"Obama's bad influence"

Naomi Klein echoes the exact same theme I wrote about a few days ago, but unlike me she supports her analysis with a bunch of "facts" and "examples":

The Nobel Committee, which awarded the prize specifically for Obama's embrace of "multilateral diplomacy," is evidently convinced that US engagement on the world stage is a triumph for peace and justice. I'm not so sure.  After nine months in office, Obama has a clear track record as a global player. Again and again, US negotiators have chosen not to strengthen international laws and protocols but rather to weaken them, often leading other rich countries in a race to the bottom.

Let's start where the stakes are highest: climate change. During the Bush years, European politicians distinguished themselves from the United States by expressing their unshakable commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. So while the United States increased its carbon emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels, the European Union countries reduced theirs by 2 percent. Not stellar, but clearly a case where the EU's breakup with the United States carried tangible benefits for the planet. 

Flash forward to the high-stakes climate negotiations that just wrapped up in Bangkok. The talks were supposed to lead to a deal in Copenhagen this December that significantly strengthens the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, the United States, the EU and the rest of the developed countries formed a unified bloc calling for Kyoto to be scrapped and replaced.

See what I mean?  It's all X percent this, Y percent that.  I really felt my piece was more agile, if you will, thanks to the omission of this sort of relevant supporting information.  But that's just her thing, as you can see in these astute observations about the effects of the Obama administration's withdrawal from the UN conference on racism:

Within forty-eight hours of the US announcement Italy, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland had pulled out. Unlike the United States, these governments had all signed the 2001 declaration, so they had no reason to object to a document that reaffirmed it. It didn't matter. As with the climate change negotiations, lining up behind Obama, with his impeccable reputation, was an easy way to avoid burdensome international obligations and look progressive at the same time--a service the United States was never able to provide during the Bush years.

At least she manages to stick to opinions in the last few sentences, though:

But a clear pattern has emerged: in areas where other wealthy nations were teetering between principled action and negligence, US interventions have tilted them toward negligence. If this is the new era of multilateralism, it is no prize.

You can read the rest if you want, but I'll warn you right now that it's all just as informative and well-argued as the bits I've quoted here.

Comments

[Jonathan Versen]

those darn, pesky facts.

[NomadUK]

I won't read the rest, thanks; it'll just confirm everything I already knew or expected.

It does almost make me want to go back to the one or two blogs where I really got slapped for suggesting that a vote for McCain might actually be the better move for the sake of civilisation, so I could say, 'See? Told you so.' But what would be the point?

Looks like I picked the wrong era to stop drinking heavily.

[SteveB]

But there must be something more to the shift in Europe's position on climate change than "We love Obama!", don't you think?

[NomadUK]

It's not 'We love Obama!' It's that the changes to lifestyles, economics, and government required to deal with climate change are politically difficult and unpopular with the moneyed classes who actually run things, but George Bush was such an utter idiot and made the agenda so starkly obvious that even they couldn't go along with him, much as they desperately wanted to.

As John points out, Obama simply returns the face of respectability to American imperialism, capitalist excess, and societal devastation. As long as the proles think Obama's great, we'll all follow him gleefully down the road to Hell.

[SteveB]

But don't the moneyed classes who run things make their decisions based on what makes them money or costs them money? Why would they be concerned about popularity or "respectability" at all? Goldman Sachs has to be one of the most hated institutions in the US today, but do they care? Of course not, they're too busy cashing those big bonus checks.

I'm not trying to be argumentative (maybe it just comes naturally to me) but it seems like there should be something more to explain Europe's shift on the climate change issue than just that Obama helps to put a happy face on climate destruction. Is the economic collapse, for example, a factor in their thinking?

[KDelphi]

NomadUK, is, unfortunately, spot on, sober or not.

But,I also think SteveB has a point, in that, the EU is "tilting Right" somewhat and might face cuts in the highest standard of living in the world if they had to implement some sacrifice, so Obama gives them cover to do nothing. (ie The uS gives them cover now, whereas Bush could not because he was so...whatever--I never know what to call him anymore, that is -printable--crazy like a fox?)

I'm just "listening to all voices" open to the "marketplace of ideas" and put my unnoquivical support behind nothihg and no one...oh no! I've been Democratized, capital D

[John Caruso]

I think you're oversimplifying—this is just factor out of many. The point isn't that Obama is directly responsible for every bad thing that's happening, just that his influence has been largely negative rather than positive.

On climate change, one of those other factors is that governments know that Copenhagen is a line in the sand. The alarm level on global warming has increased tremendously since Kyoto—there's very little equivocation in the science now, and many developing countries and also the smaller and poorer nations that are going to be hit the hardest are pushing for real action, not just posturing and largely symbolic gestures. And they're targeting the countries that have been responsible for pumping the vast majority of the CO2 into the atmosphere (for their own selfish reasons in many cases, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a fair position to take). That's one of the main reasons European governments have been "teetering" on this issue, and the Obama administration's position makes it much easier for them to come down on the wrong side.

