"U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s Leadership"

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting, why do you think that is? Why do you think they know more? Better news outlets and exposure?

Broader world outlook. Better read. Take in more world news. Better educated in international matters. Greater appreciation of world politics. Less insular mindset.
Do not think it smart to be dumb.

 

[Quetzal]

Broader world outlook. Better read. Take in more world news. Better educated in international matters. Greater appreciation of world politics. Less insular mindset.
Do not think it smart to be dumb.

I agree. In a way, I do hold the MSM outlets partially accountable. They are more worried about the latest click-bait issue instead of presenting information on topics that matter.

 

[Stevicus]

That's what these others countries do perforce. They don't have to take that giant step back. They are already back, which makes them more objective judges - just as you are suggesting Americans themselves do.

I would suggest that it's different from the outside looking in, as opposed being inside and looking out.

And they attribute their loss of confidence to Trump and his performance as president.

Yes, but Trump has been President for less than six months. It's too soon to make any real judgments at this point, so that's what makes me think that some people aren't really looking at the big picture. And a lot of this "image" is fostered by media hype. They're showing us a molehill and telling us it's a mountain. Some of it may be embarrassing, some of it slightly amusing - but seriously, if the world's opinion of America can change that quickly just because of Trump, that doesn't quite add up.

In any case, they're not looking just at Trump, but at other influential figures and the media in general, many of whom are openly deriding Trump and demonstrating a profound loss of confidence in Trump. Because they're doing this in full view of the outside world, it should be no surprise that their media is reflecting US media, thus shaping the opinions of their own people about America and Trump's apparent role in ruining our image. So, it's kind of a chicken-egg question: Is it Trump or Trump's opponents who are ruining the image of America?

 

[Quetzal]

Yes, but Trump has been President for less than six months. It's too soon to make any real judgments at this point, so that's what makes me think that some people aren't really looking at the big picture.

His behavior at the most recent international summit (G7) was horrendous and more than enough to give people their first taste of what his administration has the potential to be. He really needs to improve moving forward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but Trump has been President for less than six months. It's too soon to make any real judgments at this point, so that's what makes me think that some people aren't really looking at the big picture. And a lot of this "image" is fostered by media hype. They're showing us a molehill and telling us it's a mountain. Some of it may be embarrassing, some of it slightly amusing - but seriously, if the world's opinion of America can change that quickly just because of Trump, that doesn't quite add up.

A lot of it isn't Trump himself per se. To a large extent, it's Trump's popularity with American voters that was responsible for the change in attitudes toward the US.

Trump was seen as a bigoted, sexist, blowhard and a shady businessman with a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits in his wake, running on a platform of xenophobia. I think most of the world saw him as almost a joke candidate until he started to be successful. The fact that he turned out to be actually electable has made a lot of people in other countries think less of American voters and make them question how well they actually know the American people.

That reflection started in November, if not when Trump won the Republican nomination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is my understanding that the member countries agreed to support NATO with a certain amount of blood and treasure, neither of which is really forthcoming.

As far as an extension of the US military, we must be talking about a different NATO. However, if this is the case then I believe that you and I can agree that NATO should be disbanded and the billions of dollars thta we bleed into the organization could be better spent here.

Since the dissolution of the Warsaw pact, seems there is little practicality left as it applies to NATOs role and influence.

 

[Quetzal]

Trump was seen as a bigoted, sexist, blowhard and a shady businessman with a string of bankruptcies and lawsuits in his wake, running on a platform of xenophobia. I think most of the world saw him as almost a joke candidate until he started to be successful. The fact that he turned out to be actually electable has made a lot of people in other countries think less of American voters and make them question how well they actually know the American people.

My hope is they see it a dismal failure of our political process, not solely on the people. The DNC screwed over a qualified candidate, the popular vote gave way to a dated EC system, and finally the ballot was dominated by a "lesser of two evils" that most people had little impact over. This doesn't fully excuse all voters since many populated his hateful rallies throughout the election.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm all for good will and positive vibes, but how did purported better perception of America under Obama translate into a meaningful benefit for your average American over the last 8 years?

 

[Quetzal]

I'm all for good will and positive vibes, but how did purported better perception of America under Obama translate into a meaningful benefit for your average American over the last 8 years?

