On balance, what will Obama's reelection mean for the international political situation?

[David__77]

I support Obama's reelection strongly.

That said, I suspect that, in the shorter term, a Romney victory would be "best" for the international left in the narrow sense that it would create a positive polarization, again leading to greater isolation of US geostrategic moves and agitating greater opposition. But politics is not a game where people's livelihoods and well-being should be gambled for simply political benefit. That's what the German communists did in wrongly identifying the Social Democrats and not the Nazis as their main enemy.

In the shorter run, I think a second Obama term would further weaken the political resolve of pro-socialist forces in Latin America and reduce the vigilance of people against "soft coups" and foreign subversion. The flip side of this is that China, Iran, and other countries will surely have greater chances for peaceful development under Obama than under Romney.

The US role in "Arab Spring" was not positive. It was reflective of the desire first to maintain as much influence as possible, and second, to steer events toward the US geostrategic plan for opening markets and spheres of influence. While the foray into Libya and ongoing intervention in Syria are wrong, on balance, the countries appear to have enhanced their national independence rather than surrender it.

Unfortunately, Obama does not represent something new on the foreign policy front, but his seeming compliance with international law as regards use of force, etc., allows other countries to exert a positive influence on US policy, as is currently occurring with Russia and China regarding Syria.

Romney would not be so constrained in launching wars of aggression against both Syria and Iran, along with any other country that does not adhere to the US-dictated game plan. In sum, a net positive for the people of the world if Obama is reelected, despite any short-term benefits that would likely accrue to leftist movements in the case of a Romney win. If the Afghan occupation is ended in two years, and the military spending continues on its current course, it will help to calm the international situation and foster peace and economic development.

[RandySF]

1. I think it brings Israel to the table.

They will have to back off the saber rattling with Iran and again sit down with the Palestinians.

[Starry Messenger]

2. I agree with this-

"But politics is not a game where people's livelihoods and well-being should be gambled for simply political benefit." and would add that the net political benefit of having a clear enemy and polarization is (imo) largely cancelled out by the damage that a right-wing enemy in power can actually do.

Our own working class here has been weakened by right-wing adventures with our livelihoods and well-being too. A Romney win would wipe us out. Our own steps toward socialism would be made very much harder. Obama, of course, is nothing like a socialist, but he's the least likely to keep kicking us into a deeper hole and forcing us to retake ground over and over.

With a reactionary like Romney, there is no way he would ever bow to pressure from us in protests against imperialism. With a stronger class, and a non-reactionary in power, there are avenues to limiting some of the imperialist aggression. I think most countries in the international left would prefer being left to develop rather than having the US drop the hammer on them, even if it seems like a clear enemy to fight.

[TBF]

3. I don't see imperialism faltering

Obama has been as good at the game or better than predecessors. The difference I see is on domestic social policy. Folks can say "they will never make abortion illegal" and I may have believed that in the past - but it is now very clearly in the republican platform. After abortion goes birth control and then women face a very grim future (in fact it sets us back about 100 years). For this reason alone he needs to be re-elected.

[David__77]

4. Its decreasing share of global GDP will impact imperialism.

Imperialism (as a system) opposes economic development in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Geopolitical destabilization and chaos is engendered for this reason. I don't think either Romney or Obama can prevent the long-term trend toward multi-polarization.

[TBF]

6. Ultimately no -

but they will certainly die trying to control all of the resources they can.

[limpyhobbler]

5. Their policies are mostly similar but with some important differences.

Well one thing is Obama says he wants another nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. Romney is supposedly against that.

As for the Latin American left-leaning democracies, I'd give them each better odds of surviving an Obama presidency than a Romney presidency, Honduras and Paraguay notwithstanding. A "soft coup" is probably less damaging than the tradtional version, because less people get killed. They live to fight another day. Except when they don't.

As for China, Obama and Romney policies are identical as far as I know. There may be some differences in rhetoric but policy will be the same.

Across the board there are little differences and differences of degree. Obama less likely to bomb Iran. Yet both continue the Latin American drug war. Both continue the same trade policies. Both spurn international climate treaties.

Romney more likely to start a random war just to show how tough he his. Seriously he has cold dead eyes. I don't think he looks at poor people as human beings.

[covenant]

8. Obama represents all that is good

Obama represents America's other side: dissent. This means that he has been waging war against unemployment, inflation and the like. If Romney gets elected, he will leave everything to the market which is bad given that unfettered free market does not work. If Obama did not pass Obamacare, millions will still remain anxious in their workplaces, unsure whether illness would or would not scrape 50-90% of healthcare from their salaries. With Obamacare, workers tend to be more productive given that they don't have to worry about medical insecurity. More power to Obama, bros in Harlem. He stood up against racism. Time to re-elect the most handsome man in America.

On the international scene, there would be more possibility that peace with be achieved in the Middle East for who else has good intent for his brothers but a Muslim like Obama. Who would believe that Obama is the cause of the turmoil now happening in the Middle East. No one else is to blame but the mischievous CIA, conspiratorial FBI, and America's police state.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. "...a Muslim like Obama."..........

Be VERY careful here my friend. Most of us are commies, not birthers. You have read our TOS post right?

[covenant]

10. presumption that poster is liberal

I had committed no malice in posting. I presumed given that I voted for Obama and Liberal would the other posters presume that I respect freedom of religion and that I do not suggest nor insist on any religion. Your thoughts have gone too far.. I was once an atheist..Laison officer, TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES-WORLD FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But now a committed democratic socialist of the Philippines.

[socialist_n_TN]

11. OK, i'm willing to give you the benefit.........

Of any doubt. However you should realize that most people who claim Obama is a Muslim in this country belong to the right wing in politics. BTW, there's no religious test for this group.

[David__77]

13. You give too much...

"...given that I voted for Obama"

"....Laison officer, TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES-WORLD FEDERATION OF TRADE UNIONS of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

"But now a committed democratic socialist of the Philippines..."

None of this has bearing on the fact that the poster claims, repeatedly and clearly, that Barack Obama IS a Muslim. How can such a claim by made, when Obama himself states otherwise? We know of only one group, that considers Islam as a peculiar evil, that would make such unsupportable claims.

I find the mention of WFTU notable. WFTU was not and is not an indication of religious preference. There were Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists at its core from the start. Further, there never was such a thing as "WFTU of the USSR." It was and is an international organization with affiliates around the world. It was never a "communist" group, but rather a working class, anti-war, anti-imperialist trade union movement.

The muck of confusion, followed with more bold assertions regarding Barack Obama being a "Muslim" would seem undeserving of the benefit of the doubt.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. I thought it might have been confusion........

From English not being this person's primary language. The jury handled it.

[tama]

15. Global revolution

is intensifying focus being now in Europe. It is hard to see how EU could survive 4 more years without radical revolutionary changes that most likely weaken US dominance of EU international policies; EU following Latin America away from hegemony. Obama's re-election is most important domestically, stalling revolutionary progress as liberal middle class stays mostly passive with their party instead of taking the streets against austerity policies of 2nd Obama admin. US center pillar of capitalism not being domestically as strongly challenged and weakened as it would be under Republican administration leaves it more room and energy to project power internationally in support of failing state neoliberal dominions, and it may be able to produce some fascist counterrevolutions and more violently reactionary developments also in Europe.

On the other hand, it is also possible that the combined forces of domestic grass-roots pressure and global energy scarcity convince Obama to change course and become a mixture of Roosevelt and Carter and Gore, not abandoning Wall Street altogether but turning US towards eco-fascism instead of classical corporate fascism.