Welcome to Part II of these scribbles from Davos, high up in the Alps. Once in a while, you need to take a break from the political proceedings and just look around—to be in awe of what is awe-inspiring. I am right now, as I type, sitting at the foot of the “Zauberberg,” or “Magic Mountain,” about which Thomas Mann wrote. Not that I’ll ever finish that book (or Bleak House, or Middlemarch, or . . .).

Longtime Davos Journal readers may recall that I once stayed at the very sanatorium—the sanatorium about which Mann wrote, which is now a hotel. I had the book with me. I still couldn’t persevere in it. (Bill Buckley used to say that about books he couldn’t stick with: “I couldn’t persevere.”) (Also, he once sent me a CD, of music by someone he knew. He wrote, “Me no like. You?”)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just to remind you, we’re at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum. The title of the meeting is “Shaping the Post-Crisis World.” For Part I of this journal, go here. And where’d we leave off?

In any case, come with me to a session called “Update 2009: North America.” The panelists are Arianna Huffington, impresario (impresaria?) of the Huffington Post; Elizabeth, or Lally, Weymouth of Newsweek; Frederick Kempe, long of the Wall Street Journal, now the president and CEO of the Atlantic Council; and your correspondent (i.e., me). The moderator is Josef Joffe, the editor and publisher of Die Zeit, in Germany. I always call him “my fellow Michigander”: because he was an exchange student in Grand Rapids. (He was in Republican territory; I, in Ann Arbor, was not.)

Before the panel begins, a film plays continually on a monitor in the room—it is a loop. And what it shows is young people all over the world praising Obama, sometimes singing his praises, literally. They wear Obama T-shirts and chant and sing his name. We panelists are to assess Obama as a global phenomenon.

Introducing me, Joffe says, “Representing the Left . . .” And he asks each of us this question: “Why did the whole world want to ‘vote’ for Obama, and why does the world regard him as a ‘global president’?” I know you get enough of my opinions—and I don’t have to travel all the way to Switzerland for you to hear them—but let me tell you how I answered. It went something like this:

A lot of it has to do with style. Obama’s style is congenial to a lot of people, where Bush’s was not. The media were hugely enthusiastic about Obama—and that generated enthusiasm in others (consumers of media). Obama held out the hope of tranquility, and that is, of course, very appealing to people. You might even say seductive. People are tired of war, conflict, and confrontation. George Bush once called the War on Terror “a heavy lift”—and he went on to remark that the world doesn’t like a heavy lift. Who does?

Also, Obama managed to leave the impression that it has all been a little unnecessary—all of this war, confrontation, and pain.

Furthermore, Obama held out the hope of a humbler United States—a United States that walked more softly in the world. Of course, so did George Bush, when he ran in 2000. He appealed over and over for a humbler foreign policy. But then came 9/11 and the War on Terror, and everything was changed.

More from Joffe: “How does Obama’s worldwide popularity fit in with contemporary theories of American decline and the rise of other powers such as China, Russia, India, and Europe?” More from me:

I think much of the world still looks to the United States for leadership. I think people are torn between wanting the United States in the world and wanting it to go away. You often hear, in effect, “Yankee, go home, but not too soon,” or, “Yankee, go home from this place, but come to this other place—we need you.”

Think, too, of the issue of Iran and its drive for the atomic bomb. I think the eyes of the world—particularly the Arab world, I might say—still fall on the United States for an answer, no matter the participation of other nations and agencies, in negotiations and so on.

Another question from Joffe: “How can this ‘global president’ meet the expectations of him?” Another answer from me (longish):

When a person becomes president, he’s apt to find his mind concentrated. It is a very sobering experience, becoming president. The job carries with it awesome responsibilities. George W. Bush has talked about this a lot. He has said, “I see the threat assessments every morning. I have to do something to keep American citizens safe from terror. Everyone else can go about his business and not worry about it—or take merry potshots at me.” Things may look different to Obama in the Oval Office from the way they looked on the campaign trail.

Take the issue of Guantanamo Bay. The whole world says, “Close Guantanamo, it’s a disgrace.” Okay—but what do you do with the detainees there? We have already released a great many. In fact, there was a report that said that over 60 had returned to the field. And that is not necessarily good news.

Take the issue of clandestine programs, rendition, interrogations, and all the rest of it. The world, or certainly the country, screamed at George W. Bush to “connect the dots.” That was the great buzz phrase: “connect the dots.” Okay, how do you do that? It’s not necessarily an easy task. It could be merely accidental that the United States has not experienced another 9/11, but I rather doubt it. As Bush and his people say, “You never get credit for what didn’t happen.” And, of course, nobody likes a preemptor—they always say that the preemption was unnecessary.

A lot of people—a lot of conservatives in America—think that it’s good that the Democratic party now has essentially the leadership in the War on Terror. If the Terror War is to be like the Cold War, another twilight struggle, as John Kennedy said, then it will go on a long time, and encompass both Republican and Democratic presidencies.

And I do think that Obama will find that the War on Terror, or a war on terror, has to be fought. That it would be dangerous to go back to law enforcement and police work. You know, when jihadists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, we took ’em to court. And one of those terrorists fled to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. According to President Clinton (and former national security adviser Sandy Berger), the Sudanese authorities offered us Osama bin Laden. But we responded that we didn’t have enough evidence to convict him in court.

Well, a lot of people thought that, after 9/11, a different approach was necessary. That the U.S. had to go on offense, instead of trying to hunker down. And I have often thought of that old Leninist expression: You may not like war, but war likes you. It has a way of finding you and drawing you out. I think that is the case here.

I also think that Obama may find that he has to choose between the approval of the world—certainly the approval of the world’s media elites—and safeguarding American security. And I imagine he will choose security, which could prove interesting, where image is concerned. It’s hard to remain universally popular and be an effective commander-in-chief.

Look, the bottom line is, Obama and his people may find that Bush and his people weren’t so stupid after all. In fact, they’re probably finding that out—more than ever before—this very month.

You may ask, “Why don’t you report other people’s answers, instead of just reciting your own?” And that’s a very good question (though a little snotty). The answer is, Such reporting is not allowed, from a session like this. Besides, as WFB used to say, “I’m the world’s foremost expert on my own opinion.” Suffice it to say, the other panelists had very interesting comments to make—even if only one panelist made them in a flavorful and enjoyable Greek accent.

I’ll give you something amusing from the audience Q&A: A Chinese man stood up to ask a question, and he said that he had been at Harvard and had played basketball with Obama—that was his “brush with greatness,” as Letterman says. Joe Joffe said, “You noticed he worked in that he went to Harvard.” And then I trotted out the old line, “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.” Our questioner took it all in good humor.