Nobel, Obama, Bono, and ‘Rebranding America’

by Eugene Cho 10-19-2009

Like many folks a couple weeks ago, I was stunned that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, I thought it was some sort of joke but alas, it was legit. But I did manage to get couple tweets in there including this one:

Re: Obama: all he did was say to the world, “Hello,” “We’re sorry,” & “Let’s Talk”… All good things but Nobel was premature.

But I was surprised at the number of responses via Twitter & Facebook. Many people seemed to have an opinion. What did you think?

Again, I wasn’t a big fan, but then I read this quote from Cornel West and it got me thinking that this Nobel Peace Prize was indeed a forward-looking prize if there’s such a thing:

“It is going to be very hard to be a war president when you win the peace prize.”

And then I read this pretty amazing column from Bono entitled ReBranding America in yesterday’s NewYork Times. Here’s an excerpt:

A few years ago, I accepted a Golden Globe award by barking out an expletive.

One imagines President Obama did the same when he heard about his Nobel, and not out of excitement.

…Well, I happen to be European, and I can project with the best of them. So here’s why I think the virtual Obama is the real Obama, and why I think the man might deserve the hype. It starts with a quotation from a speech he gave at the United Nations last month:

“We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year’s summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.”

They’re not my words, they’re your president’s. If they’re not familiar, it’s because they didn’t make many headlines. But for me, these 36 words are why I believe Mr. Obama could well be a force for peace and prosperity — if the words signal action.

The millennium goals, for those of you who don’t know, are a persistent nag of a noble, global compact. They’re a set of commitments we all made nine years ago whose goal is to halve extreme poverty by 2015. Barack Obama wasn’t there in 2000, but he’s there now. Indeed he’s gone further — all the way, in fact. Halve it, he says, then end it.

Many have spoken about the need for a rebranding of America. Rebrand, restart, reboot. In my view these 36 words, alongside the administration’s approach to fighting nuclear proliferation and climate change, improving relations in the Middle East and, by the way, creating jobs and providing health care at home, are rebranding in action.

These new steps — and those 36 words — remind the world that America is not just a country but an idea, a great idea about opportunity for all and responsibility to your fellow man. [full column]

Eugene Cho, a second-generation Korean-American, is the founder and lead pastor of Quest Church in Seattle and the executive director of Q Cafe, an innovative nonprofit neighborhood café and music venue. He and his wife are also launching a grassroots movement, One Day’s Wages, to fight extreme global poverty. You can stalk him at his blog or follow him on Twitter.

Categories: Global Issues, Poverty, War & Peace

Tags: Barack Obama, Bono, climate change, cornel west, development, extreme poverty, global poverty, health care, millennium development goals, nobel peace prize, nuclear proliferation, Poverty, President, President Obama, speech, United Nations

letjusticerolldown

OK.

"We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS — all by 2015." President of the United States G Bush

"Reband, reboot, restart."

The thing I like about Obama is he said it in 36 words instead of 42.

Eric77

Very appropriate. The thing is, people see what they want to see. If someone wants to see America as an evil global hegemonic power bent on warfare, exploitation and selfishness then he'll find plenty of things to back of that view. If someone wants to see America as a country that can do no wrong solely bent on preserving peace, justice and liberty for all, he'll find plenty of things to back up that view.

People who want to see G.W. Bush as a warmonger who disdained international institutions and diplomatic means of solving problems will focus on Iraq and ignore the dozens of countries with which the U.S. has a disagreement but didn't go to war as well as statements about the MDG.

People who want to see Obama as a global peacemaker who has humanity's needs at heart rather than America's will focus on his public statements and neglect to mention that Obama's beliefs about the use of U.S. military force are identical to G.W. Bush's. As he said, he's not anti-war, he's just against stupid wars.

Reality is a lot messier than our hopes and dreams.

BlueDeacon

Huh? Bush always sought domination, while Obama believes in cooperation. Bush said, "Either you're with us or you're with [them]," while Obama wouldn't dream of making that kind of statement. For those reasons alone the rest of the world sees Obama as a breath of fresh air.

Eric77

You're right that Obama would never say something like that. I don't think it was helpful when Bush said it. But that doesn't negate my point, which was that there is evidence to support both views of Bush. There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.

Was it domination or collaboration when Bush sought multilateral talks to deal with North Korea? Was PEPFAR domination or cooperation?

