The world's view
WASHINGTON DC: So the is sprinkled on the senator from Illinois. Thinking about Barack Obama and watching him at work in the last few days, I find myself wondering if he and the other candidates (Republicans as well), even the Clintons in their way, have already achieved some of the change they desire, some of the bright new start they promise.
Many Americans hope that this election will alter worldwide perceptions of their nation - many foreigners, friends of America put off by the Bush years, hope the same thing. Wait till January 2009 they say: help is at hand. But look at the vigour of the process this year, the unique openness, the stunning setbacks and comebacks, the media being caught out so badly in New Hampshire, the , , Huckabee's fascinating recalibration of the evangelical message from hellfire soon to milk and honey now (and no income tax to boot) etc etc etc.
How can the outside world, how can reasonable people anywhere, not be impressed with the choices and the seriousness with which millions of Americans have now taken those choices? I offer two recent commentaries from the UK. The was written before New Hampshire and contains a lot of intellectually lazy nonsense about the ´óÏó´«Ã½ (supercilious - moi?) but is a really interesting early take on the relevance of the last month to the British experience of politics.
The is a more personal attack on me from the opposite standpoint but also - again more interestingly - an attempt to make the case for regarding this presidential process as being utterly bogus.
For my money the first take makes some sense; the second, this year of all years, is a mighty difficult argument to follow.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
mmm - regarding your "first" quote or link ( not sure how you qualify these things) - entirely my own sentiments, paricularly the last bit about Americans haveing "been seen to do their duty" and nominated at least one black for president but then going for the the "safer" option. I would add that I think their "safer" option is also the best choice for all of us in the rest of the world. We do need someone who is older than me ( 65) to lead us for a change. All the younger ones we have given chances to seem to have "mucked" it up a bit.
Ah, Mr Webb, you are making the simple mistake of taking Janet Daley seriously.
We have all done it before - it is an easy mistake to make. To avoid making it again, I offer you this simple suggestion.
Check out the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Programme chaired by Francine Stock where she goes 'Head to Head' with Steve Richards. After one has seen her hairdo, clearly styled by Boris Johnson's hairdresser, one will soon be able to take her views with a pinch of salt..
"How can the outside world, how can reasonable people anywhere, not be impressed with the choices and the seriousness with which millions of Americans have now taken those choices?"
Because they remember the choices that Americans made the last time they voted for a president.
Supercilious - toi? Yes!
Be a proper journalist, the one you presumably started out to be when you entered the profession, and look into allegations of New Hampshire vote rigging; ask why Barack Obama would bomb Pakistan; tell us about Dick Cheney's influence over Bush, or indeed Bush senior's influence over Bush; explain why so many respected professionals are now calling for a proper inquiry into 9-11; reveal why it is the US is spending $592 million on an 'embassy' in the centre of Baghdad.
Your supercilious reporting (as opposed to investigative journalism) of the 'official' story is more than just a blight on democracy. It's one component in the death of democracy itself.
Like any democratic system the American's is deeply flawed. However I am deeply jealous that the US has "Primary" elections.
The rallying call from the left in the USA is "More Democrats, Better Democrats!" Grassroots movements are campaigning not just to replace incumbent Republicans but to replace incumbent Democrats they don't like through the primary process.
Imagine in the UK being able to replace unwanted MPs with (theoretically) better MPs without having to switch party affiliation. As an anti-war Labour supporter this has clear appeal.
What a better democracy that would give us.
Oh Justin, what have you done? Your blog will become the battleground where the anti-American/pro-American argument is fought out _again_.
I must wonder, do you get paid by the comment? :)
As a British person, I have to say that I have been totally captivated by the American Presidential elections. The choice of candidates is great and I've already got Obamamania while rooting for John Edwards and enjoying the nostalgia of seeing the Clintons again. I've been stung by the Hucklebuzz and drwan to watching John McCain and Mitt Romney battle for position as Rudy hold the fort in Florida. I'm sure if we had this sort of race in Britain, more young people would be drawn to politics.
Having just seen a clip of the response to the State of the Union address and just done a quick bit of research, I wonder if Kathleen Sebelius will be the next VP?
Jonathan Clark #5
you said;
"Like any democratic system, the American's is deeply flawed."
A Freudian slip and how telling of the European point of view. Always suspicious of "mobocracy" where the elites of society have no more to say about how it is governed than anyone else, "like any democratic system, the American's is deeply flawed." The proof? How miserably it has failed Americans as proven again and again by history. How fitting that the color of envy is green, the color of United States currency.
Well, that's one problem Europe doesn't have, no sign of democracy there. What vestigal traces of it might be found are quickly being stamped out by the EU superstate. Can't get a 400 page incomprehensible Constitution approved by voting? Pare it down to 250 pages, call it a treaty and shove it down their throats. In fact, don't even publish it until it is already enacted. And Britain? No democracy to worry about there either. They voted for a trade agreement and it morphed into a contract to become a slave of a would be empire. King Gordon the first might not even submit it to his rubber stamp Parliament for approval, he might just enact it by fiat. So unaware of and passive about what is happening to them, you barely hear a whimper over it from their public. Finally Europe is a peace with itself, a dictatorship it can live with. No flaws in it whatsoever.
Sorry, but is this meant seriously? Away from the immediate razzmatazz people in the US are as uninterested in politics as people anywhere else.
Didn't the last election have turnout rates in the 50%s?
In both the US and the UK (and Australia where they have to force people to vote)people are less interested in who is to govern them, then the hairdo of Paris Hilton's dog.
Journalists are intersted certainly, bbut they are not everyone.
AZ - The American's DIDN'T vote Bush into office. That right was stolen from us by a Republican dominated Supreme Court. This is our attempt to take the elections back into our own hands - which is why so many of us are angrily slapping the hands of the press and the candidates when they show "conduct" unbecoming a President or candidate.
Trust me - we're trying to replace our village idiot with someone who doesn't need nannies and tutors.
@ 5.At 01:04 PM on 29 Jan 2008, Jonathan Clark
I wouldn't get to carried away with dreams of the primary system as an agent of change. The defeat of an incumbent candidate is so rare as to be a major national story. Did it happen to anyone but Joe Lieberman in the last cycle? That was only achieved by a billionaire candidate spending money like there was no tomorrow. He went on to lose the actual election to Lieberman running as an independent. Was Rick Santorum the only incumbent to lose his congressional seat last cycle.
"Change" is this years buzzword in American politics, yet stasis is the reality
I enjoy hearing comments from those abroad about the country and what goes on here. I do wish less attention was paid and less significance was placed on us.
My favorite comments are from socialists or worse who haven't abandoned their old causes or their hatred of the US for winning the fight against global communism. I especially enjoy fringe authors noting every "atrocity" they can stretch while ignoring the worse consequences their ideology unleashed upon the world. But hey, never let facts get in the way of ideology!
Interesting links, I found they say more about British perception of politics than about the American political system.
As for how the rest of the world sees American politics: we really don't care. It's our election and outsiders are welcome to watch but their opinions don't matter. Claims that foreigners should get a vote in the process are at best a not so funny joke. Voting is a privilege of citizenship, we may not choose to excercise it and we may grumble about the choices we have but we're darned sure not going to let a bunch of foreigners choose our leaders--what did we fight the revolution for if not the right to choose our idiot politicians ourselves?
As a Colorado resident and self proclamined "global" citizen I can said #3 is right. We've had eight years of civil liberties erosion.
Another problem with our election process is the staggering amount of money that comes from special interest groups and "action" organizations, often masquerading with religious names like "family" this and "kids" that. It's back door attempts at theocratic rule.
Fortunately when I travel abroad I meet plenty of sympathetic people towards those against Bush - and hope along with me that the tide is turning...
james
The primaries are one of the few opportunities where Americans actually have choices. There is no use of the idiotic "winner-take all" system, and there are more than two candidates that have a chance of being elected. Compare that to the general election, where it's typically the choice of the lesser of two evils, and your vote is irrelevant if you live in an area with a different ideological bent.
Regardless, there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction with the primaries. The fact that the media attempts to declare a winner long before Super Tuesday, thus rendering the majority of Americans' votes worthless (and there's still the states after Super Tuesday left in the cold). The immense need for money, and the influence of corporations. The fact that we don't have a modern vote counting system.
