Analogies

Time for an intra-Atlantic link-fest! Ambinder reports:

In private, Obama likens himself to Reagan, according to some of his friends. He believes that the very act of Americans choosing to elect him would amount to the biggest foreign policy advance of the past 20 years, would immediately change the way, say, a young boy in Lahore views this country, would crush the propaganda gains of radical Islam since the end of the first Gulf War, would heal the scar that serves as a reminder of America's original sin (slavery), would directly engage the mass Muslim world in a way that no one who voted for oil or empire could, and ... you get the idea.

Ross says "this is ridiculous and overblown and self-serving, but ... it isn't totally wrong." Be that as it may, I don't see what about this would resemble Reagan. I think most foreigners greeted Reagan's election with alarm that it would lead to nuclear war.

Comments

Yes, Obama doesn't seem like someone who would joke about the prospect of nuclear war. That's a Republican kind of thing, after all.

Posted by David in NY | September 24, 2007 4:10 PM

I think the likeness is in terms of the "size" of the impact, not the "direction" of the impact.

reagan was an incredibly negative force worldwide - just ask people in central america. obama seems to be arguing that he would be just as influential, but in a positive way.

Posted by george koch | September 24, 2007 4:13 PM

"obama seems to be arguing ..."

Does he? Aren't we just reading words that Ambinder put in his mouth? Take that whole piece with a mountain of salt.

Posted by TW | September 24, 2007 4:19 PM

The point is that the mere symbolism of his election would have powerful consequences, even before he took office. Which is probably the strongest argument for his candidacy.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 24, 2007 4:21 PM

Maybe Obama's thinking of the gulag prisoners. They were pretty glad to see Reagan elected.

Posted by too many steves | September 24, 2007 4:27 PM

Actually, he's a lot like Reagan's mirror.

Before Reagan, very few feared a nuclear war induced partially by American belligerence. Then he was elected and many people did.

Before Obama, many people fear nuclear war induced partially by American belligerence. If he is elected, many fewer people would.

Posted by jhupp | September 24, 2007 4:37 PM

This seems pretty silly. The election/appointment of Douglas Wilder or David Dinkins didn't do much to end racial problems in Virginia or New York, the election of Margaret Thatcher didn't usher in some era of either feminist paradise or womynish pacifism or whatever in the U.K., Abizaid didn't perform dramatically better than other American representatives in Iraq, the women sewing garments in sweatshops didn't fare much better or seem particularly appreciative when Linda Wachner headed Warnaco, etc. Someone who believes that he is better in his very essence than the other actors on the political scene seems likely to be both dangerous and ineffective.

What this does sort of remind me of is a column I read a while ago by a Jewish writer who noted that, in their hearts, most Jews in the nineteenth and early twentieth century believed that a country governed by Jews would be a moral beacon, popular and loved in the world and unsullied by the habitual injustices of the gentiles. That didn't really work out.

Posted by y81 | September 24, 2007 4:39 PM

whateva whateva I'll do what I want.

Posted by Whateva | September 24, 2007 4:45 PM

The idea that Reagan had this effect internationally is an overblown- Voodoo Foreign Policy notion of the right. The fall of the Soviet Union had more to do with commodity prices than tough guy posing.

That Obama reportedly buys into these messianic notions is, frankly, disturbing.

Posted by AJ | September 24, 2007 4:47 PM

Nice smear on Marc Ambinder's part. That "according to some of his friends" is real journalistic integrity in action.

But while we're at it: according to some of Marc Ambinder's friends, Marc Ambinder likes to put on tight-fitting red bikini briefs and lip-sync to early Prince records in front of his mirror. You read it here first.

Posted by James Gary | September 24, 2007 4:48 PM

Don't have a clue about the accuracy of Ambinder's characterization, or even how much Obama's words would reflect his actual feelings...

But if it is accurate, Obama's even a more self-absorbed celebrity-age-type nitwit "leader" than I thought he was.

Seems to me, people both in the U.S and overseas generally care more about policies than the sort of Karen Hughes-type PR/charm offensive he's talking about.

Near as I can tell, Obama's never actually accomplished a single meaningful thing in his (relatively young) life. And his campaign may have raised a ton of both media and money, but doesn't seem to even have as much substance as that of Edwards, who himself was always regarded as a bit of a pretty-boy lightweight in the Senate.

Look, if Obama becomes President but we're *still* in Iraq or even worse in a war with Iran, I can't see how lots of softball interviews with People Magazine International will make much difference...