You've proved my point when you say that "Bush always sought domination and Obama believes in cooperation". I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.

BlueDeacon

There were times that Bush did seek domination. There were also times when he sought world collaboration.

Bush's focus on domination compromised his attempts to collaborate; it could be seen as domination because of the attempt to get North Korea's neighbors on its side.

I can assure you there will be times when Obama doesn't seek cooperation but will support America's interests over the world's. People see what they want to see.

That happens if, and only if, certain Americans' interests are perceived as trumping those of the rest of the world.

Eric77

Please, stop proving my point for me. In your world in which you want to see Bush in a certain light apparently any attempt, even using a multilateral, collaborative attempt to solve a problem, is evidence of his desire for domination. He can't win in your bizarro world.

As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, which would make him a dominater (which, in your bizarre world could make any attempts at collaboration really seem like domination to an ambiguous passive-voiced third party).

BlueDeacon

Your beef is not with me. Bush had to be seen as unyielding to play to his political base, which was indeed bent on domination.

As for Obama, I'm glad you admit that there will most likely come a time when he pursues America's interests over the world's, ...

Didn't say that. The "American interests" I was referring to actually represent the private interests of certain Americans, most notably businesses where policies Obama would possibly enact would compromise their power. Why do you think, for example, they're fighting health insurance reform so hard?

Eric77

Yes, my beef is with you. You're saying that Bush was always dominating. I'm saying that's a bunch of bunk. I provided two examples of situations in which he acted in a way that was either selfless (AIDS and Malaria relief in Africa) or not in the usual unilateralist, Bush way (N. Korea). You ignored the first and twisted the second in your mind into an example of U.S. domination.

Perhaps you could help me understand your thoughts on N. Korea by explaining how Obama, the cooperator, would handle the N. Korea situation.

As for Obama, I'll repeat, there will come a time when he pursues American interests over the interests of the world - he will play the role of dominater. But people who love him will brush it off or ignore it and people who hate him will criticize him for it even though if their guy had done it they'd applaud.

BlueDeacon

You're saying that Bush was always dominating. I'm saying that's a bunch of bunk.

The Bush people and his syncophants never highlighted his work with AIDS and malaria in Africa (although several "liberal" columnists did). They wanted him to be seen as a strong and decisive leader because they were concerned about staying in power BAMN and couldn't admit that his bullheadedness often caused more problems than it solved. That's not even the fault of the media.

As for Obama, I'll repeat, there will come a time when he pursues American interests over the interests of the world - he will play the role of dominater.

I seriously doubt this because, as I've mentioned, he's a consensus-builder by nature. If he were the unilateralist you think is actually is at heart he would have already tried to push health insurance reform through without Republican help.

cubfan19

I greatly disagree that Obama is a consensus-builder by nature. I understand all the politics surrounding health care and Afghanistan, but I think it is a stretch to say he has even tried to reach consensus. One big reason why I think this is the way that he, or maybe I should just say democrats in congress, has opposed putting up the health care bills online for people to read after he campaign on a promise to be more transparent. If it is the best thing for America then it should win on its merits and not need to be hidden or hurried through. And he did try to push health care through back in July when he mandated to Congress that they need to pass health care reform before their recess.

Eric77

On a side not, one of the first things I learned in the one journalism class I took was not to use the passive voice. You used it twice here and it makes your comment unnecessarily vague. It's poor writing if you're trying to convey a clear point.

BlueDeacon

Sometimes, however, the passive voice is required, especially when there is no obvious direct subject -- which was the case in my last posting.

Eric77

I disagree. Knowing who could see multilateral talks as domination is key to understanding what you're talking about. Is it N. Korea, other people around the world, American citizens, or you? Who you're talking about is very important.

I'll explain. N. Korea could see any attempt to limit its access to nuclear weapons as domination - even the most U.N.-centric, multilateral, non-violent, unBush-like solution. In this case, if N. Korea was who you were talking about, I couldn't care less whether they see it as domination. The leaders of that country are loony and evil.

On the other hand, just because you or some person in South America see multilateral talks as an attempt at domination doesn't matter one bit. Bush was using the internationally accepted methods for dealing with a problem - getting a group of countries together to work towards a non-violent solution and you're condemning him for using a dominating tactic. As I said, he can't win in your bizarre world.

BlueDeacon

I disagree.