The ability to build personal relationships in a meaningful way with international leaders has the potential to give way to many benefits. The problem is you can't quantify relationships and how they made things better. That is, you can't say "Ah ha, you see that, that was due to us being buddies." It's tough but no one can answer your question, which I suppose was the point.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The ability to build personal relationships in a meaningful way with international leaders has the potential to give way to many benefits. The problem is you can't quantify relationships and how they made things better. That is, you can't say "Ah ha, you see that, that was due to us being buddies." It's tough but no one can answer your question, which I suppose was the point.

I find that, although beneficial results may be complex, they aren't impossible to trace and define - if they exist.

 

[Quetzal]

I find that, although beneficial results may be complex, they aren't impossible to trace and define - if they exist.

Hmm. Can we agree that positive relationships and perception have a greater chance of yielding benefits for the populace the individuals represent? That may be an easier question to discuss.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hmm. Can we agree that positive relationships and perception have a greater chance of yielding benefits for the populace the individuals represent? That may be an easier question to discuss.

Theoretically. Of course, positive perception could also be measured as a metric of how one is perceiving their own potential benefit. For example, "we're getting favorable trade advantages from this country, which benefit us financially, so we have a more positive view of them."

But, yes, I can fundamentally agree that positive interactions and perception is generally favorable over negative, in generalized terms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My hope is they see it a dismal failure of our political process, not solely on the people. The DNC screwed over a qualified candidate, the popular vote gave way to a dated EC system, and finally the ballot was dominated by a "lesser of two evils" that most people had little impact over. This doesn't fully excuse all voters since many populated his hateful rallies throughout the election.

All that being said, Trump still got the votes of about 1 in 4 eligible voters. That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Quetzal]

Theoretically. Of course, positive perception could also be measured as a metric of how one is perceiving their own potential benefit. For example, "we're getting favorable trade advantages from this country, which benefit us financially, so we have a more positive view of them."

But, yes, I can fundamentally agree that positive interactions and perception is generally favorable over negative, in generalized terms.

I agree and as many have pointed out (yourself included), it is too soon to see any benefits/downfalls of what this means. We will have to wait and see.

 

[Quetzal]

All that being said, Trump still got the votes of about 1 in 4 eligible voters. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I agree. I am just interested if international critics understand how powerless and screwed up certain aspects of our process is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm all for good will and positive vibes, but how did purported better perception of America under Obama translate into a meaningful benefit for your average American over the last 8 years?

One major area: intelligence. Under Trump, foreign intelligence agencies trust the US less, and because of that, have started to share useful intelligence with the US.

Also, trade and foreign policy: there were many agreements and accords between Obama and other leaders that have benefitted American companies. Under Trump, this has started to change: Trudeau decides it’s just not worth appeasing Trump in foreign-policy shift - The Globe and Mail

 

[Akivah]

My hope is they see it a dismal failure of our political process, not solely on the people. The DNC screwed over a qualified candidate, the popular vote gave way to a dated EC system, and finally the ballot was dominated by a "lesser of two evils" that most people had little impact over.

We've had the "lesser of two evils" for most presidential elections in my lifetime, it didn't start with Clinton/Trump.

Do you consider the US Constitution to be dated? Because the popular vote has NEVER decided presidential elections, it has ALWAYS been the EC that decided the victor.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you consider the US Constitution to be dated? Because the popular vote has NEVER decided presidential elections, it has ALWAYS been the EC that decided the victor.

Therefore?

 

[esmith]

Quite possibly not the US.

Seriously: The press in other NATO countries has made a big deal about Trump's (apparently deliberate) avoidance of answering the question of whether the US under his leadership will honour Article 5 of the NATO treaty (i.e. the one that says every member will consider an attack against any other member as an attack on themselves). Right now, there's a growing worldwide perception that the US is an unreliabile ally that can't be trusted to keep its promises. Other countries are starting to plan accordingly... i.e. planning to do their own thing and just leave the US out of the loop.

What is the military budget of the "other countries". Do you really think they have the military strength to oppose an aggression against a neighbor. Seems like we have been down this road once before. Of course those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it.
NATO Without America: A Grim Prognosis

 

[Akivah]

All that being said, Trump still got the votes of about 1 in 4 eligible voters. That's nothing to sneeze at.

It's not really fair to include all eligible voters to portray a detriment to Trump, because you can say the exact same thing about every president. In the last 10 presidential elections, the voting participation rate has averaged 53.5%. So every presidential winner didn't get about 2 in 4 of eligible votes.

Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections - Wikipedia