iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jeffrey Laurenti

GET UPDATES FROM Jeffrey Laurenti
 

Fluff and Fact on Obama's 'Global Leadership'

Posted: 06/22/2012 7:56 pm

Barack Obama opened his State of the Union address this year by ticking off claims to four major accomplishments in the global arena. Three of them his political foes could not factually contest -- ending his predecessor's war in Iraq, eliminating Osama bin Laden, and starting the phase-out from Afghanistan. But they furiously challenge the overarching achievement he asserted: that his policies have "made the United States safer and more respected around the world."

"More respected"? Conservatives are furiously seeking to discredit his claim. Mitt Romney's top foreign policy advisors regularly pillory the president for being "comfortable with the decline of America in the world" (John Bolton) and prone to "naiveté and weakness" (Richard Williamson). America's global dominance is at risk because "this president does not want America to be the leader," says Richard Grenell, the Romney campaign's foreign policy spokesman until homophobic conservatives forced his ouster.

Something as intangible as the credibility of "leadership" seems hopelessly unprovable. But the Pew Research Group's release last week of hard data on public opinion across 21 countries, representing a majority of the world's population and power centers, provides some solid metrics to judge Obama's impact on America's global leadership.

"Global Opinion of Obama Slips," Pew headlined its report summary. And sure enough, Obama's numbers are down compared to the confidence expressed in his leadership in his first year in office. Country by country, Pew documents an inexorable fall in Obama's ratings, which have plunged an average -- are you ready -- six percentage points worldwide since 2009. People's attitudes toward the United States have also dipped concomitantly, by a median five percentage points.

But whatever the disappointment in Obama, the public in every country but embittered Pakistan is far more enthusiastic about Obama's global leadership than about George Bush's four years ago. In fact, world confidence in Obama averages, at 50 percent (and a stratospheric 82 percent among Europe's biggest powers), an astounding 32 percentage points above Bush's rating. (Pakistanis churlishly now rate Obama at the same 7 percent as they did Bush.)

Awkwardly, Governor Romney essentially vows to resuscitate Bush's foreign policy, which seems certain to resurrect the worldwide hostility to American purposes that so hobbled the United States in the last decade. As a country, favorable attitudes toward the United States are currently an average of eight percentage points higher than they were at the sunset of the Bush administration. Among our most crucial allies, the large West European countries that have been indispensable partners militarily, politically, and financially in such crisis situations as Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, and now Syria, support for the United States is now 20 points higher.

The policy issues on which world publics see Obama as a disappointment cannot offer much solace to his conservative critics at home. His biggest failure, it seems, has been in delivering action on climate change, on which he dropped an average 34 percentage points across countries surveyed (and 49 points in Western Europe).

The second biggest area of disillusionment has been on the expectation that he would deal "fairly" with both Israelis and Palestinians. On average only 18 percent of respondents now expect him to do so; the comparable level of expectation in his first year was 46 percent. (Fortunately for Obama, 60 percent of his voters at home still think his Mideast policies are fair to both sides.)

On both of these issues, Obama's conservative opponents have fought his initiatives tooth and nail, and are baying for confrontation with our allies.

They also vehemently insist on U.S. freedom of action to wield deadly military force without regard to the United Nations -- which turns out to be the third area of global disappointment in Obama: the deflated expectation (45 percent in 2009, 29 percent now) that he would rely on international approval for use of force. A foreign policy elite that sneers at U.N. Security Council regulation of armed force as "Mommy, may I?" is bent on renewing Bush-era antagonisms.

For all the disappointments, Obama still enjoys far higher international public support than do leaders of other major powers. He bests German chancellor Angela Merkel throughout Europe and in Germany itself (87 percent confidence in him versus 77 percent in her).

In Arab and Muslim countries, however, Obama has poorer ratings than the deceptively invisible U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. In Egypt, where at a crucial moment Obama pressed 30-year president Hosni Mubarak to retire, his ratings stand at 29 percent positive, 69 percent negative; Ban is rated positively by 36 percent. In Jordan, confidence in Obama stands at 22 percent, and in Ban at 42.

