American Review

American Review provides a global perspective on United States politics and foreign policy. Published from Sydney, Australia, with contributions from all over the world, it aims to give its readers a fair and balanced account of US foreign policy.

American Review is published daily on the internet and as a quarterly on our iPad app. It is published by the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney. Founded in 2006, the Centre's mission is to increase understanding of the United States in Australia.

Visit the American Review web site.
Recent Tweets @
Posts tagged "Jonathan Bradley"
This seems to be a pattern running through Republican attempts to unseat Obama this campaign season. Conservatives are convinced that the President was given a free pass by a napping media in the 2008 campaign. They believe he was insufficiently vetted, and that both reporters and the campaign of Republican nominee John McCain failed to draw the public’s attention to parts of Obama’s biography that the right considered troubling. After three years in office and with two books penned by the President readily available in stores across the United States, many on the right are still firmly convinced that Obama is a mystery man about whom the American public knows little.

screwrocknroll:

My new piece at American Review could, in one sense, be read as concern trolling, but it wasn’t written in that spirit. Springing off the Joe Ricketts story, it’s a discussion of how so many Republican electioneering attempts thus far in the campaign have been targeted against the president as conservatives imagine him to be, which, I believe, is something different to how the rest of America sees its president.

I find the conservative take on Obama, and the Obama presidency, rather interesting. Not so much the really out there stuff — birtherism, Kenyan anti-colonialism, etc. — but the things that run-of-the-mill base members believe. What makes it all such a mess is the overlap between the right wing fringe and the Republican mainstream, and how difficult it is to separate the two. For instance, many conservatives believe Obama is a dunce (the teleprompter, the idea that he relied on affirmative action for his education) and an arrogant fraud (the “celebrity” thing). Undoubtedly that’s a belief that, for a lot of people, is motivated by uncomplicated racism — but for many others it arises from a sincere failure to understand the appeal of the man or his policies, and so, to these folks, accusations of racism look like an attempt to silence criticism of the president.

I’m also fascinated by the constant accusations on the right that Obama has wantonly disregarded the Constitution. That’s because those accusations are so similar in tone to the ones the left made against George W. Bush in his presidency. I’m not going to fall into the trap of false equivalency: the left had an immeasurably better case than the right does. And though some of the right’s criticisms are grounded in fair concerns about the Administration’s foreign policy and anti-terror tactics, for the most part, they’re fairly groundless. But then, perhaps the left mixed in a lot of groundless accusations against the Bush administration along with its multitude of very real concerns?

The reason this happens is that America is a nation founded on an idea*. The only problem is that no one in America can agree on what that idea is, although they all think they’re personal conception of the idea is a universal one. And there’s a widespread belief that the Constitution is a pretty good attempt at capturing the idea. (The Declaration of Independence is an even better one.) So if you’re someone for whom the policies of a president like Barack Obama do not accord with your ideas of what America should be, then it makes sense that you will consider them in breach of the Constitution — the document that explains what America should be.

Anyway, this is venturing into territory I haven’t fully thought through. But my column is here. Read!

 ——

*This is a piece of American exceptionalism of which I firmly believe the truth. I can think of few other nations to which this applies; the states of the old world are  ethnic entities, while few new world nations share such ideological origins. Australia, for instance, was founded out of a desire to preserve the colonial outpost’s Britishness, and we’ve spent our entire history trying to imagine what being Australian might be. See here for more of my discussion on this.

Blogbook editor Jonathan Bradley takes a look at the inevitable fuss and carry-on in the press as Mitt Romney starts his hunt for a running mate:

The fun thing about the Veepstakes is that it gives the media something to talk about in the interminable months between the end of the primary season and the conventions that mark the beginning of the fall campaign. That this period coincides with the summer is particularly serendipitous. As I’ve mentioned before, America gets slightly silly during the summer months, and nothing is conducive to silliness like the speculation surrounding a candidate’s choice of running mate. [Read more]

So this is where Rick Santorum stands now. He remains a contender because he meets the minimum expectations of a serious candidate. He has won some states and earned some delegates, but these have kept him in the hunt — they don’t really make him competitive in any sense. But he has a shot, in the form of Michigan, to improve his fortunes and start seriously eroding Romney’s dominance.

That’s not much, but it’s something. A dramatic come-from-behind victory, however, is unlikely outside of Hollywood. Santorum’s plot will probably echo that of Tim Lippe’s in Cedar Rapids: He’ll have some eye-opening experiences, but find himself returning to Midwestern obscurity after it’s all over.

Jonathan Bradley is talking about 2011 comedy Cedar Rapids in today’s Blogbook for a reason, and it’s not just so he can make jokes about Rick Santorum’s sweater vests. He promises.