Over the past few months, with the coverage of the various campaigns, there's one thing that has grown to bug me about all the candidates and their campaigns: they are focusing on the USA alone, and giving scant attention to the world outside the USA. Sure, Iraq gets attention, for all the wrong reasons, but what about Africa, or South America?
A POTUS is not the ruler of America, the one person who decides how the country is run: in addition to the powers held by the States, there are massive Federal bureaucracies that change little after each election cycle, such as the Department of the Interior, Defense Department, FBI, CIA, and so on. If he or she has a pet policy position, he or she still has go through Congress, which is not always as compliant as it has been recently. (Bush should be a Lame Duck by now, so why hasn't he been (politically) kneecapped? )
Meanwhile, to the rest of the world... the USA is represented by a WASP, the latest in an almost-unbroken series of WASPs. (Kennedy was a exception, and of minimal importance outside Ireland.) I honestly think the US political system, from the top to the bottom (the self-loading voters), over-estimate the President's domestic importance, and under-estimate his importance as an international figure, the face of the USA.
I don't think I'm the only one thinking that this has to change. Not permanently, but for a time, say 4 or 8 years? So: another WASP? Well, there's one candidate who is not a WASP, and I think he represents the best possibility of repairing the USA's relationships with the rest of the world. The alternatives will appear to be "business as usual": even Mrs. Clinton. (The USA is one of the few Western countries where a female president or prime minister is a novelty - again, her election would have more of a domestic impact than global.
In my view, the worst outcome would be a Republican victory, where it's a choice between the usual old white man (McCain is 71), or two younger religious nutters (Romney & Huckabee) who want to turn the USA in to a Theocracy. For better or worse, the world looks to the USA for direction, and a change in direction needs to happen, and be seen to happen.
PS: no, I haven't read the previous 46 pages... should I?
Without meaning to sound flippant or arrogant (but probably will come across that way), since the American presidential campaigns are designed to lure American voters, wouldn't it follow that the speeches/ads, etc., would be about those issues that appeal to American voters.
What anyone else thinks truly is not important to an American voter (myself included). "What's in it for me?" and "Why should I care?" are more important.
Is it really so different for you and your country?
Again, my intent is to answer your question, not start a flame war.
Brick,
thanks for putting it so eloquently. You truly have a gift to "consider the audience" when you write. I didn't know how else to explain to bnt what I meant.
And to highlight the point, the fastest way to get the incessant but repetitious Iraq coverage off the front pages and every headline was to discover that unpleasant things were happening to the economy. World events come and go, but people care how much tax they pay, or if their 401k is going to be worth anything or how much a gallon of gas costs for a long, long time. Europeans only give the appearance of caring about world affairs because their taxes are now controlled by Greek olive oil farmers running the EU from Brussels.
brickhistory - I think you're right about what is happening, but my point is that the USA is not the same as other countries! It occupies a "leadership" position - whether we like it or not - so I strongly think the candidates need to pay more attention to the rest of the world. I don't expect them to, because that's not what will get them elected. So you're right, in the sense that their priorities are getting elected, which in turn sets the agenda for the electorate.
Irish politicians can afford to be parochial, since Ireland's policies have little impact on the rest of the world. The UK, well, I could say the same thing, but to a lesser degree, and they have History with Africa.
I've thought about this for a while now, and stand by what I wrote. Do you think I'm going to change my mind about this, on the back of some cryptic or flippant remarks? Or just telling me "You're Wrong"? I can see what is happening in the USA - people only interested in what will benefit them - so I expect to see another White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the White House in 2009.
You are just determined to take offense, aren't you?
To expect the voters of any nation to take into account the views/desires/opinions of other nations is naive.
To expect the politicians seeking those voters to waste his/her time on much discussion of those topics is ignorant.
Quote:
I don't think I'm the only one thinking that this has to change.
Sorry, if you had read the previous 46 pages, you'd see that no vote = no opinion that matters on a US election. (Now you can take offense. But it doesn't change the fact. Oh harsh reality, thy sting is painful...)
Quote:
I expect to see another White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the White House in 2009
Well, one can hope......................................
But, Brick, don't you agree that we should root for her in the primaries, as we have a much better chance of beating her/them than Obama.
