PES Activist
PES Activists Dublin
In his speech yesterday, Bill Clinton set out the two principal tasks facing the next US President, as he saw it:
(a) to rebuild the American dream, and
(b) to restore American leadership in the world.
I hope I don't offend anyone with my comments, but both these tasks have drawn some derisive comment on this side of the Atlantic today. Let me explain:
Trying to pin Ameican's down on what exactly is meant by the American dream can be quite difficult. The phrase appears to have a powerful, mythical resonance amongst Americans of all political persuasions, but specifics are often hard to come by. One definition, often cited by immgrants, is that you can come to America and by hard work can build a pretty good life for yourself and your family. Another, narrated by Michelle Obama in her speech to the DNC in Denver, is that it means that a person from a modest background can, with talent and application, get to college and secure a well-paying job once they graduate.
Both these apsects of social mobility, however, are pretty common in a number of other places in the world, especially in Europe. Indeed, so common are these aspects of social mobility in Europe (especially given that most countries heavilly subsidise college education) that it is unremarkable. It's just the way that we do things on this side of the Atlantic. If social mobility is so unremarkable to Europeans, why then does it possess such emotive power for Americans?
On the second task of restoring American leadership to the world. This was the comment that has drawn the most derision. Europeans would be delighted to welcome the USA back to a policy of constructive engagement with the world on such vital matters as climate change, global security, economic development and the advancement of international law. Under George Bush's presidency, however, we've gotten pretty used to getting by without American leadership.
In a multi-polar world, Europeans (and Russians, Chinese, Brazilians, Indians and many besides) are much less open to having decisions about our futures being made in Washington, if that is what US leadership means. We expect to make these decisions together. As European citizens, for example, we expect decisions about our future to be made by people who are accountable directly to us, not by another country's political leadership, however much like us they are.
Claims for American world leadership turn people outside the US right off. They appear arrogant and exclusivist. Bill Clinton must know this, so why then does he raise it to one of the two primary tasks of the incoming US President? Is it that the American voter expects to hear this mythology of the American Dream and American World Leadership from those who seek the Presidency?
(a) to rebuild the American dream, and
(b) to restore American leadership in the world.
I hope I don't offend anyone with my comments, but both these tasks have drawn some derisive comment on this side of the Atlantic today. Let me explain:
Trying to pin Ameican's down on what exactly is meant by the American dream can be quite difficult. The phrase appears to have a powerful, mythical resonance amongst Americans of all political persuasions, but specifics are often hard to come by. One definition, often cited by immgrants, is that you can come to America and by hard work can build a pretty good life for yourself and your family. Another, narrated by Michelle Obama in her speech to the DNC in Denver, is that it means that a person from a modest background can, with talent and application, get to college and secure a well-paying job once they graduate.
Both these apsects of social mobility, however, are pretty common in a number of other places in the world, especially in Europe. Indeed, so common are these aspects of social mobility in Europe (especially given that most countries heavilly subsidise college education) that it is unremarkable. It's just the way that we do things on this side of the Atlantic. If social mobility is so unremarkable to Europeans, why then does it possess such emotive power for Americans?
On the second task of restoring American leadership to the world. This was the comment that has drawn the most derision. Europeans would be delighted to welcome the USA back to a policy of constructive engagement with the world on such vital matters as climate change, global security, economic development and the advancement of international law. Under George Bush's presidency, however, we've gotten pretty used to getting by without American leadership.
In a multi-polar world, Europeans (and Russians, Chinese, Brazilians, Indians and many besides) are much less open to having decisions about our futures being made in Washington, if that is what US leadership means. We expect to make these decisions together. As European citizens, for example, we expect decisions about our future to be made by people who are accountable directly to us, not by another country's political leadership, however much like us they are.
Claims for American world leadership turn people outside the US right off. They appear arrogant and exclusivist. Bill Clinton must know this, so why then does he raise it to one of the two primary tasks of the incoming US President? Is it that the American voter expects to hear this mythology of the American Dream and American World Leadership from those who seek the Presidency?
Last edited:
