Anti-Americanism and the Power of Rhetoric
The biggest threat to the United States in the 21st century is anti-Americanism. Not only is it a major factor in terrorist recruitment, but it can also lead to the perceived bankruptcy of American political ideals and constitutional values that the country represents in the global marketplace of ideas. Big picture-wise, this is far more dangerous.
America’s popularity has dwindled in recent years and the rise in anti-Americanism has accompanied this trend. Regardless of what you might think of President Bush, this has undoubtedly been a consequence of his presidency. Anti-Americanism has been and will always be around, but it has reached a far more dangerous level as a result of its recent foreign policy. This seems to be the bargain that President Bush made – sacrifice the country’s popularity by making unpopular decisions but, arguably, keeping Americans safer in the process and helping spread its political values, albeit with force. History will judge whether this was wise but, in this regard, President Obama might end up being very beneficial for Bush’s legacy.
One of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected President of the United States was not only his extraordinary public speaking, but also the substance behind his rhetoric. Cynics argue that this substance was at best vague and at worst wholeheartedly disingenuous. But voters saw it as having the potential to help curb some of the negative PR consequences of America’s recent foreign policy. They essentially saw it as the antidote to the adverse consequences of the Bush policies. And today we are seeing that the President is at least willing to engage the world with the idealism that got him elected.
On the final stop of his trip abroad, Obama announced in Turkey that the United States, among other things, “will never be at war with Islam.” This seems very basic, but attempting to negate the perception abroad that the Bush administration threw an entire people under the umbrella of “terrorist” is a huge step in rebuilding the West’s relationship with the Muslim world. While I don’t think President Bush in fact did this, perception is nonetheless a huge player in international politics: how we are seen is how we are seen and it seems to make sense to make sure people perceive us accurately and in a way that does not harm our larger objectives.
In combating this perception on his road trip, President Obama has offered the proverbial olive branch to Iran (not yet directly, but this might be on the horizon), conceded past mistakes in American foreign policy in order to point out Europe’s almost reckless anti-Americanism, and reached out to Turkey as a leader of the Muslim world. As Christiane Amonpour points out, he has even been calling Iran the Islamic Republic of Iran as opposed to the Iranian regime. Some might consider all of this naivety, but this is smart politics for several key reasons. First and foremost, it could actually effectuate a positive PR result for America throughout Europe and the Islamic world. If there are innocent, law abiding people abroad who truly feel that America is against them then Obama’s strategy can win these people over. Any amount of conversions Obama can stimulate is a positive development for America. Second, if Obama’s idealism is not reciprocated by Tehran et al, then America might be somewhat off the hook. What Obama is doing by trying to make nice with Iran is essentially placing the ball in Ahmadinejad’s court. If he is not receptive to Obama’s calls for détente, then it is Ahmadinejad who loses on the PR stage. And if Iran proves incapable of being negotiated with, then the world will better understand a harsher stance against them.
This can help both the US and Bush’s legacy in a couple of ways. First, if Obama’s strategy works, then it might offset some of the adverse consequences of Bush’s policies while still preserving the new status quo created by the Bush wars. If you are someone who believes that regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq was good, then decreased anti-Americanism combined with a world without the Taliban and Saddam Hussein seem like positive developments. Second, if Obama’s diplomatic efforts are not reciprocated then Bush’s harsher stance might be somewhat vindicated.
In the end, America’s fate is intertwined with how it is perceived. If Obama is the President millions voted for, then the world’s perception of America might be on the upswing.
