Europeans For Obama
Sometimes European support for a particular candidate is often treated with a sense of derision when American’s hear that Europe favors a specific candidate because: “Who likes those European’s anyway…” The truth of the matter is that every single person I have spoken to Ireland has voiced their support for Senator Obama from ad executives in top PR firms, recruiters and your average Irish young adult. The Senator’s message of change has resonated with everyone in Ireland who wish esfor a more transparent EU in the wake of the failed Lisbon referendum. Senator Obama is not only liked in Ireland but in other parts of Europe as well as reported by the latest PEW Global Attitudes Project:
I really wish the Senator would stop in Ireland however I might just be tempted to take the plane over to London to hopefully catch a speech if he is inclined to give one. Some people may ask what is the purpose of popularity abroad? To that I answer that in the dynamic nature of the world we live in, to truly accomplish large goals like climate change, reducing poverty and conserving energy. America needs a leader who is respected by the people of the world as well as their respective leaders, we all know Prime Minister Brown and President Bush are good friends and allies but the fact of the matter is Prime Minister Brown is in a similar situation with record low levels of approval.
Most likely if Senator Obama is elected President, he will be dealing with Prime Minister Cameron who is currently the leader of the Conservative Party in England. David Cameron is also known for his support of the war in Iraq but this is unlikely to damage any potential synergy that he will have with Senator Obama during their meeting this week. A future Prime Minister Cameron would me mindful of the U.K’s low support for the war hence most likely falling in line with an Obama campaign Iraq pull-out strategy. Europe is going to prove to be a critical ally in the coming years as China flex’s its economic power in Africa with the only way to counter that power being closer ties between the EU and the USA.
July 19 2008 07:54 pm | American Politics
July 19th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Well, Crian, you and I were on the same page there for a little while. It was nice while it lasted!
July 20th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Kenedyesque, thats a little premature… I can understand the enthusiasm of outsiders looking in. His presidency if it were to pass, would be so historic, we all want to feel fortunate enough to witness it in our lifetime. To switch it up I would like to see a poll indicating if Europeans are open to the idea of a leader of mixed heritage, lets say half-asia/indian/arrab descent Running for leadership. The UK excluded from this survey.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hey Tate, Europeans are fairly open minded, in thise case I opened a thread on a big forum here in Ireland and asked irish people if they would support a mixed race Taoisceah and the majority of people indicated that his/her background would not be a problem as long as they moved the country forward economically, socially and culturally.
It was nice to agree for while Gayle but I am sure there will be many more opportunities to come.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I’ve put up another post you will have no problem with, Crian. No hurry… It will be up for awhile. I’m going to be taking some time off.
July 20th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
You don’t suppose world opinion is in any remote way linked to statements like “If you’re not WITH me, you’re AGAINST me” ?:)
July 21st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hey Gayle, good luck with getting all of that work done, I like the new post, I imagine that is going to be keeping some of us busy for a while. Good point BB, I had forgotten all about that statement.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Let’s get the quote accurate: “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” A bit of a different flavor, no, especially when “us” included all the countries who combined to fight terrorism, which includes, to one extent or another, western Europe and Australia.
But hey, y’all go ahead and worship the Obamessiah. Soon enough, should he win, he’ll begin acting as all national leaders do–in the interests of their country–and y’all will hate him, too. But the heartache will be so much worse.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I don’t think its worship Gordon but maybe an optimistic view of Senator Obama. I am an optimist in when it comes to pretty much everything in life as hard as that can hurt me sometimes. This is why it may seem that some liberals like myself seem to “worship” the ground Senator Obama walks on.
I know he is not perfect and he will act like an politician does when he is President but I firmly believe his actions will reflect his liberal leaning values and those of the world at present.
Western Europe may be allied with the United States for the moment but this co-operation is causing political trouble at home like the military use of Shannon causes trouble for the politicians in Ireland. This is a generalization but I don’t believe a single european public views the Iraq war positively hence Senator Obama is quite popular here.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:49 am
i’d prefer a president that reflects the values of the United States and the Constitution not the world. The world does not take an oath to defend the Constitution, the president of the United States does. and most of the world’s values are not consistent with the Constitution.
so, if what you say is true and liberalism is a reflection of world values then even you should not be supporting Obama unless, of course, you think the ideology of liberalism takes priority over the Constitution and the president should be taking an oath to promote that ideology rather than one defending the Constitution.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Hey Griper, the President should defend the constitution but America is apart of a new world order and that order requires and embracing of world values in order to produce the desired effect of moving the world forward.
