A Hunger For America

By Moisés Naím
Wednesday, January 2, 2008; Page A13

The world wants America back.

For the next several years, world politics will be reshaped by a strong yearning for American leadership. This trend will be as unexpected as it is inevitable: unexpected given the powerful anti-American sentiments around the globe, and inevitable given the vacuums that only the United States can fill.

This renewed international appetite for U.S. leadership will not merely result from the election of a new president, though having a new occupant in the White House will certainly help. Almost a decade of U.S. disengagement and distraction have allowed international and regional problems to swell. Often, the only nation that has the will and means to act effectively is the United States.

To be sure, anti-Americanism will never disappear. Nor will America's enemies go away. But strong anti-American currents will increasingly coexist with equally strong international demands for the United States to play a larger role in world affairs.

Of course, the America that the world wants back is not the one that preemptively invades potential enemies, bullies allies or disdains international law. The demand is for an America that rallies other nations prone to sitting on the fence while international crises are boiling out of control; for a superpower that comes up with innovative initiatives to tackle the great challenges of the day, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation and violent Islamist fundamentalism. The demand is for an America that enforces the rules that facilitate international commerce and works effectively to stabilize an accident-prone global economy. Naturally, the world also wants a superpower willing to foot the bill with a largess that no other nation can match.


These are not just naive expectations. Foreign leaders know that, even in the best circumstances, the next U.S. president will not be able to deliver on all these things. They also understand that American leadership always comes at a price. Appearing too closely allied with the United States is a risky political position for elected politicians everywhere. Still, some have shown a surprising readiness to stand with America.

Consider what happened last March, when President Bush traveled to Latin America, a region he has largely ignored. To many, it seemed that the trip was bound to be inconsequential, as Bush had nothing concrete to offer. Yet all the Latin American presidents who were asked to host this lame-duck, empty-handed and politically radioactive guest agreed to do so; some even lobbied not to be left off his itinerary. What was in it for them? The hope of getting the superpower to do something for them. Leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, for example, a personal friend and staunch supporter of Bush's nemesis Hugo Chávez, wanted help with his country's ethanol industry.

In Turkey, much like in Brazil, the population is deeply critical of the United States. Yet, much like his Brazilian counterpart, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has openly courted the Bush administration. The Turkish prime minister knows that the United States is his country's best ally in the effort to get Turkey into the European Union.

Lula and Erdogan are just two in a long list of world leaders who understand that while the United States may sometimes use a heavy hand, the alternatives are much worse. Few want to see the world's stage led by autocratic regimes such as those in Russia or China. An ineffectual Europe does not offer much in the way of leadership. And short of these options, there are few possibilities besides living in an anarchic vacuum. Many foreign leaders will therefore be willing to pay the price that comes with American leadership. They ask only that the price not include subservience to the whims of a giant with more power than brains and whose legitimacy is undermined by regular displays of incompetence, recklessness and ignorance.

Polls in multiple countries have shown for years that the legitimacy and prestige of the United States has deteriorated. Yet WorldPublicOpinion.org reports that the same populations that don't want the United States to be the world's "leader" say that they don't want America to withdraw from world affairs. For example, 93 percent of respondents in South Korea, as well as 78 percent in France and 71 percent in Mexico said last year that the United States should play a role in solving international problems. Moreover, despite the overall negative perceptions of the United States, most people surveyed believe that bilateral relations between the United States and their country are improving. In no country surveyed does the population think that the nation's relations with the United States are getting worse.

Americans are likewise yearning for the United States to be more respected abroad. Sixty-nine percent of Americans say they believe it is best for the United States to take an active part in world affairs. And one of the Bush administration's most senior members recently called for a new direction in U.S. thinking about world affairs. "Success," he said, "will be less a matter of imposing one's will and more a function of shaping the behavior of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between. . . . We need a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security -- diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development." The American appealing for a drastic departure from the administration's overly militarized foreign policy? Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The demand for a new brand of American global leadership is there. Increasingly, the supply to satisfy this demand will also be there.

Moisés Naím is editor in chief of Foreign Policy. A longer version of this column will be published in the magazine's forthcoming issue.

The Greatest Gift

By Laura Ingraham

Megan pulled a three-ring binder out of her bag and showed me a photograph of herself and her husband. Young — they’re both 21 — with big smiles on their faces, and obviously wildly in love. “That’s what he looked like,” she said with a somber face, “He was such a cutie-pie, always buying me little stuffed animals and writing the most thoughtful notes the entire time he was in Iraq.” Then she showed me the photo of her husband receiving the Purple Heart on Wednesday from President Bush at Bethesda Naval Medical Center. As President Bush pinned the medal on Mike as he lay unconscious in the ICU, having suffered a traumatic brain injury caused by a piece of shrapnel that pierced his temple.

“This is my Mike now,” she said, rubbing her eyes. He is completely blind and to alleviate a terrible cranial pressure build-up, doctors had to remove the front of his skull. Since being wounded several months ago, Mike has never regained consciousness and suffers from terrible seizures. “That’s my guy,” she repeated, before she went on to tell me about how they met and fell in love.

As I met Megan, I kept thinking about the fact that some person somewhere carefully assembled the IED that would eventually maim Mike and many others. They are often packed with nails, hunks of lead, and screws to cause maxim human suffering. When they explode, the contents rip through flesh and bones, shattering countless dreams in the process.

How can we comprehend this level of evil, and the physical and emotional agony it causes? This young woman and her husband should be out buying their first Christmas tree together, going to parties, and raising a glass to their future. When I asked what she was doing for the holiday she said, “I’ll be here with Mike. I would never want him to be alone on Christmas.” They had been married for about three months when Mike was wounded. In these days before Christmas, Megan and other military wives and moms gave me a precious gift. They reminded me that true love requires sacrifice — sometimes seemingly unbearable, heart-wrenching sacrifice. They are living out their love in big and small ways. Many have moved thousands of miles to relocate to the hospitals where their husbands, wives, sons, and daughters are being treated. This takes an enormous emotional and financial toll, yet they do it for love. When they are not at the hospital bedsides of their wounded warriors, they sit for hours a day in waiting rooms across the United States, hoping for good news — or at least hoping to be spared more bad news. They pray with each other, cry with each other, and yes, even manage to laugh with each other as they hope for a day when they can return to “normal life.” Yet the families of our most seriously injured troops know they face a “new normal,” one that is much different from the normal life they knew before.

As we are about to celebrate Christmas spending time with our families and friends, let us all do our best to live up to the true spirit of this season — and to make it a time filled with love, faith, gratitude, hope, charity, and... yes, let’s try for some peace on earth. Let’s also remember the military families and our wounded heroes, who will spend this Christmas at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and other medical facilities across the nation. As we rush anxiously around because we “haven’t found the perfect gift” for so-and-so, these families hope and pray for gifts that cannot be put under a tree: a hand that squeezes back, a smile, the first step on a new prosthesis, or a positive medical report.

They need our prayers and support at Christmas and every day. Please give what you can to any of the wonderful organizations that support our bravest and their families.

Final Post of 2007!

This semester has gone by so quick. I have decided to give extra credit to all who were in attendance at the debate party at ESU#3. This will count as the 10 extra credit points for blogging for this unit. Thanks for going and you did it without even knowing you were getting anything for it.

As for the test, it will be given on Wednesday, instead of Tuesday, due to a rescheduled pep rally on Tuesday. As a result, I will probably not get your final grades to you prior to your last day. You may email me or check the online grades over break.

Finally, If you have any comments or suggestions about this class, please feel free to send me an email or post a comment. Also, you are more than welcome to jump in and blog even if you are not in this class anymore. Good luck as you continue your preparation for the future!

Who Would You Give To?

Nebraska lotto winner giving gift to homeless shelter guests

One of the eight Nebraskans who won the February 2006 Powerball jackpot, Alain Maboussou, is giving a $40 Target store gift card to each guest of the Siena Francis House homeless shelter.

Siena Francis House staff will distribute the gift cards to guests of the shelter, and will also provide transportation to the Crossroads Mall’s Target store Wednesday morning to allow them to do Christmas shopping, the Siena Francis House said today .

“This is an extraordinarily generous gift by Mr. Maboussou," Siena Francis House Executive Director Mike Saklar said. "On behalf of Siena Francis House guests, we are very grateful to him for helping our shelter care for those who come to us in need.”

Posted at the Request of Michelle

Contact the Omaha World-Herald newsroom

Issue of the Week: Violence in the Media-Should Government Do More to Censor It?

Click here for a site explaining censorship.Violence in mass media, which encompasses television, film, video games and music, has long been a controversial issue in America. Since the popularization of television in the 1950s, a segment of the U.S. population challenged the broadcasting of violent images. The fundamental question at that time remains the same in the twenty-first century: What effects do violent images have on the nation's children? In the 1960s and 1970s, as media portrayals of violence increased, reactions against these images intensified and actions of censorship were demanded. This uproar incited an anticensorship movement as activists voiced their concerns about potential societal repression and loss of free speech. Despite various studies (dating from the 1960s and still being conducted today) that link aggressive behaviors with media violence, the entertainment industry consistently denies that violent images negatively impact children. In response to the 1999 Columbine High School shootings, the Clinton administration funded a Federal Trade Commission investigation into media violence. The FTC’s 2000 report, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children, concluded that the entertainment industry characteristically markets violent material to children under seventeen. Consequently, self-regulatory rules were enacted against the industry. In spite of the directives and subsequent changes to the industry, media violence continues to be a concern of mainstream U.S. society. This divisive issue continues to be debated among politicians, the media industry, advocates of federal restrictions on the media and opponents of these governmental controls.

Numerous studies, cited in such articles as Does Violence in the Media Cause Violent Behavior? and Link Between Media and Aggression Clear, Experts Say, have concluded that violence in the media has a detrimental effect on children’s behaviors, feelings and attitudes. Since the majority of people in America find fault with media violence, some feel that the entertainment industry should comply with these mainstream moral views. This viewpoint is elucidated in such articles as Media Violence: Ugly and Getting Uglier and It’s Time to Stop Training Our Kids to Kill. Others insist that the government sanction restrictions on violent media content. The articles Children, Violence, and the Media: A Report for Parents and Policy Makers and Violent Kids: Can We Solve the Problem? consider pros and cons of legislative action against violence in mass media.

Restricting the content of media raises free-speech concerns and is a censorship issue. Opponents of political control of media content feel that it is not the government’s place to make decisions about what is dangerous and or acceptable for the nation’s youth. In the article Violence, Games & Art, author Thom Gillespie suggests that “Media in all forms can move people to consider things they had not considered before. But media cannot take over a mind and make anyone do something he's not predisposed to do. Media are, at best, a nudge.” In The Columbine Tragedy: Countering the Hysteria, author Barbara Dority, president of Humanists of Washington, executive director of the Washington Coalition Against Censorship, and cochair of the Northwest Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force, argues that “terrorist know-how, complete with illustrated instructions for making bombs, is also frequently available in military manuals at surplus stores, as well as in numerous mail-order civilian manuals, which are available through some public libraries. Are proponents of censoring this information advocating that we somehow locate, remove, and destroy all these sources?” Author Daniel Koffler examines “the ridiculous jihad against video games” in Grand Theft Scapegoat.

You Tube Debate Reflection

After eleven years of teaching, I came into this school year with much anticipation about meeting new students and teaching a subject I enjoy teaching. I never would have guessed that a 50 point project would have led me to have second row seats at the CNN/You Tube Republican Presidential Debate in St. Petersburg, Florida.
I have this belief that, as a teacher, it is important to try different methods of reaching students. I believe it really keeps me fresh in my teaching. Sometimes these methods don't pan out exactly the way I would like and other times, well...you end up in St. Pete.

I said to my wife many times throughout the debate, "Why are we here?" It seemed so unbelievable. I still truly don't understand why it happened. However, I can, without hesitation, say the odds of a teacher in Papillion, NE attending were not good. Isn't that so American?

The odds can be stacked against you and because of the great opportunity in this country great things can happen to anyone. I am not saying it is easy and often it requires a little fortune or luck, but it is possible! In some countries in the world and for a lot of the population in the world, hopelessness describes everyday life. As I was sitting in the Mahaffey Theatre chatting with Chuck (Norris) and Janet(Huckabee), we're on a first name basis, I was really struck with the thought that in America everyone is equal. No person is better than another, regardless of his or her station in life. Although the feeling of power was emanating throughout the arena, I felt just as important, if not more, than the many senators and representatives in attendance. Why?

Well, simply put two words...Chuck Norris! As these high powered big wigs sent their programs down the aisle to get Walker Texas Ranger's autograph, I was getting a video shout out for the Titans and a slap on the back from Chuck Norris. Not to mention, Mrs. Huckabee is videoing the whole thing and I was scared I was going to be tackled by the secret service. It truly was a special event.

I think we need a leader of this country that truly understands what it means to be real. Someone who can connect with average people. This person needs to be intelligent and well versed in many issues. That is why it is so important to start the process of choosing our next president in the Midwest. Iowa voters will have an opportunity to once again apply Midwestern values to the process of choosing a new president. I am not saying this should result in front runners Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama (both leading in Iowa at the time of this post) being selected per say, but I do believe we need to contemplate carefully the selection of the next president and what better place to start than in Iowa. Some say the process to become president takes too long and is too drawn out. I say the process should be difficult and lengthy. Too much is riding on the selection of this very important position and the Iowa Caucuses provides a very neighborly way of selecting this person. Let the fun begin!

So, do the You Tube debates lessen the seriousness of this process? Do snowmen and cartoon questions demean the Presidency? My answer is absolutely not. In my opinion, it gets our citizens interested again in the process. If it can get my students interested, with as busy of lives as many of them lead, it can get America interested again. If the young of our country fight our wars and grow our economy, it makes perfect sense that they should shape, in some small way, the process in which we select the leader of this nation. The only thing that would be demeaning about the You Tube Debate process would be if candidates refused to answer the questions of the people (most of them submitted by young Americans) of this great country. Let's not alienate the young because we aren't used to communicating this way. Let's allow them to get excited about the process, by letting them be able to shape the process. Isn't that why many of my students got together to watch this debate and posted over 7oo comments about it? It is not because it was assigned for them to watch, it is because it has become interesting to them and there was free Chex Mix at the party (never underestimate the power of food).

Finally, let's always remember that America is the land of opportunity and You Tube makes that opportunity available for all citizens to express themselves and have an impact, even people like my high school students living in little Ol' Papillion, Nebraska. Thank you, my students, for making this possible for me. I will never forget it. You all are the best.

By Mr. Keller

Mike Huckabee Goes on the Record - 11/29/2007