If Obama wins their nomination there will be an absolute euphoria on the side of MSM et al, and he will be very hard to beat. Even the Shlickmeister, who has no shame, will put his support behind Obama which will be looked upon as a noble gesture. These people have no shame and are extremely resourceful when it comes to tricks and schemes.
We're 936 posts into this hamster wheel, so let me rephrase what Brick is saying, one more time.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion about who you would like to see win the upcoming election. It may go your way, or it may not. Certainly we'll all agree this is the most wide open election year in any of our memories.
But if you wander off into the area of "why are those American voters so stupid as to elect this moron who won't carry out his foreign policy the way we wish", then you will get a response from this side which universally says buzz off, we'll elect who we see fit.
Now in watching the media and sites like this, it's my opinion that there'll be a significant amount of complaining abou the choice from the foreign media no matter who wins. It's just human nature when you have one member of a group so dominant, for whatever reason.
You'll just have to get used to the facts that 1: we elect the president by states (electors), not by a direct popular vote. 2: economics, often local economics, is usually the issue that voters use to decide. 3: it's the biggest election process in the world, not always tidy or even comprehensible. 4. people who can't punch a piece of paper chad out of a ballot get the same say as academic professors (some are one and the same) 5. much of the rest of the world will not agree with the choice. 6. much of the rest of the US won't, either! 7. the actual difference the final choice will make is vastly over-rated.
don't you agree that we should root for her in the primaries
While I see your point and believe, as I stated in another post in one of the 46 pages of posts in this thread, the Republicans of all stripes would rally around even McCain to defeat her where they might not do so to defeat Obama, my dislike of her borders on the pathological.
I want her politically dead, dead, dead. If she gets the Democratic nomination and even if she loses, she'll most likely be back for the next go around for a Democratic candidate - either another 4 or 8 years depending.
But if she can't even win the nomination, I am hoping that would put her in the Adlai Stevenson-type camp of an 'always wannabe' but never making it to the big dance and she'll go away if only into the book writing/Oprah appearances/political talking head on MSNBC, but just so she goes.
Maybe even the voters of New York would grow tired of her and boot her out of the Senate.
Brick,
I am 100% in agreement with your thinking. I too dislike her/him bordering on pathological.
While the true Republican strategists may disagree, the price of loosing the WH this time in order to kill (politically) Billary, may be worth it (at least to the likes of you and me).
To me the most amusing aspect of our dear friends from across the waters that complain the loudest and insult our political system the most have no say in who the leaders of their country are.
I mean, can you vote for who you want as King or Queen? Nope.
Can you vote for who will the Prime Minister? Nope.
I realize that the 'Party' the receives the majority of votes 'names' the PM, but you can't vote on the person. So it is left up to the power brokers making deal in cigar filled back rooms to choose your PM. Hum.
I am not saying that your system is wrong, it is not my place to say it is wrong. If it works for you great, we don't like that system for ourselves. That's life, get over it.
The fact is that some people here will be against whomever we elect no matter what.
And life will go on.
Now, back to the subject. McClain and Giuliana for the Republican ticket. Now, I am going out on a limb here, but, Clinton and Obama for the Democratic ticket, I could be wrong on this, hope I am actually.
Con,
in another thread I questioned bnf why he blames our leaders because their leaders followed ours? I told him to deal with that problem at the ballot box. My post was deleted by mods. They didn't like my tone I guess.
As you say no matter what America does there will be someone offended. Welcome to the 21st century of political correctness.
Just checked. They didn't delete it. here it is:
Quote:
The only "stand" that ultimately counts is the one at the ballot box. Don't blame US because your leaders went along. Don't be bitter about Americans' choice of leaders just because your leaders agree. It would be, I think, a lot easier and pragmatic, to work on something you can actually influence the outcome of than to spin here.
Last edited by Dushan : 2nd February 2008 at 17:44.
Reason: adding the quote
I'll admit I know little about the Mormon faith, but I do know a fair amount about the Baptists so I am curious as to why you think they are 'nutters' and why they would be bad presidents based upon their religious beliefs?
Whatever the flavor of Mike Huckabee's Baptist leanings he has been completely up front about them from the get go. His ability to campaign on a shoestring shows resourcefulness and flexibility far greater than just writing another check like the other candidates (Romney). There are far worse partners for McCain and somebody on the hill with a sense of humor would make a nice change of pace. Over 50% of Americans admit to their daily lives being affected in some way by a "religious nutter" of some description or another.
) 
Linear Mode