Posted by RKU | September 24, 2007 4:51 PM

"Never accomplished a single meaningful thing in his life"?

Troll.

Posted by Zephyrus | September 24, 2007 5:00 PM

RKU is wrong about Obama not having acheived anything meaningful. For one thing, he got legislation passed in Illinois that required capital crime confessions - and interrogations - to be videotaped. And he got the police to endorse it. That's huge.

As for the Reagan thing, that's a big can of worms because there's no consensus on that guy at all. But the p.r. is/was that he was a positive guy who wanted to inspire people to move forward and solve problems [whether or not he did, whether or not that's true - never mind], rather than, say, a man motivated primarily by personal ambition and vendettas [Nixon, HR Clinton].

Posted by Phoebe | September 24, 2007 5:10 PM

I can't tell if Phoebe is sarcastic or not.

Posted by jamie | September 24, 2007 5:28 PM

I buy it. Obama, whatever his administration might do, would certainly present an unusually stark contrast to the president who came before him. And Reagan, whatever his faults, certainly did that.

Still, Obama's pretty arrogant, eh?

Posted by southpaw | September 24, 2007 5:29 PM

So is the new CW that the world doesn't care who gets elected president? I think the analogies to Reagan have to do with "a new day in america" message, not a missile shield. of course he could also have invoked another prez who played the hope card very well, but that prez has already endorsed another candidate.

Posted by JC | September 24, 2007 5:30 PM

I could see a valid Reagan comparison here, along the lines of "Would deploy his considerable charisma in the media to buy space and political capital for his staff of experienced streetfighters to do policy."

Posted by Senescent | September 24, 2007 5:31 PM

Maybe you could argue that Reagan had an inspiring effect on Eastern Europeans?

Posted by Consumatopia | September 24, 2007 5:40 PM

I could see the Reagan comparisons, but for reasons totally unrelated to foreign policy, and more related to an ability to appeal to disenchanted moderates from the opposite party.

No?

Posted by mopper | September 24, 2007 6:04 PM

Starting back in the mid 1970's I did a lot of traveling in various parts of the world. One of the things that struck me is seeing portraits of President John Kennedy in dirt floored thatch huts in Latin America, in cement block apartments in Africa, and in upper crust homes throughout Europe. I never saw pictures of Nixon or Reagan or any other politician. Kennedy was really a very special person in the hearts of people throughout the world.

Posted by ken | September 24, 2007 6:11 PM

I think I like Obama (and it's been a while that I liked a Democrat)...

I liked Reagan too... but for somewhat different reasons.

It would also be time for America's First Lady but please not "her"!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 24, 2007 6:11 PM

Obama being elected would be a huge f-u to the Bush years, and so yes, it would get the attention of the world. He would go into his term with considerable symbolic capital. Whether he chose to spend it wisely or piss it away like Bush after 9/11 is another matter, of course.

And modest, retiring people aren't elected President, so can we just shut up about the egoism, OK? Otherwise the pie fight will go on forever.

And Reagan? It's difficult to over-emphasize how loathed that assclown was outside the US. When he was shot, my (very conservative) mother in Canada had only one remark, "All the guns there and they still can't manage to kill what they shoot at?"

Posted by sunsin | September 24, 2007 6:45 PM

I don't see Obama conflating the similarity to Reagan with a change in foreign policy. I see Douhat conflating two things that are unrelated and MY commenting on Douhat.

1) Like Reagan, Obama is popular with independents and some in the opposition party.

2) Obama thinks if he can convince Americans to overlook their past views of race and elect him it translates into foreign policy capital ('Gee, those Americans aren't as backwards as I thought') around the world. Electing a woman is seen as an equivalent breakthrough in our domestic politics but why should a world that has seen Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Angela Merkel, Golda Meir and countless other women leaders around the world be excited if America elects a woman in 2007?

Obama is not saying #2 follows #1.

The two ideas are not related except in foggy blog posts.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 24, 2007 8:09 PM

In private, Marc Ambinder admits to making up far-fetched unsourced quotes out of whole cloth, according to some of his friends . . .

Posted by rea | September 24, 2007 8:46 PM

Some of the commenters here need to get out more. Reagan was well-loved in many places, in particular those under communist oppression. There were people in the Soviet Union who had his picture in their wallets, as a symbol of dissent. And his speeches were copied down and distributed underground. That is not mythology, it is real.
Lech Walesa, the former leader of the Solidarity movement in Poland, credits Reagan for being the "voice on the other side of the curtain," that gave hope to millions.
Even in Latin America, with its "dirty wars," there is reverance for Reagan. Go to Nicaragua or Honduras and you will indeed find his portrait hanging on walls.

