Upon a first reading of this article (thank you l'Internazionale) I was deeply offended.
The arrogance of one yank undertaking the psycho-analysis of an entire continent - classified as "schizophrenic" and afflicted with "stockholm's syndrome" is breath-taking. The characterisation of the collective European personality as completely neurotic, not to mention cowardly and naive, desperate the hide under the skirt of mother America, seems almost too provocative to be taken seriously at all, more like satire. It reminds me of the name-calling and insults that were targetted against the European countries that decided not to go to war in 2003.
On a second reading, this time in my own language (thank you the Times Online), I like it. It rains on the parade of the kind of Obamaphilia and euphoria that I was never really convinced by. I mean yeah, this kind of thing is poignant but you know it's just too good to be true. Obama's speeches always made me somewhat uneasy, because of the religious overtones (a million people chanting back "yes we can" in repetition is just too close to the chorus of "amen" after every line in a sermon) and because of their poetic, vague, and abstract nature.
On a second reading, this time in my own language (thank you the Times Online), I like it. It rains on the parade of the kind of Obamaphilia and euphoria that I was never really convinced by. I mean yeah, this kind of thing is poignant but you know it's just too good to be true. Obama's speeches always made me somewhat uneasy, because of the religious overtones (a million people chanting back "yes we can" in repetition is just too close to the chorus of "amen" after every line in a sermon) and because of their poetic, vague, and abstract nature.
That said, in our defence, I think Europeans can be glad Obama was elected even though we know he isn't going to be any kind of saviour or great redeemer. Of course he is not going to eliminate all the injustices in the world. He is a politician and as such part of the establishment, and as George Monbiot points out in Bring on the Apocalypse, you simply can't expect to acheive global justice or attain goals such as "making poverty history" without confronting the current global order and distribution of power. It's really inconvenient.But! If the United States were to start showing signs of engaging with the rest of the world, to seriously commit to tackling climate change and cutting carbon emissions, to close Guantanamo bay, it seems to me these would already be significiant improvements and evidence of progress towards making the world a safer and fairer place. It is not as if the politics and actions of a country like the US have no bearing on the rest of the world, and affect, directly or indirectly, the quality of life of billions.
In this sense, Obamamania is not misguided, nor it "idiocy" or "political blunder". It might be excessive, and over-zealous, but it is at least somewhat justified. Besides, part of the euphoria and air of celebration is also to do with saying goodbye and good riddance to Bush which, after 8 years, I think justifies a party. Or at least a drink.
Rieff certainly doesn't mince his words when it comes to harshly criticising Europeans, in all their naive idiocy, for supporting Obama because he will not act in a way that serves their best interests. But what he doesn't focus enough on are the dangers of such a collective attitude, not just for Europeans but for everyone who lives in the world (including Americans - because who said he can solve all of their problems anyway?).
It reminds me of the "Spice Girls argument", a theory a friend of mine came up with. The theory goes that it's actually very dangerous when apparent improvements and progress seem to be occuring, because it tips people into complacency, into thinking the problem is on its way out. For example, the Spice Girls did more damage to the feminist movement than anything because they made people THINK this was evidence of gender equality and female empowerment, which in fact it wasn't, or at least - might have been only at a very limited, and superficial level.
Applied to this case, it holds that Barack Obama is very bad news because people will "go back to sleep" as Rieff puts it, stop criticising and scrutinising the US as they did when Bush was in power, even though in reality, american politics will probably remain business as usual, in many ways. Now America has got its credibility back. The old-school "Fuck Bush" anti-americanism is muted if not defunct entirely, and the most worrying thing is that maybe now a page has been turned. Perhaps our memory will not stretch back to the awful, fatal mistakes of the Bush administration, because they are seen as belonging to another era. This is the danger, that perhaps next time America, with its brand new face, suggests going to war to its Western allies, we will give them the benefit of the doubt.
In this sense, Obamamania is not misguided, nor it "idiocy" or "political blunder". It might be excessive, and over-zealous, but it is at least somewhat justified. Besides, part of the euphoria and air of celebration is also to do with saying goodbye and good riddance to Bush which, after 8 years, I think justifies a party. Or at least a drink.
Rieff certainly doesn't mince his words when it comes to harshly criticising Europeans, in all their naive idiocy, for supporting Obama because he will not act in a way that serves their best interests. But what he doesn't focus enough on are the dangers of such a collective attitude, not just for Europeans but for everyone who lives in the world (including Americans - because who said he can solve all of their problems anyway?).
It reminds me of the "Spice Girls argument", a theory a friend of mine came up with. The theory goes that it's actually very dangerous when apparent improvements and progress seem to be occuring, because it tips people into complacency, into thinking the problem is on its way out. For example, the Spice Girls did more damage to the feminist movement than anything because they made people THINK this was evidence of gender equality and female empowerment, which in fact it wasn't, or at least - might have been only at a very limited, and superficial level.
Applied to this case, it holds that Barack Obama is very bad news because people will "go back to sleep" as Rieff puts it, stop criticising and scrutinising the US as they did when Bush was in power, even though in reality, american politics will probably remain business as usual, in many ways. Now America has got its credibility back. The old-school "Fuck Bush" anti-americanism is muted if not defunct entirely, and the most worrying thing is that maybe now a page has been turned. Perhaps our memory will not stretch back to the awful, fatal mistakes of the Bush administration, because they are seen as belonging to another era. This is the danger, that perhaps next time America, with its brand new face, suggests going to war to its Western allies, we will give them the benefit of the doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment