The world hearts Obama

I think I’m going to be saying this a lot over the next 4 years, but this concerns me.  If the rest of the world is so happy happy about his election, what does that mean for us?

This entry was posted in Elections, Government, Media, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The world hearts Obama

  1. mom says:

    Government may influence my life, make my life more difficult, but it cannot control my life. Only He who created me has that power. I am thankful God is still in control. Pray toward Heaven-row toward shore.

  2. David says:

    Consider the possibility that the world is happy because it has hope that we will return to being a good neighbor. Try to believe that rather than hoping we fail, the world actually wants us to succeed. Really, that shouldn’t be too hard.

    Of course, we do have enemies. However, the majority of nations on the planet see a balanced and sane United States as a boon to them and look forward to peaceful relations with us. I wouldn’t be too concerned.

  3. chrispy85 says:

    What does it mean that the world hearts Obama, and therefore it’s “good that we elected him”?

    It means that we have fallen victim to one of the classic blunders — assuming that what is popular is what is right. Call it the “UN Fallacy” or something.

  4. David says:


    Who said it was “good that we elected him?” And more specifically, who is claiming a cause and effect relationship that it is good because the world approves?

    There are many things that are both popular and “good,” don’t you think? And does your comment imply a criticism of democracy? Do you prefer another form of government, one where the desires of the people are superceded by — well, what exactly?

    Your comment is Swiss in nature — holes all over it.

  5. KMHitzeman says:


    It seems pretty clear from the article cited, and many blogs/articles on the internet that many people around the world think it is “good that we elected him”. Just because it was not quoted somewhere doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    Neighbors don’t always get along, but can still be considered “good”. However, I’m pretty sure that your definition of “good” and mine may vary. Plus, it seems that sending ships full of aid to countries devestated by disasters is being a good neighbor, or am I missing something here?

    “The world actually wants us to succeed” – what does that even mean? Succeed at what? We are successful – we are the most powerful nation on the planet.

    Criticism of democracy (or of anything else) is something we are still quite free to do in this country. In this election, is appears that a lot of people are criticizing the way things have been handled up to this point by voting for Obama. I consider that unpleasant, but it’s how things are.

    At least we are not neutral.

  6. djhitz says:

    If anyone reads this (my comments always seem tardy on Worldview), note that President-elect Obama just won the right to head the most consumative nation on earth. I heard a statistic a while back that the US consumes 80% of all products on the planet. That’s tremendous considering the fact that there’s still about 5,500,000,000 other people on the planet. Is it true that we are the fattest (p.h.a.t.test) country on earth or do we just have the zest for life that requires this overconsumation?
    It would take some kind of special person to lead us.
    I heard it said about as much as Governor Palin said “maverick”. We’re voting for change. Well, duh. Change was obviously inevitable. Even under McCain’s rule things would’ve been different but the majority of America voted for ultimate change. We’ve yet to see President-elect Obama’s true leadership skills in action unless you go by his accomplishments in Illinois. He has till 2012 to prove himself worthy of our vote again. This man has my, full attention. I’m thinking, he has yours, too.

  7. David says:


    To your first point, I concede that I did not edit my comment adequately. I should have deleted the first sentence. As my second sentence clarifies, the real point of my question to Chris is why he proposed such a strange causal relationship in his question when he wrote, “What does it mean that the world hearts Obama, and therefore it’s ‘good that we elected him’?” Perhaps what is puzzling about that question to me is that it implies that many voted for him because the world likes him. Perhaps I’m misreading Chris on that. As I said, it was a strange formulation so I asked for clarification.

    As for neighbors not getting along and still being “good”, you again miss the point (or perhaps simply disagree with it). I didn’t announce all of my assumptions, so it’s not surprising you’d misread what I intended. My contention is merely this. If you had a neighbor who continually threatened violence to the people in the neighborhood whenever he didn’t like what was going on, and if that neighbor continually armed himself and made it clear that he thought it was better to shoot first and ask questions later, you might be a little nervous about that neighbor. And, that nervousness might make you more inclined to attack that neighbor, if not pre-emptively, perhaps in a moment in which you perceived a threat. And you’d have good reason to see that neighbor as a threat. In just the same way that other rogue states destabilize the world by their unpredictable and belligerent actions, so does the US. And would your reaction toward that neighbor really change just because you saw him drop some change in the Salvation Army bucket? I doubt it.

    To your question about us being successful, I almost don’t know where to begin. I’m sure our definitions of “good” do differ if you define success by who is most powerful. That explains a lot about your worldview. My point was merely that the entire world doesn’t have it out for us so you don’t need to worry that they like Obama and are glad we elected him. Your “concern” that the world is happy about his election makes you sound paranoid.

    Criticism of democracy is, indeed, something we are free to do. I wasn’t implying otherwise. I was curious, however, that Chris’ comment seemed to imply a criticism about our form of government and I found it surprising since I believe him to be someone who supports our form of government. No need to go looking for a fight about that.

    As for neutrality, I’m not sure what point your’re making. My point about Swiss cheese had to do with holes, not governmental ideology.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *