Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:53 pm

As Ben Smith notes the Citizens of the World description derives from JFK

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.

Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm

And if you read the speech- he also says I come to you as a fellow citizen of the world, he’s inferring that we are all citizens of the world.

JDS — July 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm

We are all citizens of the world and I believe an argument against that is hard to substantiate.

john — July 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm

i think most of america is tired of the expectations and responsibility of being on a pedestal too high for comfort. this is obama trying to come humbly without losing any dignity. i don’t see anything empty about it. critics that deride this kind of rhetoric are no longer relevant and do not resound with the base that obama is trying to win over: those that are ready to return to pragmatism and cooperation.

and besides, it’s just a metaphor. if you’re not at home in the metaphor, you’re not safe anywhere.

Scientific — July 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Why don’t you relax, James?

It’s a very common phrase, and not meant to be taken nearly as literally as you did. Easy, guy, easy.

Patrick Tomlinson — July 24, 2008 at 5:21 pm

“…the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”

Is it possible to be of a smaller mind than this?

Citizenship in the world is not only possible, it is essential. There is no greater polity than that of all humanity, no grander nation than mankind. To act and believe that we are not all members of this nation of man, as Mr. Poulos would have us do, is to deny the humanity of those outside of our arbitrarily formed boarders.

I am a human first, an American second. Think what we could all accomplish if everyone had these simple priorities straightened out.

Hoodwinked — July 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm

Poulos writes: “In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible — this is exactly the sort of redundantly empty rhetoric that does nothing to energize his base, nothing to allay the concerns of Middle America about his meta-attitude, and supplies the frantic and the furious on the right with a fresh tranch of attacks. Why did he do it? Bad advice? His own advice? Why couldn’t he just say “a big fan of the world,” or “a product of the world,” something that at least had the merit of being accurate? Anyone?”

This statement is really quite petty. Seriously, this is all you could come up with as criticism? What contributions are you making to the world, besides being snarky?

Chet — July 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Meaingless, eh? In France there’s a fairly large statue of an ancestor of mine - Thomas Paine, a writer, maybe you’ve heard of him? - with the golden inscription “citoyen du monde”: citizen of the world.

Apparently it was neither meaningless to our Founding Fathers nor to their French allies.

While Obama is busy crafting a vision of American statecraft we haven’t seen since the days of Adams and Jefferson, you’re busy nitpicking one phrase out of a thousand. You’re everything that’s wrong with the press these days.

Scott de B. — July 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm

The “citizen of the world” concept goes back much farther than JFK. It was the Greek philosopher Diogenes who first said “I am a citizen of the cosmos (cosmopolites)”, whence our word cosmopolitan.

Dan — July 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Mr. Poulos, with due respect, I think you’re very wrong on at least two counts:

1) “the world is not a polity”… That’s a valid opinion, especially if you believe — as was fashionable about 30 years ago — that a polity requires a government that can tax people and has a monopoly on legitimate violence. But the study of politics has changed a bit since then. Read, for example, Ruggie’s “Constructing the World Polity.”

2) By describing himself as a fellow citizen of the world, Obama was making a claim that the world is indeed a single community — or polity — both empirically and ethically. People around the world actually do affect each other, and we have obligations to each other, like upholding human rights, even when it’s not in one state’s narrowly-defined short-term self-interests. That is not “redundantly empty rhetoric,” in fact, but a very specific kind of claim. I think it’s one of the most important claims a presidential campaign can make.

You did get something right. The right wing doesn’t like this idea. That’s a heck of a newsflash!!! But let’s have an open debate on the substance of that claim, rather than avoiding it by trying to label Obama as some kind of vacuous utopian.

matt — July 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Somethings are said analogically. ‘Citizen of the world’ means that one has shared political interests and obligations with people around the world. You might think this is false, but its not meaningless.

Barrett Brown — July 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm

“In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”

Would you be open to considering the possibility that Obama is perfectly aware that he is not actually an official member of an organization called “the world” and did not intend to convey any such thing, but was rather making a figurative statement to the effect that he is committed to greater international cooperation?

Kris — July 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm

“Polity?” Geez, what a tight-assed little word to use. And so what if he cribbed a phrase from Kennedy’s inaugural speech? I’m tired of my country being seen as the knuckle-dragging bully. I’m sick to death of apologizing for my government’s xenophobia. And I’m sick at heart over the fact we have squandered our position of leadership and good will and are dangerously close to being reduced to a sideline spectator in the 21st century. I, for one, am quite ready to rejoin the “citizens of the world.”

ad — July 24, 2008 at 6:01 pm

‘Citizen of the World’ goes back to the eighteenth century and Enlightenment ideals of humanist cosmopolitanism, where you have a responsibility to others that goes beyond narrow national borders and self interests… it’s a pretty famous concept and not at all meaningless.

Germany has a great education system, maybe that one was for them. He did also lay it on with a trowel about loving America…

Muzzy — July 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Aristotle was the first recorded instance of a man declaring himself a citizen of the world.

Perhaps when little Jamie P. grows up he might like to read some Aristotle and learn something.

It is the first thing I remember hearing in Obama’s speech. It took my breath away to hear him say it, because it is the first moment in my lifetime that I could hear myself in the words of a presidential candidate.