Between Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin, however, there's no contest. Putin is poorly rated virtually everywhere. Americans view him negatively by a 2-to-1 margin, Germans and Britons by a 3-to-1 margin, Italians and Poles by a 4-to-1 margin, and the French by an extraordinary 8-to-1 margin. Even in Arab and Muslim countries, Obama's positive rating is nearly twice Putin's.

Of course, the most important number for any politician is how he's viewed by his own voters, and 69 percent of Russians profess confidence in Putin's handling of international affairs -- a number that makes for interesting context when we talk about influencing Russian policy on Syria. Oh, did I mention that 61% of Americans in Pew's survey reported confidence in Obama's handling of international affairs?

That's a better rating than Americans give Obama for his overall job performance, which is the number that really counts for reelection. With the American public dispiritingly uninterested in foreign policy this year anyway, conservatives should stick to the economy, stupid.

Much as his partisan opponents might want to paint Obama as a star-crossed Jimmy Carter, that dog just won't hunt. It's Governor Romney's determination to reprise the foreign policy of George Bush that terrifies many Americans -- and most of the world.

 

Follow Jeffrey Laurenti on Twitter: www.twitter.com/J_Laurenti

FOLLOW WORLD
 
 
  • Comments
  • 220
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:24 AM on 06/25/2012
The US more respected throughout the world! You are joking, of course?
The only claimed democracy in the world that has a legislature that is vetted by an unelected lobby! I mean, how does it work? At what stage in any bill do you have to phone AIPAC for authority? Is it when it is being drafted or before passing? And as for your veto in the UNSC, do you email AIPAC or just use it automatically when you see the word 'Israel'? If your system of government in democratic my dog davens maariv in Spanish.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:33 PM on 06/25/2012
Be fair, after the Bush presidency there was only up to go. Notice he used the relative "more respected".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:52 PM on 06/25/2012
That's true. However, we never thought that an American presidency could possibly be more incompetent than that of Bush junior who couldn't even speak English. Now we have an articulate president who turns out to be a puppet in the hands of the lobby. Has anyone any idea, any conception, exactly what a bitter, bitter disappointment that has been around the world?

