Although in the Netherlands polls indicate that most Dutch hope that Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States, Barack Obama is quickly gaining popularity. Whenever our major networks or newspapers talk about the campaign they try to depict Obama in such a positive light as possible (while denigrating the Republican candidates). It won’t be long, I am sure, before most Dutch citizens line up with the European (and Dutch) media in support of Obama.

Having said that, other Europeans already express their concern and European newspapers such as the Spiegel warn Europeans not to get their hopes up:

It is commonly believed in Europe that anyone would be more competent that George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy. But with Clinton tough on Iran and most of the Republicans willing to follow Bush off the foreign policy cliff, that could be a pipe dream.

In the coming weeks, most of the campaign comment reaching Europe’s shores will deal with tactics, strategies, fund raising, the media’s role in American politics, the primary system and the personalities of the candidates. In short, everything will be discussed except what the candidates would do should they get elected to actually run America. Foreign policy gets especially short shrift from many American political commentators.

In my opinion this is correct. At this moment all the media focus on the horse race, and virtually no one talks about policies anymore. The only candidate who tries to mention policy every now and then is Fred Thompson, and he’s conveniently ignored by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox, and so on.

Anyway back to the article: many Europeans hope that the next American president will break completely with Bush’s foreign policy. They hope that at the moment that Obama occupies the White House the US suddenly becomes European. Obama, European media imply right now, will drastically change America’s foreign policy, he’ll also turn the US into a social democrat state and, before you know, the US and Europe are buddies like never before.

The author of the article however (rightfully) disagrees and points out:

The reasons for that are clear: It is much more fun to talk about Hillary Clinton’s raucous laugh, John Edwards’s $400 haircuts, or John McCain’s palpable disdain for Mitt Romney. But, especially after the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, it is glaringly obvious that America — and the world — simply cannot afford another president who needs on-the-job training. And it’s not all that difficult to determine the pose each candidate might strike on the international stage — a quick look at the frontrunners’ views on Iran is often all it takes. It also reminds us that beyond all the frivolous fun and excitement in the campaign, it actually matters a great deal who is elected president.

About Barack Obama’s foreign policy the Spiegel says:

Barack Obama is — on this issue as with so many others — the hero of the European continent. While stressing Iran should be stopped from acquiring nukes, the Illinois Senator is fuzzy as to how this might actually happen, beyond repeating the standard European mantra that meaningful negotiations should take place. Unlike Senator Clinton, Obama would personally take part in such negotiations. Generally and uniquely, Obama calls for America to negotiate without preconditions with everyone, seeing this as the only way to solve international problems. Furthermore, to the delight of European elites, Obama thinks these negotiations should take place within existing multilateral institutions. Indeed, he is by far the firmest adherent to this centerpiece of European thought.

Americans, though, tend to be far more impressed by results (or the lack of them) than by process, and Obama is far from clear on what happens should well-meaning negotiations with Iran fail, nor does he elucidate what happens if endless conferences fail to yield results in other areas. In other words, he is unclear, in a way Senator Clinton is not, on the role power plays in foreign policy formulation. As always, Obama’s rhetoric is intriguing, but his ideas have yet to be fully formed.

Whether my fellow Europeans like it or not, Obama has - in the end - more in common with conservative Americans than with Europeans (social democrats). Sure, he talks differently than Bush and the Republican candidates for the presidency, and yes, his policies will be different than theirs, but only to a degree. In the end, most American politicians consider the world a Hobbesian place and act accordingly. Europeans, however, pretend that the entire world is like the EU: a Kantian paradise.

Once Obama becomes the president, and ones negotiations fail, European progressives will soon enough find out that he isn’t as European as they hoped. In the end, Americans want their president to achieve something, and if negotiations fail, he must come up with a plan-B. This plan-B will most likely not be liked by the Europeans who are currently rooting for his victory.

It has to be said though that a Democratic victory come November would improve the relationship between Europe and the US. Europeans like Democrats more, they have more in common with them then with Republicans, and Democrats tend to talk differently than American conservatives do. They’re more positive about compromise, something which many Europeans greatly admire.

So, the relationship will change, yes, but anti-Americanism won’t disappear. At best the situation will remind everyone of the relationship between Europe and the US in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president. The relationship was much better then, then it has been under Bush, but anti-Americanism existed back then as well; make no mistake about it. In fact, many people who know a bit about anti-Americanism - such as Jean-Jacques Revel - argue that despite Clinton’s somewhat European approach to foreign policy, anti-Americanism was on the rise during the eight years of his presidency.

The situation with Iran is one thing, but there’s also global warming. Yes, the Democrats would be more willing to agree with Europe on a plan, but it’s unlikely that America will be willing to give in as much as Europe wants even when Obama or Clinton are in power. In the end, even a Democratic president has to work with a Congress (many members of which will be Republican) and quite some Democrats in Congress will be blue dog Democrats; conservative Democrats.

O, and then there’s also the influence of lobbyists and a very influential and big group of global warming-critics. They can’t and won’t be ignored.

The relationship will improve, but if Europeans think that Obama will be a social democrat they are badly mistaken.*

A very revealing quote about Giuliani from the article by the way: “Rudy Giuliani is, from the European perspective, a real Frankenstein’s monster.”

* And from my perspective luckily so of course.