International Reverse Psychology
Sep 10th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 13 Comments |
Have you heard about the poll which says the world wants Obama to be President?
Let’s look at this from the conservative/libertarian point of view:
A bunch of people who reportedly don’t like us — and therefore whom we don’t like in return – want us to vote for a guy we don’t like.
It’s gotta be reverse psychology. I think the people of the world really do like us, and they’re afraid we’ll give in to the socialistic wing of our political class. So they’re trying to spur us to do the right thing.
Uh, no. Definitely not.
I say that as a non-American who nonetheless gives respect where it’s due and has family in the States. And as a lapsed (a.k.a. cynical) Marxist, there ain’t nothing socialist about Obama/Biden.
*grin*
Please do explain what you mean by socialism, then.
I’d say universal healthcare (“socialized medicine”) is socialist (or at least “socialistic”), for example, and they’re for that.
Trade time! I’ll tell you why they’re not socialists if you tell me what’s innately wrong with socialized medicine.
Yeah…there ain’t nothing socialist about that there, man.
*Sigh* Okay, forget it. I know I’m barking up the wrong tree here anyway. Any attempt made to coax the locals that maybe Obiden aren’t nanny-state class warriors with a messiah complex & a thirst for the blood of the unborn would be dismissed as a Jeremiad from someone who can’t see past their own ideology.
But as much as a taxonomic fetish is displayed around here, I’d have thought there’d be a lesser reliance on demagogic buzzwords.
Dude, I have no idea what you just said. But it looks like you had fun saying it. And that makes me happy.
I find it ironic that Seb is disappointed at the “reliance on demagogic buzzwords” around here.
Back to the point though. There’s certainly a portion of the country that wants to improve the international opinion of our country, and that’s admirable to a point, but I wonder if this is really just an irrational holdover from the early 20th century “continental” obsession. Particularly in the 1930s, everyone who was anyone viewed Western Europe as our sophisticated, cultured uncle. It manifested itself in many ways, most amazingly speech. So when there’s talk about “world opinion” I wonder if that’s just code for Western European opinion. If so, then we should call it what it is and not pretend that we care what anyone but our favorite uncle thinks.
Good point. I wonder what the relation between our colonial history and this viewing of Europe as an “uncle” is (and whether other former colonies are or will encounter the same dynamic).
We often call the Brits specifically our “cousins” right? But we also often think of them as more sophisticated than us.
France for fashion. Germany for beer. Britain for sophistication.
France and Germany both for philosophy (he said, speaking as a philosopher).
Descartes, the most famous founder of modernism, was French. I’m studying a German (Husserl) whose most famous students were French. And postmodernism, which is currently in vogue in some American protestant circles, is a French philosophical phenomenon.
*ponders*
Micah,
Aren’t you throwing “WEdies” around left and right? “They don’t like US, WE don’t like him,” “WE often call the Brits specifically OUR “cousins” right? But WE also often think of them as more sophisticated than US.”
Adam
Thanks for the help, there, Adam.
The difference is, I seriously think that each and every one of us do talk/think the way I said “we” do.
And I said they “reportedly” don’t like us. If you notice. :-) There’s no way they actually don’t like me individually. They haven’t even heard of me.
A WEed is only a WEed if what is said of the “we” in question doesn’t actually apply to each and every member of that “we.”
In case it wasn’t clear to anyone, the last paragraph of the post is a joke.
I know my jokes don’t often come across as jokes.
Just wanted to make sure.
Thanks
Analytical philosophy owes far more to Britain than to either France or Germany.
And, for what it’s worth, I agree with Seb. Obama isn’t even for socialized health care. (He’s for subsidizing the poor to enable them to buy their own health insurance, which is a welfare-state capitalist solution, not a socialist solution.) I also agree that Obama is neither running as a socialist, nor does he have any intention of governing as a socialist. He may very well have socialist sympathies, but he knows they won’t fly in the U.S. and I don’t think he’s stupid enough to try. Biden doesn’t even have socialist sympathies. However, this doesn’t mean that Obama/Biden aren’t “nanny-state class warriors with a messiah complex & a thirst for the blood of the unborn.” That description may well be true.
Of course, unlike Seb, I do think socialist systems are usually bad because of the distortion to incentives and the lack of competition. Even a heavily regulated and taxed market is almost always superior to a socialist solution. In socialism, you are stuck with one solution for everybody so that solution had better be the right one and, as any capitalist can tell you, more than 50% of new companies fail because most proposed solutions are inefficient. In a market, you have many different attempts at solutions going on simultaneously with the good solutions (as determined by the consumers in the market) driving out the ideas that don’t work out.
Actually, in a socialist system you have two solutions, one for everyone who is not in power and one for the ruling elite.