I seem to recall editorials in 1980 proclaiming that the election of Ronald Reagan would be a foreign policy disaster for America – that the world (especially Europe) wanted to see Jimmy Carter remain in office rather than see the former governor of California come to power. Any other choice, we were told, would be disastrous to America’s prestige and our relationship with our allies. Somehow, things didn’t quite play out that way.

And so I take this editorial in the Washington Post with an entire shaker of salt, not just a grain of the white stuff.

The outpouring of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama in places such as Berlin -- where a smaller share of people say they have favorable views of the United States than in Russia or China -- seems to reflect a longing to repair a broken relationship. An Obama presidency offers the possibility of building on those sentiments. Mr. McCain would have to start cold. Neither may have a good chance of obtaining more European troops for Afghanistan or major new sanctions against Iran. But on the intangible but critical question of American prestige and the willingness to accept U.S. leadership that comes with it, Mr. Obama has more to offer.

On the other hand, I’d like to remind folks that we Americans are charged with electing the best leader for our nation. We are not charged with reflecting world opinion. Our European allies do not look to America for guidance on the selection of their leaders – and were candidates to appeal to their American popularity, most voters in Europe would vote against them. I urge Americans to take the same tack in making their choice in three weeks.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.