Looking Outward, Not Inward

From Economist:
"JOHN JUDIS had a nice comparison in the New Republic of coverage of Barack Obama's South Korea visit in two American newspapers, on the one hand, and the Financial Times, on the other..."Both the Post and the Times focus not on South Korea per se, but on Obama's taking a 'stern tone' toward North Korea in his discussions with the South Koreans," Mr Judis writes. "OK, pardon me if I yawn." In the FT's story, by contrast:

'The headline reads, “Seoul trades on better ties with Beijing than Washington.” Hmm. That’s interesting and says something important about the balance of power in Asia and the world. Now here are the opening paragraphs:

'When George Bush senior visited Seoul as US president 20 years ago, things were simple – the US was the undisputed main ally and trade partner. Astonishingly, there was only one weekly flight from South Korea to China, the communist foe.'

'Barack Obama on Wednesday visits a South Korea where the US is no longer the only show in town. China is now the main trade partner, with 642 flights each week.'

...the American focus on North Korea derives from an obsession with military threats, which Americans find the most interesting stories in foreign affairs. That attitude is to some extent a holdover from the way America built its predominant international position during the cold war, so it's an attitude shared by the people who staff government. But it's also a broadly held popular worldview. Americans are not as interested in the intricacies of world trade. The kinds of shifts in the world that are reflected in the number of daily flights between South Korea and China don't really register with Americans. And that fact is not unrelated to the fact that America has spent the last decade focused on two largely fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while China was focusing mainly on its commercial relationships with both emerging economies and the developed world"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/11/action_sequences.cfm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Fblogs%2Fdemocracyinamerica+%28The+Economist%3A+Democracy+in+America%29

TW: Things they are a changing, I pound the table repeatedly about the need for American governance to compete more effectively in this evolving world where America's relative power is in decline. But the only that governance will improve will be if our populace engages and demands actual broad-minded, innovative (read non-entrenched, non-reactionary) policies. This does not mean America "surrenders" or weakens its resolve relative to core values but it does mean we look at things through evolving lens.