well as the screaming crowds that followed his march to the White House and celebrated his arrival.

The projection of unity in this election, spanning a globe that has grown weary of the exploits of the world’s unipolar, may have far superseded that of the Woodstock generation. This unity is likely to stand distinct in its historicity, and may well prove to be a potent currency with which an Obama administration will act to meet the global challenges of the next four years. What follows are four reasons why this election is probable to affect significant change on the world’s future, and why in addition to tempering our expectations and hopes, we may want to constrain our skepticism.

The Significance of Ethnicity/Race

The shade of Barack Obama’s skin, while tempting to write-off as insignificant to the way he will run the United States in his upcoming term, is significant, and not only because of the racial progress it is symbolic of. While writings in the vein of Christopher Hitchens’ and William Kristol’s have emerged throughout the election cycle suggesting the lack of importance a candidate’s black skin will have toward his administration’s policies and programs, I’d like to suggest otherwise. It was not Obama’s proposals on pursuing militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, nor his suggestion that an increased effort was required of the U.S’ allies in Europe to stabilize Afghanistan that prompted the support of millions from Gaza to Nairobi.

And while his international support cannot be solely explained away as stemming from his racial and ethnic identity, it has certainly proved a forceful magnet in attracting positive views of the United States. At a time when the favorability of the U.S, according to several Pew poll results, rarely exceeds the mark of 50% among developing nations, the election of an African American has reframed the narrative of the American dream. Obama’s election has strengthened the image of U.S democracy around the world, and has conjured up the imaginations of those people who live with an unfortunate reality of the lack of opportunity for success of this magnitude in their own countries. This has manifested itself into statements by heads of state praising the triumph of ethnic and racial tolerance; Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai suggested Obama’s election ushered in a “new era” in which politics would transcend race, color and ethnicity.

Although this mode of thinking may demonstrate the failure “to emancipate (ourselves) from the original categories of identity that acted as a fetter upon clear thought,” as Hitchens has noted, it is equally representative of the emotive response much of the world still holds toward racial and ethnic identity, and the important role it has and will play in changing the perceptions of the United States for the better.

The World Was Watching, and Obama Spoke To Them

Every election in modern history has been watched by the world, with differing degrees of interest. With the advent satellite television networks, the internet, and other tools of global communication, billions of people have been able to garner a nuanced appreciation of the U.S election process. While this writer may be too young to appreciate the attention paid to elections past, it should be safe to say that the support Obama has received overseas has been both impressive and unprecedented.

For almost two full years, the international community has been privy to an election held on the grandest and arguably most important stage of them all. Foreign newspapers, television newscasts, and websites were filled with coverage and opinion on the election from the moment Obama announced his run to his last speech declaring his victory. People outside the U.S expressed their views, hopes, and criticisms of the candidates; what’s significant is that a candidate spoke back to them.

Several of Obama’s speeches were sprinkled with messages to the world. After losing three of the first four primaries to Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama alluded to both the tone of his opponent’s campaign and the international attention surrounding it when he said “The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?” Similarly, on the night of his victory in the general election, in a speech given to over 125,000 people in attendance, Obama addressed his audience overseas:

“And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores… our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down — we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security — we support you.”

An International America?

Not to exaggerate the influence he will have or the transformative effect he’ll wield on the way U.S power is used, but the possibility for a more international America is at hand. That is not to suggest that the preeminence of American national security will fade, or that strategic interests will suddenly cease to be the primary motivator for U.S action around the globe. For all the talk of the Bush military doctrine and the wisdom of nation-building, much of what we’re likely to see in the next four years will be a continuation of the past eight. To his credit, Obama’s campaign for the presidency has managed to ooze exceptionalism without making his foreign spectators queasy.