In a wider sense, the idea of a congress in the pocket of an unelected pressure group is a mortal blow for democratic societies everywhere. I personally find it, even now, extremely hard to comprehend how over 300 million Americans have allowed their democracy to have been taken from them without a fight. Unbelievable!
09:59 AM on 06/25/2012
Of course Obama is rated more highly in the world, he is selling this country out to them, pushing more jobs overseas, more foreign aid, bank bailouts, etc.and of course he is the first person of color to lead this country, a big winner among the majority of the world who are not white. Pakistan's low rating is of course because he is violating their independence by bombing their citizens, and the middle east in general by continuing Bush's crusade. He is continuing our colonial enterprise to add the middle east to those areas of the world we have ravaged and destroyed, using the need to civilize savages as the excuse to advance the rule of disaster capitalism. European leaders were all for that and still are.
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
03:31 PM on 06/24/2012
You Bet....After what Obama has done to al-Qaeda and the Taliban They will do anything to get Bush and Cheney or someone that thinks the way they did back..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
netman714
I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused
02:16 PM on 06/24/2012
The issues are a little too complex for you to understand if this is your conclusion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fredo777
poplitician.
09:46 PM on 06/24/2012
hahaha
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
01:59 PM on 06/24/2012
The NeoCons see Romney not as an "Etch-A-Sketch" but a as a Big Wade of Silly putty..Can be shaped into anything...If you enjoyed Bush and Cheneys Wars, you will love what Romney has planned for you.
Freddie Krueger
Liberalism is bad for America
01:16 PM on 06/24/2012
Conflicts around the world, country after country going broke, yeah, he's doing a wonderful job as a global leader.
07:54 PM on 06/24/2012
You're blaming Obama on the problems with for Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Ireland? For your information, Obama is President of the United States, not Emperor of the World.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fredo777
poplitician.
09:48 PM on 06/24/2012
Are you serious? Since when is it solely Obama's job to make sure other countries aren't going broke? Also, are you aware that the global economy wasn't exactly gang-busters when he took office in the first place?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laurieanichols
je pense donc, je suis
12:47 PM on 06/24/2012
President Obama has been strong on foreign policy in terms of security, much to the chagrin of republicans. I wish that our policies would change with regard to environmental policies and regulation. I realize that President Obama cannot ratify any climate accords on his own, he needs congress for that and with the climate change deniers in charge of the house that will not happen. Unfortunately even with President Obama explaining that fact, it doesn't change the disappointment and frustration with President Obama's inability to change their mindset, even if I know that there had been so many obstructionists operating as a bloc against our President. I absolutely do not want Romney as President for many reasons, but on the subject of foreign policy it is of primary importance that he not be elected because if he is, it will be a full blown return to the Bush/Cheney war mongering behavior of sending U.S troops into the Mideast and moreover Romney being the republican he is will only cut any support for the V.A as republicans always do. Historically they love sending our troops in harm's way but they don't find the need to take care of them when they come home, that is the democrats strong suit.
10:10 AM on 06/25/2012
Murdering women and children in Afghanistan and Pakistan is enhancing our security? WTF? Waging war on nations who have done nothing to harm us, based on lies and propaganda, spreading colonialist imperial conquest, bombing, invading and occupying countries, destroying them, terrorizing them, how on earth does this amount to making the USA more secure. The only danger to the USA is from within, allowing an irresponsible, crazy ruling class to drive us to ruin, deprive us of our rights and establish a police state. Our fiscal irresponsibility at the top is causing other nations to see us as weak, the embarrassing antics of our government, kowtowing to Wall Street, doing nothing to stop our slide to third world status, THAT is what is causing harm to us. There never was any threat from the outside barring 9/11, a Saudi radical action. An act that very suspiciously occurred despite numerous warnings, while Cheney had control of the skies over NYC. The danger is within, stop drinking the cool aid and wake up.
Wonder Land
...Words Matter
12:03 PM on 06/24/2012
Right on !!!
As a matter of fact, when I read the headlines about Syria shooting down the Turkish plane, and the subsequent cool headed response, I take some comfort in believing that President Obama's policy of engagement with all parties may have been at least partially responsible for this level headed approach.
Assad must go.....The more countries who agree with that the better....n'est-ce pas ??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gutenmorgen
a.k.a. crowsnest
10:04 AM on 06/24/2012
There is another interpretation of what happened with Iraq in 2011 in which President Obama actually failed. His predecessor President Bush had been forced by a vote of the United Nations to negotiate an end to the state of war between the US and Iraq with the government of Iraq. Bush wanted an open-ended presence of our armed forces in Iraq with absolute immunity. The people of Iraq through their parliament prevented that. The result was SOFA-IRAQ. When all US armed forces were withdrawn from the cities and into their bases the status of our forces in Iraq was similar to that of our forces in Germany. SOFA-IRAQ expired at the end of 2011. President Obama tried to negotiate a new SOFA-IRAQ which would have left tens of thousands of our soldiers in Iraq on US bases. He failed. Because of that failure he had the choice between restarting a state of war or pulling all forces out. He did the second. The claim that he "ended the war in Iraq" is an empty boast. Bush began and ended the state of war with a sovereign nation.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
gutenmorgen
a.k.a. crowsnest
09:27 AM on 06/24/2012
"ending his predecessor's war in Iraq". This is a totally false rendering of history. That war was ended by the people of Iraq who would not accept another contract (SOFA-IRAQ) with almost total immunity for members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their helpers. President Obama correctly did not ignore the December 31, 2011 deadline for all members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their helpers to be out of Iraq and that is what happened. Had he ignored the deadline then we would have been at war with Iraq again. The correct statement is therefore "President Obama did not restart the war with Iraq". That is the only fact he can claim "leadership" for on Iraq.
The simple truth is that there have never been any "Global Leaders". Leaders are supposed to be followed. Show me a "Global Leader" that was ever universally followed. Such a mythical leader has never existed and will never exist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fredo777
poplitician.
09:50 PM on 06/24/2012
Sounded so nice, you posted it twice?
darcy
I'm the one on the left
07:38 AM on 06/24/2012
Interesting polls. Too bad most Americans don't choose a leader based on facts.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
11:08 PM on 06/23/2012
You write: America's global dominance is at risk because "this president does not want America to be the leader," says Richard Grenell, the Romney campaign's foreign policy spokesman until homophobic conservatives forced his ouster.

