Writing the last post, there were two totally different arguments I wanted to make using the first graf as a starting point. So I figured I'd just use the graf twice. Sarkozy is, as we say in the office, pretty PrObama these days. I've never taken French, but I think the correct term is "le gush." Similarly, folks in David Cameron's office -- Cameron being the Great Right Hope of the British Tories -- recently released a document showing the similarities between their candidate and Obama. A bit beneath him, a group of Tory MPs have expressed their preference for Obama. Meanwhile, in Israel, Netanyahu, Olmert, and Livni have all been jostling to get into Obama's photo ops and praise him in earshot of the press. Over the past few years, any international political consultant worth five bucks and a sandwich knew to advise his candidates to blast George Bush and the belligerent America that he headed. More than a few of Bush's allies lost their jobs in part over their closeness to the President of the United States of America. That's not necessarily a good state of affairs for a superpower. When the political incentives suggest that opposing American interests will result in domestic electoral gain, a lot of American interests get opposed. It makes it easier for allies to walk away from our agenda and more rewarding for demagogues like Chavez to publicly wonder about the smell of sulfur whenever Bush left the room. International politics is no different than schoolyard politics: You don't want to be the guy who's so unpopular that all the other unpopular kids raise their social status by mocking you. Will Obama fix all that? Definitely not. International tensions are only partly stylistic. They also come from American priorities which sometimes leave us with differing interests than our allies or fellow nations. But they are, nevertheless, in part stylistic. And though a President Obama won't create a pliable world community through sheer force of his charisma, if he simply emerged as a popular enough, or interesting enough, figure that it was nonsensical for foreign politicians to run against America, that would be a huge substantive leap forward. After all, it's hard enough to get other countries to cooperate with your agenda just on the merits. It's damn near impossible if the simple act of cooperation also requires them to face down political consequences at home.