H. M. — July 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Why don’t you just admit it, Poulos, you don’t like Obama and you’re jealous. It’s pretty seventh-grade girly of yo to get so
whipped over a fairly common rhetorical phrase. “Fan of the World”? “Product of the World”? Surely you can’t be serious, or do
you really not get that “accuracy” wasn’t the goal. Are you truly the anal weenie you sound like here?

MK — July 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Poulos why are you insulting Ronald Reagan? Seriously, Reagan introduced himself to the UN General Assembly in 1982 as a “both a citizen of the United States and the world.” Was Reagan some kind of American-hating wako? Pushing this “citizen of the world” attack meme is solidly stupid. Before you do so again you should check your facts! You’d learn that not only Reagan, but George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy have used the same term “citizen of the world” in their speeches. Talk about grapsing for straws~!

Lars — July 24, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan made the same mistake:

“Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:

I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world.”

Remarks in New York City Before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Disarmament
June 17th, 1982

Michael — July 24, 2008 at 9:02 pm

The world is most certainly a “polity”! It is represented by international bodies, such as the United Nations, and by intricate conventions manifested by international law. The term “polity” covers a lot more ground than you pretend.

Robert Stacy McCain — July 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Obviously, he was pandering to the Democratic Party’s powerful “cosmopolitan sophisticate” constituency.

David — July 24, 2008 at 10:27 pm

I sometimes wish there was some kind of annual “missing the point entirely” recognition ceremony. Does pointing out that one literally can’t vote for an earth-president (Paulos in ‘12!) in an election really pass as commentary? Do you think Obama was confused, perhaps believing that he owed small blue planet taxes? You mean you can’t REALLY be a citizen of the world? That’s the sound of me hitting my head against a coffee table in disappointment.

It was rhetorical, and while we’re being ridiculous, anal, and literal: Does Paulos really recommend that I “pick a presidential poison”? Surely, if I chose poison I would die, and that would be regrettable. Why couldn’t he have called his piece “choose a president that is ultimately bad for you but that has some short term positive effects.” Mmmm — the merit of accuracy…

At least if I drank poison I’d never again have to read such bloody minded literalism posing as intelligent commentary. Ugh. I need to take tomorrow off. This “fan of the world” is going to go lie down now.

RP — July 24, 2008 at 11:11 pm

God, you are a pathetic know all. A writer and a graduate student — quite smart, your family must be so proud that you can use a word like polity. It was a great speech. And the point about being a citizen of the world is that, as the world, we are all in this together. The issues of war and peace, global warming, and economic justice, to name a few,effect the whole world. And, unlike George Bush and the neocon idiots, many of whom were graduate students in government and writers like your self, most Americans actually understand that and would like a President who is respect by the world, not hated.

Robert S. — July 25, 2008 at 1:40 am

“the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible”

Poulos is apparently an extreme literalist and/or unacquainted with the concept of metaphor.

- Another fellow citizen of the world

Stephen — July 25, 2008 at 2:35 am

If you’re going to nitpick a phrase this literally, it helps to do a little research first. “Citizen of the world” as a phrase actually appears in the Oxford American dictionary as “a person who is at home in any country.” So by definition it is not meaningless. You could argue that Obama meant it in a sense that’s different from the established dictionary definition, and that would be slightly less anal than your analysis as it stands.

will thomas — July 25, 2008 at 2:50 am

Dude. You’re weird. It’s going to be strangely exciting/unsettling to see the heads of commentators such as yourself exploding in reaction to Obama’s third way.

Steve V — July 25, 2008 at 7:56 am

It isn’t just that he was using words Kennedy had used; he used the phrase to actually invoke Kennedy: the phrase is preceded by (in substance), “I come to you as others before have, …” namely Kennedy, that citzen of the world. Just like all the references to tearing down walls was an invocation of Reagan, this seemed to me to be a invocation of Kennedy. Not that enterprising righties won’t go into fits of faux outrage anyway.

Sam Sutton — July 25, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I disagree on one point - that his comment is empty and will do nothing to energize the base. I am part of that base - lifelong Democrat, Obama supporter since mid-2006, and so on, and I find myself very energized by this comment and, more specifically, the attitude that it represents.

I believe firmly that striving for a more coherent, cooperative worldwide society is a good thing, and I despise those who are militantly, vehemently nationalistic. To this end I believe Obama represents a needed transition away from the our-way-or-the-highway approach of the Bush administration, and while I always knew Obama represented this I appreciate having it confirmed and enshrined in such strong terms.

So while I agree that it probably won’t help with “Middle-America” (although it still may just because it represents a move away from one of Bush’s hallmark legacies) and gives the right-wing wackos a fresh belt of ammunition, I don’t agree that it was a stupid thing to say. Obama has thrived by taking on “tough” issues directly, succinctly - and by not backing down or beating around the bush. He is merely doing the same thing here.

J Grimes — July 26, 2008 at 12:25 am

Will Thomas, what exactly is Obama’s Third Way? Run of the mill neoliberal globalism?

Though Mr. Sutton is right on his first point. Obama’s base accepts the absurd, pure abstraction of Citizenry of the World as axiomatic.

Mediocrity Ferdinand! I highly recommend it! The more obfuscating you are…the more brutal you are.