Pardon me for asking, but I wonder who voted for 'America's global dominance' and when? I do not recall such a vote. The word 'dominance' alone leaves an aftertaste outside America that feels very undemocratic.
darcy
I'm the one on the left
07:39 AM on 06/24/2012
novelist, so true! Fanned ya.
09:29 AM on 06/24/2012
yea, many I know don't feel the need, nor desire, to be the "dominant" country. let's try for well-educated, fair, kind, and civil for starts.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cleverboots
10:54 PM on 06/23/2012
No Republican President has had high foreign policy ratings since Reagan and I think partly due to Margaret Thatcher's infatuation. Certainly Bush was despised as an ignorant oaf. If Romney thinks Bush's foreign policy deserves a rerun he and we are in trouble.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cory Gudwin
examine thyself before blaming the system
01:42 PM on 06/24/2012
I see no difference in Obama vs. Romney plans for Iran.
Both have blessed an attack on Irans nuclear sites if hard evidence of weapons work is found.
Pretending that there is wide policy difference between these candidates is dishonest at best.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cleverboots
02:14 PM on 06/24/2012
There is no difference. Either may decide to go to war with Iran and both are wrong.
photo
Steeple839
A few brave Federales said thy cld hv hd hm anyday
10:24 PM on 06/23/2012
The Mideast is about to blow up with the Sunnis and the Shias facing each other down in Syria. We might have been able to influence events had we maintained a presence in Iraq, but instead we have handed all of that investment over to the Shia. They have to be amazed at how stupid we were to forfeit that position.

Why? So we could fight he "Just War" in Afghanistan. Trying to pull together a bunch of 7th century tribes into a nation. In a place where we are logistically isolated and dependent on Pakistan for land resupply.

Yeah, our President has been a real genius at Foreign Policy. I might be able to forgive that if he wasn't such a lightweight on Economic affairs as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
marco01
10:43 PM on 06/23/2012
Bush signed the agreement that the US must exit Iraq, the Iraqis demanded it. Are you saying Obama should have reneged and stayed in country regardless of what the sovereign nation of Iraq wanted?
09:04 AM on 06/24/2012
The cost of staying in Iraq would be higher than any gains from keeping the Shias and Sunnis from blowing each other up (not that staying would realistically do anything about that).
photo
Steeple839
A few brave Federales said thy cld hv hd hm anyday
09:56 AM on 06/24/2012
You may be right. We'll see.
09:17 PM on 06/23/2012
Yeah. I'm *sooooo* sure the rest of the world totally respects his accountability-free drone program.

Listening to this guy talk ... it's almost like he imagines policy under Obama has deviated one iota from the policy under Bush beyond the areas where Obama has taken the excesses of Bush and expanded on them. But I guess as long as he has the rest of the world snowed, it's all good.

I used to think Republicans were absolutely clueless back in the Bush days ... now I see that the problem is with partisans in general, regardless the flavor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fredo777
poplitician.
09:55 PM on 06/24/2012
Are you *soooo* sure that most Americans support his decision to use drones (last I checked, they do), probably since they don't put U.S. troops in direct harm's way?