[KDelphi]

John--I agree with that. I think I was more blaming both parties (certainly not one single person) and aid the same thing with probably less clarity.

Indeed, all industrialized countries.

But, Obama's popularity, teamed with (fading) US power, gives them cover.

[NomadUK]

But don't the moneyed classes who run things make their decisions based on what makes them money or costs them money

They do. But the saner ones have some vague recollection of a bit of unpleasantness back around 1792. And again in 1918. There was a bit of a hiccough from about 1945 to 1965, but otherwise they've been working hard the past century to make serfdom more palatable. C.f. Edward Bernays.

[John Caruso]

Actually I was responding to SteveB, KDelphi...your comment slipped in before mine. Sorry about the confusion.

I'd say the key is that the Obama administration's stance is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for Europe's current mulishness on global warming. Meaning I don't think the Europeans would go this route alone, without the political cover the United States is providing, but the U.S. push wouldn't be enough to make them do it if they weren't already leaning that way.

[Duncan]

NomadUK, "As long as the proles think Obama's great, we'll all follow him gleefully down the road to Hell." The problem isn't the proles, hadn't you noticed? (As if we proles had any influence on policy or practice.) It's the moneyed elites who think Obama is great, and are very happy to have him providing cover for doing what they want to do to begin with. Blaming it on "the proles" is sheer stupidity: class bigotry, dishonesty, ignoring the facts.

Incidentally, I recall Gabriel Kolko
warning that this would happen, back in 2004, if a Democrat was elected President:

"As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power. One does not have to believe that the worse the better but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate. ...

"If Bush is reelected, America's allies and friends will have to confront such stark choices, a painful process that will redefine and perhaps shatter existing alliances.

"But America will be more prudent and the world will be far safer only if the Bush Administration is constrained by a lack of allies and isolated."

Bush's policies have managed to alienate, in varying degrees, innumerable nations, and even its firmest allies--such as Britain, Australia, and Canada--are being compelled to ask if giving Washington a blank check is to their national interest or if it undermines the tenure of parties in power.

[John Caruso]

It's the moneyed elites who think Obama is great...

No, it's very much a shared delusion:

Six months after Barack Obama, European support for the new US president is still high, according to the new Transatlantic Trends survey. The survey, which was published Wednesday, says that 92 percent of Germans have a positive view of Obama's handling of foreign affairs, and that similar figures can be found in Italy (91 percent), the Netherlands (90 percent), Portugal (90 percent) and France (88 percent).

And part of the reason European elites can get away with following the U.S. in the wrong direction is because they know Obama's popularity gives them cover with their own populations.

[NomadUK]

Blaming it on "the proles" is sheer stupidity: class bigotry, dishonesty, ignoring the facts.

No; the facts (as has been amply demonstrated) are that the proles are easily manipulated and allow themselves to be deceived, to the benefit of their rulers.

John gets it exactly right in his post above.

[NomadUK]

I do, however, agree that Gabriel Kolko was completely correct.

[Jenny]

I agree with Duncan: condescending attitude towards past Obama supporters really isn't the way to make them into revolutionaries.

[Duncan]

Thanks, Jenny, but that's not what I said.

It's true, John does get it right, though the moneyed elites are perfectly capable of ignoring the proles when it suits them. Consider the countries which helped Bush's invasion of Iraq despite massive opposition from their populations. As Obama's case amply demonstrates if it still needed demonstrating, the moneyed and educated elites are every bit as manipulable -- maybe more, since they seem to be more likely to oppose single-payer than ordinary Americans, despite decades of trying to manipulate the proles into recognizing that government health programs are Communism. Ditto for the continuation of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the proles seem to have fallen out of love with these wars sooner than the elites, despite corporate media and government exclusion and dismissal of the idea of withdrawing. Granted, the proles' disillusionment comes more from US casualties than from the injuries we are inflicting on the Afghans and Iraqis, but the elites are perfectly willing to send more prole boys and girls Over There to kill and maim and be killed and maimed.

If you'd wanted to get it right, NomadUK, you wouldn't have blamed it all on the proles.

[NomadUK]

If you'd wanted to get it right, NomadUK, you wouldn't have blamed it all on the proles.

I guess I missed the part where I blamed it all on the proles. Someone, somewhere, has to be leading them down the primrose path.

In any event, I see nothing in your statement that contradicts my thesis. In particular:

the moneyed and educated elites are every bit as manipulable -- maybe more, since they seem to be more likely to oppose single-payer

The opposition of moneyed and educated elites to single-payer health care strikes you as evidence of manipulation? Odd.

Granted, the proles' disillusionment comes more from US casualties than from the injuries we are inflicting on the Afghans and Iraqis

Precisely.

[John Caruso]

Am I the only one who hears "proles" and thinks of large shrimp? Probably.

Jenny, I'm not sure any condescension was intended. It's true that Obama's fooled a lot of people, but that's because he's a consummate self-salesman (and as practiced a liar as Bill Clinton, but better in that he's able do it more convincingly). Personally I respect anyone who's gone from supporting to opposing Obama, and as a former Clinton voter I'm in no position to judge.