Most of the world’s values should not be consistent to the constitution because then the world would completely embody American values and lose its distinct identity.
America’s role is changing and I personally don’t believe some conservative values mesh with change, the Constitution is the founding document of America and it is not a living document but the next President must take the necessary risk of not completely abiding by it in an effort to make the world a better place.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Crian,
“…but the next President must take the necessary risk of not completely abiding by it in an effort to make the world a better place.”
and you think Obama is one who would deliberately violate his oath to achieve this?
and what makes you think the liberal ideology is superior to the conservative ideology?
“…then the world would completely embody American values and lose its distinct identity”
i see, what you are saying is that Europe is not to lose its distinct identity but the United States must lose its distinct identity. i won’t even bother to express my feelings in regards to that attitude towards the United States, especially, when i look at the world and see what values most of it has.
“of a new world order”
he scratches his head as he ponders, now i wonder what socialist site i’ve seen that term before.
if you were being truthful when you said you’d never live under socialism i think you better think a little deeper about your ideology and where it is actually leading you to. this last comment of yours says a whole lot more about your beliefs than you think it does.
and while you are thinking, think of this. socialism is not a self-sustaining system of economics. its like a leech, sucking the life blood out of society.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I will be honest with you Griper, I still support my statement that I would never liver under a socialist society and by this I mean a completely socialist society, in a place like Ireland where we do have some socialist programs like the “Dole” aka Welfare and a version of Universal Healthcare.
Such things work well for the people here and I think they could also work well for the people I care about in America.
Back to the honesty part though, I have often wondered how much of my political ideology is socialist because I have actually never percieved it as such but rather just an “ideology” until quite recently.
I wouldn’t want Senator Obama to violate his oath but I don’t see any other way for America to move forward in the current system. I don’t think liberal ideology is superior and conservatism does balance it out but as a personal belief, I believe liberal ideology removes some society barriers to things like cloning, stem cell research, cybernetics etc…
Conservative ideology usually is not the best for promoting the sciences.
I am not saying that Europe must lose its distinct identity, neither must america but what I am saying is there must be some give and take. Part of the problem in Europe at the moment with regards to the Lisbon Treaty is that Ireland does not want to give hence we are at a stalemate in terms of a more effecient EU.
Lastly, like I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of socialism like universal healthcare, welfare etc… and I would like to state that these socialist principles work in Britian, Ireland, Denmark and France and I believe these economies are quite lively.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Crian,
“Lastly, like I said earlier, I believe in certain aspects of socialism like universal healthcare, welfare etc… and I would like to state that these socialist principles work…”
now i am really going to test that brain of yours and make it work overtime.
ok, let’s use that as a given for now.
how would you impliment it without forcing it on those who do not want or need it? you have already agreed with me that those who do not want help or need it should not be offered help. and who would you be helping?
how do you limit the programs to just those that you think are good without someone else saying that more socialistic programs are good therefore implimenting their programs along with yours? and they’ll use your programs to justify theirs. that is a fact.
proof:
take a look at the social security program here. it started out as only an old age pension for those who retired. now look at all the added programs that came along that is covered by it. and every one of them used the reasoning that if that is good then so is this. at what point does it stop because it has to stop somewhere if you do not want absolute socialism?
and how do you stop it? every new program is but one step closer to absolute socialism. and every new program is justified by the other programs in place.
then ask yourself this question; on whose side would a socialist be on, yours or mine? then ask yourself why?
July 27th, 2008 at 12:03 am
You know what I realize Griper, I really need to reply to these comments in the morning, anyway I will attempt to tackle your comment as always to the best of my ability:
1 - With regards to implementation, like suggested by Senator Obama/ Senator Clinton, any universal healthcare program would be optional, if you want to be covered by government health insurance you could…. if you wanted to have private insurance, that would be your choice as well.