Posted by geesh | September 24, 2007 9:18 PM

according to some of Marc Ambinder's friends, Marc Ambinder likes to put on tight-fitting red bikini briefs and lip-sync to early Prince records in front of his mirror.

... but then, who doesn't?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 24, 2007 9:42 PM

Jamie: I wasn't being sarcastic, but about which part?
Everyone else: Sorry, carry on.

Posted by Phoebe | September 24, 2007 9:45 PM

Even in Latin America, with its "dirty wars," there is reverance for Reagan. Go to Nicaragua or Honduras and you will indeed find his portrait hanging on walls.

I have lots of friends who travel in South and Central America and have never heard of this. Have you any citations for it? Or do you mean the walls of rich plantation owners who opposed democratically elected governments?

Posted by David in NY | September 24, 2007 9:45 PM

Tangent here, but doesn't calling slavery American's "original sin" (which everyone seems to like to do these days) kind of miss the point of what original sin is? That is to say, a sin of creation? I've always felt ("always" here meaning since the first time I encountered this analogy) that the better use of the term would be to describe the massacre of the native people. But I digress...

(And I probably shouldn't have to point out, but will, that I'm not comparing the magnitude of the sins here, but the aptness of the analogy.)

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | September 24, 2007 9:53 PM

Reagan was never revered in Latin America or anywhere else for that matter. The love for John Kennedy was spontanious thoughout the world as he stood for what was best in America. In all my travels I have never seen a portrait of Reagan in any home anywhere in the world. I must say that over the years the number of Kennedy pictures has declined as well. I doubt one would see as many today as we once did.

Posted by ken | September 25, 2007 1:34 AM

A couple of things:
1) Violetta Barrios de Chamorro had good things to say about Reagan. My impression is that some of the commenters here would prefer that Central America be Marxist, and are upset that Reagan confronted Ortega and others who were indeed allied with the Soviet Union (and Castro, etc.).
2) Calling slavery America's original sin ignores the existence of slavery around the world at the time. It wasn't unique to American, and in fact it would have been much more startling if slavery had not existed in the colonies. At this very moment, slavery continues to exist in some African countries, yet little interest is shown. Funny, that.

Posted by no name | September 25, 2007 10:43 AM

"In private, Obama likens himself to Reagan,"

Obama is no Reagan.

Reagan was a fierce partisan and proud of it. He won by demonizing liberals, race baiting, deepening partisan divisions. He also governed as a partisan. He was not interested with compromise with the other side. He was a partisan ideologue and proud of it.

Posted by DonB | September 25, 2007 4:52 PM

"That Obama reportedly buys into these messianic notions is, frankly, disturbing."

It is not really surprising. Obama is running a personality cult campaign. It is all about him.

Obama seems to believe his election would end partisan bickering. All we need is good intentions and civility. This ignores the fact that we have deep divisions because there is a lack of consensus on many of the big issues.

Posted by DonB | September 25, 2007 5:00 PM

Obama is not a naive idiot, DonB. He knows there is a lack of consensus on many of the big issues. What he tries to do - and this is extremely ambitious and farsighted - is actually try to get people to agree on what matters and change things for the better. What he pulled off in Illinois with the legislation for mandatory videotaping of murder suspect interrogations - getting the cops to endorse that and getting it passed - that was incredible. People had been trying and failing to get that passed for years. He got it done and he got it done by getting opposite sides to agree. This is not pie in the sky meaningless rhetoric, it's pragmatic and very smart.

Posted by Phoebe | September 25, 2007 5:43 PM

I kind of think that both sentiments are right (He would be like Reagan. He would transform the way the world looked at America.) but that that they are two seperate ideas stuck in the same paragraph.

Some other folks (Andrew Sullivan) have suggested that Obama could the "Reagan of the left" in the sense that he has the possibility to make liberalism as mainstream and common sensical sounding as Reagan did for conservatism.

And, seperately but just as certainly, Barack Hussein Obama (and I say that with a tone of respect...) simply by bringing his biography to the oval office reconciles worlds (domestic and foreign, historical and contemporary) that have long been rent asunder. And he brings charisma, intelligence, and a capacity to speak to that third world kid who could never relate to just another white guy (or girl...) that simply cannot be matched by anybody else in politics.

Posted by Rickielee | September 25, 2007 11:02 PM