Your opinion.

Who you're talking about is very important.

Not when there's a general consensus, because in a news story you often don't have the time or space to gather reaction from everywhere and everyone involved.

Bush was using the internationally accepted methods for dealing with a problem - getting a group of countries together to work towards a non-violent solution and you're condemning him for using a dominating tactic.

Actually, you miss the point. Such folks (Ortega in 1980s Nicaragua was another example) want to deal with Washington directly because in that case they see the American government as pulling the strings of its neighbors. The Reagan Administration made no bones about its contempt for that regime and thus refused to engage it.

BuckeyeDon

Eric, passive voice is appropriate when one wishes to emphasize the action itself and not the performer of that action. I believe that's the case in both of the sentences you are referring to.

Mennoman

People may see what they want to see in a lot of things. Religion is a good case in point. But there IS a qualitative difference between Bush and Obama. Merely dismissing those difference with simplistic cliches only blurs the lines and obfuscates.

Eric77

Of course there are differences between Obama and Bush. I'm not trying to minimize them. What I'm trying to point out is that conventional wisdom's portrait of public figures is usually a lot cleaner and less ambiguous than reality. Both Bush and Obama said nice, happy things about the MDGs. Let's judge them on their policies, not their lofty idealistic rhetoric.

arachne646

I don't know if you watch or read any news about the U.S. from outside your country (BBC World, online stuff), but you might be surprised

schroeder37

I imagine your speaking on the international side of things but obama did say " I dont mind cleaning up the mess but they need to get out of the way" not quite exact qoute but close. and he has not listened to repulicans at all or even met with them. as far as the internation side, bush allowed how long for Irag to follow the UN sanctions. he has dealth through the UN for as long as they were actually doing what they said they would do. And his words mean very little but to appease at the moment, never mind his wars, though inherited, he is following the same path as bush. Obama is good at picking his words, just not at following through.

BlueDeacon

First thing: If Obama hasn't learned already, he will learn very soon that you just can't negotiate or even deal with conservatives, who in over 30 years have yet to do anything in good faith with those that disagree with them. The LA Times published an op-ed (which I linked to a post on another thread) that likened modern conservatism to a form of religion, which by definition defies the art of politics. That's the basic problem with what we're seeing in Washington today and something that Obama can't do anything about.

Something else: Obama may have had good intentions when he was campaigning; however, every politician ends up having to break promises he may full well have wanted to keep because he just didn't have the whole story. I remember when Bill Clinton chided George H.W. Bush for "coddling the Chinese"; but when he actually got to the presidency he found out that they were pulling the strings.

judithod

Obama apparently decided several months ago that he didn't want to have any discussions with conservatives on health care. The last White House health-care soiree that included conservatives was at the end of May.

BlueDeacon

Apparently he's learned his lesson. They want to dictate, not negotiate.

judithod

And he doesn't want to dictate? He wanted a bill passed before the August recess; never mind, that 5 different versions were still in committee at that time.

When you're not invited to negotiate, you do what you have to do.

BlueDeacon

No, he doesn't, not really. The trouble was that Obama probably knew full well that the conservatives would try to gum things up -- he learned from the Clinton years -- if one wasn't passed. And, as I said, conservatives in 30 years have never negotiated with anyone, so why in the world would he invite them?

judithod

Perhaps you could provide a list of all those times that conservatives have "never negotiated with anyone." Suspect that a commensurate list could be provided on behalf of the liberals.

The reality is that both the conservatives and the liberals do a disservice to the nation's citizens when they fail to include one another in negotiating to achieve a consensus. When people join together to negotiate in good faith, they not only have an investment in the decision but also in the outcome.

BlueDeacon

I can't recall any instance in which conservatives actually have
negotiated with the other side in good faith, but the most egregious sabotage
was when Bill Clinton proposed health-insurance reform back in 1993 or 1994
and William Kristol of the Weekly Standard magazine actually faxed other
conservative organizations to unite against it because it was "politically
damaging" (or something to that effect). In fact, that even hurt the
Republican Party down the road, what with the two 1995 government shutdowns
for which it was largely blamed, rightly or wrongly; only then did the two
sides come up with a budget deal. However, the converse isn't true.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

Got to ask... Are you equating conservatives with Republicans? For gripes I've been mulling over for a while, I'm identifying less and less with the party, even though my beliefs still easily fit the platform.