2- Making the right choice of program is a difficult one and how to keep you said “universal healthcare” program within its societal/legal limits. I would say this choice in terms of program and the finer details would be up to the President ahd elected represenatives. In theory these representatives represent people from their respective states and opinions. If they decide that this version of universal healthcare is better than Joe Soaps, than that is the program that we use.
3 - If someone else wants to justify their socialistic program by using my program as a point of reference, I don’t see a problem with that as long as it is approved by the Government and people support the idea.
I was not aware of the beginnings of Soscial Security but that sounds like a familiar tale from what i have heard from my parents in Ireland and the SS equivalent.
This is an assumption but within the democratic framework of a society like America, is not absolute socialism impossible? I am not sure about that but it ia just a theory on my part.
Lastly you are right Griper, a socialist would be on my side which is kind of scary, because it conflicts with my belief that government should help people and my personal belief in democracy and freedom.
I just added this topic to my outlook to do list, need to think about it some more.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:32 am
democracy is not a form of government. it is the process used by people to make group decisions. the people use it to elect their leaders. Congress uses it to enact laws. the Supreme court uses it to determine constitutionality. the pesident is the only one in government that does not use it. his decisions are individual decisions not any group decisions.
and the only barrier to preventing total socialism would be the Supreme court and they approved it back in Roosevelt’s term in office by saying that Social Security was constitutional. that broke down the wall to socialism.
and as long as there are people as you who preach socialistic ideas as good ideas along with it be free socialism is inevitible.
so think hard about you wish for because you will find those wishes coming true even more than you want.
i will make this prediction. if socialism advances as fast in your life time as it has in mine you will find yourself living under total socialism by the time you’re my age.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
in regards to the rest of your answers let’s look at them too.
1. if people were allowed to opt out of the program it could no longer be called “universal healthcare”
also, where would the fairness be? a person who opted out would not only be paying for his own healthcare but would be paying a portion of those who used it while the other person is only paying a portion of his own healthcare.
proof:
the public school system is like that. those who opt out and send their kids to private schools or homeschool still need to pay a portion of the schooling costs of those parents who send their kids to public schools. and those people are griping about the unfairness of it now. that is one reason the voucher idea is so popular.
it results in unequal treatment of the people by government.
2. by Constitution our representatives in government represent not only the people but the states. that is why we have two houses in Congress, one to represent the people, the other to represent the states. and that distinction must be very clearly understood if one is to understand how our government is set up.
3. ” If someone else wants to justify their socialistic program by using my program as a point of reference, I don’t see a problem…”
by that statement you have just declared that you’d have no problem living under socialism which contradicts your previous statements on the matter.
proof:
just add the letter s to the word program because as you are advocating for more than a single program so can someone else.
July 27th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Hey Griper, I hate answering a question with a question, but this just occured to me as I was reading your comments. If socialism does advance faster in my life, does that mean it is inevitable and can anything be done to stop it? Even if I stop advocating my liberal/socialist positions and manage to convince at least one person.
In the two party system, liberalism is a constant therefore there will always be a group of people advocating socialist programs. If said group of people always exist and socialist principles continue to advance faster than conservative principles, can a socialist democracy within the USA be stopped.
On the point of universal healthcare, if someone opted out, they would still be paying for someone else to recieve healthcare. That is not fair from an individual perspective but would that person not take comfort to know he is helping someone else.
When I first started working after college and they were talking about social security going bankrupt, I knew that the money I would be paying into social security would most likely never come back to me but it never bothered me because I believed, emphasis on believed, that my money was going to a good cause.
I do need to think long and hard about this matter, and read some more literature about liberalism as I spent the last 6 years of my academic career focused on business rather than politics.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:04 am
“.. but would that person not take comfort to know he is helping someone else.”
you have to be kidding. taxes are called taxes because people have to be forced to pay for the programs that gov’t creates. that is an universal truth. when people want to find comfort they donate to charity not to gov’t.
and there is the primary difference between your way and mine. there is nothing stopping you from helping others as you think you should under my way. the only difference being who you give your money to. and you are not forced to help anyone by my way.
by your way i am forced to help others your way as well as help them my way if i have the means left to help them my way.
whose way offers freedom of choice, yours or mine?
whose way allows everyone to help others in their own way and whose forces everyone to help others by their way?
