Past puberty, on to the kids: Obama and America's coming of age

Anyone who's graced graced a university campus, watched a Michael Moore film, or spent their fair share of time reading the work of the liberal media knows that words like "globalization", "colonization" and "imperialism" have firmly achieved buzz status. The latter two, far from being relics of bygone centuries, have undergone significant modifications that have made them relevant to contemporary issues. When people speak of McDonalds, they speak of "cultural colonialism"; ExxonMobil, "economic imperialism"; indeed, the list goes on. Usually, these words are used to describe some sort of exploitive relationship, where it's quite clear who's on the winning end, and who's being short-changed. In some cases, however, it isn't nearly this evident. The concept that I'd like to advance can't really be molded into a variation of colonialism or imperialism, since there isn't really one actor explicitly dominating another. In accordance with it's subtle nature - as well as its general ambiguity - I think it would be appropriate to deem this concept "international paternalism".

It was in a conversation over Crock-Pot pulled pork and veggie chili on Wednesday, at one of the many potlucks I've come into the habit of attending, that this topic was brought up in relation to current events. A couple of courageous pioneers had decided to venture out of the comfy utopia of Obamamanialand, and critique his inaugural address. At first, I was as shocked as anyone would have been; after all, this was the second coming of JFK they were talking about - the veritable panacea of America's ills. Although politicians rarely reach personality cult status in democratic societies like ours, Obama's got to be pretty close - for the most part, he's even escaped the prodding of the most conservative pundits. However, when I made a point of emerging from my star-struck daze, I saw that they were extracting some pretty significant tidbits from my heart-throb's speech. Specifically, the new president seemed to indicate that his country was about to take on an entirely new disposition: instead of being the world's best policeman, it would shift it's focus to being Earth's resident Dad.

Allow me to illustrate my point with what will likely turn out to be a wildly overblown analogy. When one couples the military adventures of the Bush years with levels of economic deregulation unseen since the beginning of the 20th century, the US of the first decade of the 21st could be seen as a kind of larger-than-life, teenage superstar: individualistic, unpredictable, boom-or-bust. If the world was MTV and the US was a rock star, it was Kurt Cobain in 1992. Opinions of it varied from love to despisal, but no one could deny that America was living life in the fast lane, with no intention of stopping for pedestrians (read: Frenchmen). Although it might initially be difficult to draw a parallel between a grunge rocker and a policeman (per my metaphor in the previous paragraph), keep in mind that we're not talking about your average Mountie; Chuck Norris is at the wheel of this cruiser.

Then September of 2008 hit, and Kurt OD'd. As it turns out, like an immature adolescent, a free-whelling economy can only be given so much autonomy before it starts to destroy itself. Just like in 1929 - albiet for different reasons - heaven quickly turned into hell, and America wasn't flying nearly as high as before. Although the increaing turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan had somewhat tempered the ambition of the Lawrence of Arabia of the world order, it was the economic crash that ultimately broke the camel's back.

This disaster just happened to coincide with the culmination of a rough-and-tumble election campaign, and the appointment of a new president, Mr. Obama. In contrast to the bull-headed, no-holds-barred attitude of his predeccesor, Obama was characterized throughout his campaign and president-elect period by a more contemplated, mature, academic demeanor. Used to the chummy style of President Bush, some even described him as cold and disconnected. Despite the strong tradition of populism in American politics, however, he seemed to win over the electorate with a mix of emphasis on government accountability, "no-one-left-behind" rhetoric, and the sheer incompetence of the Bush administration. Although foreign policy was widely percieved as a weakness in his platform, when he did speak of it, he expressed a need for the US to play a less impulsive, more responsible role in the world, with much more respect for its allies and multilateralism in general. It almost seemed as if he thought his country needed to "set a good example".

As observed by my pot luck friends, this mindset came out much more explicitly in the inauguration speech. In the text account I just linked to, the BBC appropriately places the heading 'Ready to lead' on one of the sections around the middle of Obama's speech. I'm going to paste a couple lines from this section - as well as the following one, subtitled 'Era of peace' - for your examination:

"And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today...know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more."

"...our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."

"We are the keepers of this legacy [speaking of the 20th century fight against 'fascism and communism']."

"...America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace."

"...but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist [directed at aggresive nations]."

Most will recall that Bush's speeches (if you can call them that) were primarily concerned with America's security and prosperity, although justification for foreign intervention took on a markedly more "liberating" tone following the failure to discover WMD's in Iraq. Even then, if you look at Bush's 2004 address, there's much more about America walking alongside friendly nations, or giving them the opportunity to help themselves. To me, it seems as if Obama is much more assertive in identifying the direct agency of the US in areas such as nation building, human rights enforcement, and development. As I outlined earlier, after searching for a word for the tone he evokes, the best one I could come up with was "paternal". If there's one role in traditional Western society - indeed, in my own life - that could be typically described using terms such as "leading", "force of example", "tempering quality of restraint", "extending a hand", it's that of the father within the nuclear family.

I predict that in the coming months and years, America's image will subtly shift from that of the cocky, rough-and-tumble cop, to the wise, firm, responsible father figure, who is both gentle and strict. The newly apparent neccesities of economic regulation will play a big role in this shift, as will Obama's eagerness to distance himself from the previous administration's foreign policy legacy. Although it may not make an immediate entrance into undergraduate geopolitics textbooks, something along the lines of a theory of "international paternalism" will become increasingly prominent. Unlike the overtly uneven relationships described in concepts of dependency theory and economic imperialism, the embodiment of international paternalism will involve America taking a much less pronounced position of moral/ethical leadership (for example, expect Obama to push for the US' signing on to the International Criminal Court). As it's economic and military hegemony shrinks, America will begin searching for a new niche that keeps them at the top. Indeed, Obama seems to be leading the way; whether it be for it's own benefit, or out of a genuine concern for the state of the world (both are very real explanations), America isn't budging from that big fireside La-Z-Boy it's become so accustomed to. The only difference is, it's calling the kids over to sit on it's knee.

"The Nobodies" by Eduardo Galeano

"Fleas dream of buying themselves a dog, and nobodies dream of escaping poverty: that, one magical day, good luck will suddenly rain down on them - will rain down in buckets. But good luck doesn't rain down, yesterday, today, tomorrow or ever. Good luck doesn't even fall in a fine drizzle, no matter how hard the nobodies summon it, even if their left hand is tickling, or if they begin the new day on their right foot, or start the new year with a change of brooms.

The nobodies: nobody's children, owners of nothing. The nobodies: the no-ones, the nobodied, running like rabbits, dying through life, screwed every which way.

Who are not, but could be.
Who don't speak languages, but dialects.
Who don't have religions, but superstitions.
Who don't create art, but handicrafts.
Who don't have culture, but folklore.
Who are not human beings, but human resources.
Who do not have faces, but arms.
Who do not have names, but numbers.
Who do not appear in the history of the world, but in the crime reports of the local paper.
The nobodies, who are not worth the bullet that kills them. "

- Eduardo Galeano

So much is contained in those lines, that I'm already exceeding my bandwidth; hence, I'm not really going to add any insight of my own. One thing that did come to mind by the end of the poem, though, was Joseph Stalin's astute observation that "When one dies, it's a tragedy. When a million die, it's a statistic".

The nobodies may not all be dying. The sad truth is, though, that for the amount of attention we pay them, they might as well be.