Time Of The Tough Guys

Putin profits from still another worrisome dynamic: the global surge in anti-Americanism. (One other sign of this trend: the third most unpopular leader in the poll is France's Sarkozy, who has stuck close to Bush in foreign policy; his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, pursued a much more independent course and scored almost 10 points better in a 2006 Pew poll.) A survey released last week by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that in 21 countries, including traditional U.S. allies, most populations now have overwhelmingly negative views of America. Meanwhile, as Charles Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations puts it, Russia's prime minister has turned himself into an appealing icon for all those who object to the perceived arrogance of Washington and its allies. "If you think about who has really stood up to the West and become a poster boy for the rest, it's Vladimir Putin," he says, pointing out that in recent years, Moscow has blocked U.S. diplomatic efforts on Kosovo, Mideast peace, arms control, missile defense and Iran.

On might think this logic would apply to Hu Jintao as well. In fact, given China's generous aid programs, its firm commitment to nonintervention and state sovereignty, and the efforts Beijing has made to portray its growth as nonthreatening (touting the slogan "peaceful rise"), you'd expect Hu to poll even better than his Russian equivalent. Yet Hu's actual score on the survey was lower (four points) than Putin's. Several factors explain this. First, while the Russian has used his time in office to build a towering cult of personality, Hu is part of a huge party machine and the head of a vast bureaucratic state. The Chinese Communist Party, much more than any one leader, is the real power in China today, and Hu's confidence ranking reflects this. Putin has made himself the public face of Russia; Hu still lacks global name (and face) recognition.

Economic factors also make China more intimidating than Russia, no matter how hard Beijing works to charm the world. While most people benefit from the availability of cheap Chinese goods, the mainland manufacturing juggernaut also represents a terrifying threat to industries and workers across the globe. Daalder says that "cheap goods mean taking jobs away. China's booming economy and increasing geopolitical clout are seen as frightening. For all of China's attempts to present a smiling face to the world, the reality is that the Chinese are cleaning everybody's clocks, politically and economically. The Russian impact is much smaller."

If this all sounds like bad news for the West, it is. Yet there's one hopeful sign in the numbers if you look hard enough. The one major democrat who did score well was Britain's Gordon Brown (never mind that his numbers are tanking at home). That's important, for Brown happens to be the one national leader who's staked his reputation on finding new, cooperative solutions to a range of global ills. As Holbrooke puts it, "Brown is the person on the list who's by far the most identified with solving transnational problems, such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, African development and so on." Princeton's Slaughter agrees: "Brown is less interested in his country's narrow interests than genuinely trying to address" global crises. Britain's prime minister, she argues, "is giving effective voice to the aspirations of the world's poorest people, to billions who often feel they have no say."

That's good news for London; pushing for more aid for Africa and working hard to meet its Kyoto goals have clearly paid off internationally, if not at home. But the finding also represents an opportunity for other officials, should they follow Brown's lead. The prime minister's global standing suggests a keen worldwide appetite for a politician who will act on the range of present dangers. As Daalder puts it, there's a "yearning for new leadership" to help the planet through its multiple messes. Anyone who takes up the mantle is likely to be rewarded.

Especially if he's American. The fact that all top officials were rated so poorly suggests that the old job of leader of the free world—or, at least, its most popular, inspiring or trusted head of state—remains wide open. Despite its recent decline, only one nation has a plausible shot at filling that bill. Kull says that while Bush has bungled the job, "no other leader has stepped into the breach. No one generates confidence from the world. If an American steps in and says, 'I'm going to play by the old rules; here's an agenda for how we can work together,' that will be attractive everywhere." Nothing's guaranteed, of course, and digging the United States out its hole won't be easy. But the right person with the right message—say, a certain young senator who preaches a gospel of hope, or his colleague from Arizona, who's promised to take on "restore the world's faith" in the United States and its principles by working closely with U.S. allies—may find a surprisingly attentive audience.

With Adam B. Kushner

© 2008