However, amidst all that will stay the same, Obama is very likely to leave an indelible mark on American foreign policy. Of all the candidacies we’ve been exposed to throughout this election, his has been by far the most forward-thinking. Of particular interest to this writer is his counter-terrorism plan, audaciously named his “Plan to Defeat Terrorism”. And while that won’t happen, Obama’s plan stands out for the manner in which it details the role that communication will play in this endeavor. In an effort to shore up support for extremists, the plan mentions the importance of speaking directly to Muslim audiences, and training diplomats in media skills and foreign languages in order to provide an American presence on foreign satellite networks. As part of a large scale public diplomacy effort, Obama’s plan aims to build new “America Houses” that would serve as cultural centers in regions of the world where anti-Americanism is so fervent it may play a role in driving people toward extremist groups. The plan also makes mention of providing alternative options for education in countries where Islamic schooling, prone to the absorption of extremist thought, tends to dominate. Finally, he plans to double spending on U.S foreign aid by the end of his first term, setting a goal of $50 billion dollars.

Obama is Symbolic of a New Generation

‘The torch has been passed’ may have earned its official status as a cliché following election night, however it speaks to a large measure of truth. Barack Obama is very much a child of a ‘flattened globe’, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Friedman. Born to a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya, having lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, and mingling almost exclusively with foreign students throughout his undergraduate years, Obama’s upbringing is one that forms a holistic, inclusive perspective on the world. Refreshing as that sounds, that perspective will serve not only as a pallet-cleanser to the last eight years; it has and will continue to draw more international attention to what he says and does.

It is conceivable that an international lobby may prove more capable of exerting some measure of influence on the presidency in the coming 4 years than it has been able to in the past eight. If that is the case, it will in large part be due to Obama’s time spent overseas. Why this is not a perennial requirement for the self-proclaimed leaders of the free world is beyond my understanding. I must say, however, I will be looking forward to an American president who can both relate and speak effectively to his generation and the generation to follow, as evidenced by a campaign that seemed to possess more awareness of the world around it than that of his opponent.

While the prospects for an Obama presidency may arguably be overrated, the next four years are likely to effect significant change on American leadership for reasons other than the departure of President Bush. We are likely to see America’s image reframed to appeal to the world, with a leader at its helm more willing to consider our appeals toward him. And although the chants of “yes we can”, the multi-colored Obama t-shirts adulating the man, and the prospects for disappointment may give cause to those cautioning the lowering of expectations, we should temper our skepticism to appreciate the change that has already come, and the promise it holds for our futures.

12 Responses to “On Obama and Tempering Skepticism”

  1. Still, all of this doesn’t explain why he chose a Zionist, Rahm Emanuel, as his Chief of Staff, his gatekeeper.

  2. Thanks Karim for a very thoughtful post.

  3. This is a great post and I don’t mean to divert the attention, but I would agree that this comment is one of particular concern in the Middle East:

    Still, all of this doesn’t explain why he chose a Zionist, Rahm Emanuel, as his Chief of Staff, his gatekeeper.

    I agree that this was a horrible choice for Obama, did anyone read what Rahm’s father say regarding this?

    In an interview with Ma’ariv, Emanuel’s father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. “Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

    This is particularly worrying and shows that U.S foreign policy in the Middle East will remain overwhelmingly imbalanced, perhaps not as violently as it would have been under McCain but that’s besides the point at the moment. Obama criticizes everyone and everything, Israel is just never one of them. This shatters much of the hope that many of us have in the Middle East because Israel sets the tone for everything that goes on here.

    We’ll find out sooner rather than later whether or not Obama will allow for this garbage to continue under his administration. Picking someone whose father is a raging, violent racist and who probably passes many of such qualities to his own son, is stupid.

  4. I have to say that it is unfair to judge Rahm on the basis of what his father has said. I can not say I know a great deal about the man, but to simply pressume he accepts what his father says is unfair (I mean do you accept and believe all of your parents’ views?). I do beleive we should wait to see if and what he will say in response to this.

    I think the election of Obama is a wonderful thing. And undoubtedly Obama will make certain decisions that will not please us entirely. But the very fact that more nations are going to be willing to talk to him is extremely important and extremely positive. I certainly feel a sense that there is more hope for the world now. I feel proud for America and its people. I will never forget the way the world celebrated on election night and how it brought grown men to tears.

  5. Good points Tamara. It was really stupid of me to had jumped to that conclusion, but Rahm still doesn’t have the best reputation, then again who does? Another commenter noted that Obama chose him because they were fellow Chicago politicians and apparently longtime friends. I wonder what would happen to America if Obama’s staff included Arab Americans, and not just Israeli Americans. I wish he would take such a courageous step in including foreign policy advisers whose bias towards Israel isn’t overwhelming.

  6. By the way, just when I thought I’d give Rahm another chance, it has been revealed that he doesn’t recognize the Armenian genocide.

    I am sorry, but this guy is just too extreme for my tastes, and I’m still disappointed with his appointment.

  7. I truly hope that people have realistic expectations of what Obama can achieve during his first term in office. Otherwise, come 2012, we might find ourselves with Palin in the White House.

    In a wide-ranging interview with Fox News, the 44-year-old said: “I’m like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I’m like, don’t let me miss the open door. Show me where the open door is.”

    “And if there is an open door in [20]12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I’ll plough through that door.”

  8. I often wondered how it was that Menachem Begin, of all people, was able to negotiate a peace deal with President Sadat, of Egypt. After all, Begin was the leader of the Irgun in Israel, a group that used some questionable tactics to drive the British out. In many ways he was the embodiment of the conservative right. And yet, when Sadat made some promising overtures, Begin was able, perhaps because of his right wing credentials, to cut a deal.

    Obama may need people like Rahm to get the job of peace done. He will have to ally himself, at least to some extent, with strong supporters of Israel, in order to gain the credibility to make something happen on the ground. He will also have to make some credible overtures to the Arab world in order to make real the promise of a better day. It is a difficult balancing act, to say the least, but sometimes you have to partner with people who may not exemplify your highest ideals, in order to have any chance of giving substance to those very same ideals.

  9. The tone of these posts follows pretty much the same question: will an Obama administration distance itself from Israel (and, as Esra’a noted, Turkey)in order to advance the general cause of peace in the Middle East? I would say the answer is no, certainly not on any scale that would put pressure on Israel to reverse any of the practices and projects (wall building, settlements, land grabs, the prison-camp atmosphere of Palestine) that all of it’s neighbors find repugnant. If anything, I would expect that an Obama administration will largely ignore the Israeli question in the Middle East for much of it’s first term, concentrating on domestic issues, Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be an unpleasant reality that also sees the US distance itself from it’s other important ally in the region over the course of it’s first term: Saudi Arabia.
    The issues building between these two nations in terms of commerce, energy and ideology far outweigh the external pressure that supporting Israel has, and an Obama administration will have few of the petroleum links that rendered the Republicans unable to admit to the role their “pal” has been playing in the last decade.
    Change will certainly come, but not nessecarily what many people will imagine.

  10. Rahm Emanuel has apologized for his Father’s comments about Arabs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7729046.stm

  11. It is very possible that Rahm Emanuel’s attitudes with respect to the Middle East are substantially different from those of his father’s generation. They grew up in different times, and under different circumstances. Rahm’s dad was in the Irgun, under battle conditions related to the founding of the State of Israel. Rahm has probably benefited from new perspectives which evolve over the passage of time and distance. This is common of many of us separated by a generation from our parents.

  12. Rahm’s dad was in the Irgun, under battle conditions related to the founding of the State of Israel.

    Irgun is documented as a “terrorist organization” and it would be incorrect to associate them with anything else other than terrorism. It doesn’t seem that his father’s aggressive opinions proves otherwise.

    It was good Rahm apologized, which came after the Arab American community expressed deep outrage over his father’s dim-witted attitude. It’s also nice to see others claiming that Rahm apparently will have little to do with forming foreign policy decisions, even though it’s hard to believe considering the fact that he’s one of Obama’s “closest advisers,” but at least many people seem to be aware of his overwhelming bias towards Israel and find that troubling.

    Real change will come during Obama’s 2nd term in office, if he ever gets re-elected. At the moment we can expect and hope for significant improvenments, but not the “change” we’re waiting for.

Feel free to take part in our discussions and debates. Please be respectful and aware that what you say is only your opinion and may not agree with other points of views. Absolutely no hate speech or defamation will be tolerated. Be smart and comment smart. Read our comment policy to find out how not to annoy us.