Liked or Respected?

Americans should be worried when their leader isn't reviled by the rest of the world. The rest of the world likes us only when we are doing what they want us to do. What the rest of the world wants to do is usually not in our best interest.

So, let us do what is in our best interest and ignore the world’s revulsion. Remember, most other countries are not democracies – their revulsion is a badge we should wear with honor. As for most of Western Europe, they are effeminate nations that have lost the will to defend themselves and intend instead to pay tribute to their Muslim assailants. We should not respect their craven views.

Reagan was reviled and he had the greatest foreign policy success in the post WWII period during (or as a result of) his presidency. Since Reagan’s presidency (and thanks mostly to Clinton – a man who pathologically could not bear being disliked) much of the American Public has been bamboozled into thinking that good foreign policy means doing whatever it takes to be liked by the rest of the world. This is nonsense. Good foreign policy is measured in interests secured, not friends made.

We should seek instead to be respected and, to some extent, feared. Respect (and fear) lasts; feelings of affinity don’t. For an example of how quickly “like” changes to “dislike” recall how quickly the world began to turn on the US when we invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, one action that no one can doubt was absolutely essential and justified.

So what did we get in return for all of Clinton’s efforts to make our country “liked”? We got sympathy cards for 9/11.

George Bush is doing his utmost to make sure that the rest of the world respect the US. In doing so he is also putting to rest this country’s recent preoccupation with being liked. We and the rest of the world will be better off for it. But don’t expect any thanks from the rest of the world.