July 28th, 2008 at 3:24 am
“In the two party system, liberalism is a constant therefore there will always be a group of people advocating socialist programs”
false. go read up on liberalism and its meaning. you’ll find that the meaning of the word is far different than when it started. the founding fathers of this country were liberals in the political sense of that time. liberalism began over there in europe. the philosophies upon which our country was founded were philosophies of liberals.
remember, the word liberal is a dirivative of liberate. there is nothing liberating about socialism. it is just the opposite.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:46 am
socialism is nothing but a pyramid scheme legalized. they both are promoted on the same reasoning,
“you can get more than what you pay for.”
if you were in business schools the last six years you can understand how well that works. was there any class that taught you that you can make a profit or even break even by selling something at a less cost than its value?
problem is that they share the same flaw also. both need brand new money after a time.
proof:
you gave the proof yourself.
“…they were talking about social security going bankrupt,…”
and the same solution that was used to keep the SS afloat could be used to keep a pyamid shceme afloat also.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Hey Griper,
I think I may be the only person you ever argue with that truly believes some taxes can help that is just a personal view.
If a person does want to find comfort, giving to charity is an option and probably what more people do. I personally prefer UNICEF because I believe food and water are two things we have not managed to give to everyone in the world.
Your way is better as it gives people a choice, taxes do not. People deserve a choice, you are right but that still doesn’t stop me from feeling at this very moment a little torn between the benefit of the whole of the individual and those freedoms as an individual that I truly treasure.
I do need to read up on liberalism, I actually have a political dictionary handy:
Liberalism - the ideals and beliefs of liberals
Liberal - allowing
freedom to people or not controlling
people
I can actually say did not know the officialy definition of liberalism. I can see that the definition of the term in the modern era has changed because liberals now advocate more government control but is that not an evolution to account for the circumstances of society today.
I think I need to find a more comprehensive analysis of the evolution of liberalism before I continue this specific debate.
The socialism analogy is quite apt, there was not a class which told me I could make a profit selling something below cost. If SS is privatized, how does that benefit the people in the lower-middle and lower class income brackets?
July 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Crian,
“If SS is privatized, how does that benefit the people in the lower-middle and lower class income brackets?”
you’re a business man you answer that. how does investing that money help them?
” but is that not an evolution to account for the circumstances of society today”
you’re advocating that liberalism is a living ideology and we’ve talked about that already.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Investing the money helps people in these brackets if said investment promises a significant return but does not the government managing SS provide the people with a measure of security against Enron/Worldcom like situations
We have talked about living ideology before, I withdraw my previous statement.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“government managing SS provide the people with a measure of security against Enron/Worldcom like situations”
where in your business classes were you taught to invest in one company rather than a diversified portfolio?
and which business class taught you never to update those investments as needed with age being one reason to invest in safer investments like government bonds?
and when did it occur to you that a person does not need to invest in greater risks than he wants to?
August 6th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I would never invest in one company but that does not mean someone else might not do it. I often have to remind my folks who have some extra cash in their retirement to look beneath the hype behind a company and pay closer attention to the numbers.
Would also never keep any potential portfolio stagnant and yes my business class did teach me that a good investment portfolio is a mix of high, medium and low risk investment like treasury bonds.
On the last question, a person can invest in whatever they want in, in terms of risk. Not sure if that answers that question though.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
then if he invests in a single company he must also accept the risks too, right?
but no it did not answer the question as intended. that was my fault in poor wording. it was meant to illicit a response that he can invest in the safest way possible. it did not need to be invested in risky investments such as enron or other more risky but potentially more lucrative investments.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
That last question really did leave me a bit stumped the other day, but thanks for explaining the expected response. If a person does invest in a single company than he too must accept the risks.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
thread closed with that agreement. boy, we’re closing threads faster than we open them. lol
August 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Threads are closing pretty fast but I am sure there will be many more arguments to come.