Democracy is a work in progress.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and supposedly Robert Kennedy Jr, are supporting Hillary. The media coverage indicates that "the Kennedys" are now supporting Obama. What's the deal with that?
Latest polls in the Super Duper Tuesday states do not look good for Obama.
California - Clinton leads 49% to Obama's 33%
New York - Clinton leads 56% to Obama's 28%
Massachussets - Clinton leads 59% to Obama's 22%
Alabama - Clinton leads 43% to Obama's 28%
Tennesse - Clinton leads 34% to Obama's 20%
New Jersey - Clinton leads 49% to Obama's 32%
Arizona - Clinton leads 37% to Obama's 27%
Connecticut - Clinton leads 41% to Obama's 27%
Oklahoma - Clinton leads 45% to Obama's 19%
Missouri - Clinton leads 44% to Obama's 31%
Obama is only ahead in 3 states - and one of those is statistically insignificant.
Illinois - Obama leads 51% to Clinton's 22%
Georgia - Obama leads 41% to Clinton's 35%
Colorado - Obama leads 34% to Clinton's 32%
Unless Obama gets a big mo soon (and these polls don't show it) then South Carolina could turn out to be a pyrrhic victory.
Dear Justin,
This is not your story and the quote is somewhat out-of-context ... all the same.
"George W Bush would never have become the 43rd US president without the backing of more than half of Florida's Latino voters."
Right. What is more than half of 537 votes? What is more than half of the Supreme Court? Who actually elected "the 43rd US president?"
Justice John Paul Stevens' anguished dissent still jangles. “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
Bush won by five votes from five Republicans ... who will the next President appoint?
I want to know what the candidates think about all manner of civil liberties ... habeas corpus ... CIA tapes ... and HR 1955?
These are the issues that are important to me. I'm very interested in MY domestic security, personal and intellectual. I long for the day American librarians can take down warning signs! Caution, your government records what you're reading. Caution, your professor might be a little too enthusiastic about Islamic contributions to medicine or poetry. Everyone knows Rumi was a terrorist, right?
Who will impartially guard our Constitution, as well as our shores?
Gosh, Mr. Webb, I hope we don't disappoint all of you.
We Americans know what "the world" hopes for in a President, because you and your colleagues keep telling us.
Except for Bush-hating Leftoids, though, most of us don't vote just to appease "friends of America". We vote for what we feel is actually right for our country, whether the ´óÏó´«Ã½ approves or not.
The title should be "British View". Sorry, that was a cheap shot. I am curious to hear from a staunchly conservative Brit to be honest. Is there just a lack of conservative viewpoints in Europe? Much of the viewpoints from that continent seem to be from the armchair and completely lack positive criticism in favor of spelling America, ‘Amerika’. Wow, how unique and well thought out!
I think I understand the Russians a little more now that I've lived under a leader the world loathes. The most frustrating part of it is living in a state, or region for that matter (Pacific Northwest), which often agrees with the opposing viewpoints from across the Atlantic but is equally trashed as Americans. If we looked at Europe as a whole and blame the whole for their trash, like the neo-Nazi party in former East Germany, then I think you guys might understand my frustration. The Brits being blamed for what is happening in East Germany! Imagine!
I think it's pretty obvious that non-Americans are often wildly hyper-critical about the US election process, and the US generally. It's important for Americans to have an understanding worldview, but we also need to realize no matter who is elected, the same annoying and pathologically cynical people will babble on about how Americans are just soooo stupid and that we're inferior in every way (which somehow makes *us* arrogant - I haven't figured that one out yet), and "Ha Ha - ALL Americans just LOVE GW Bush (since he got 100% of the vote and his approval rating are so high) and we all love war and are scared and brainwashed and blah, blah, blah." It's insanely childish and stupid. To Americans who worry so much and want to make it up to the world after the Bush years, I say - "DON'T BOTHER!" We actually don't owe them anything for the most part, and they'll STILL insult us and try to drag us down no matter who wins. That is just the reality of being the world's superpower. Despite the flaws in our system, I wouldn't trade it with any other. And that makes the obsessive America-bashers FURIOUS, which is good fun!
Go OBAMA, by the way!
Without a doubt, the best piece on America you - or the ´óÏó´«Ã½ - have ever published! No, sorry, not your blog frothy frippery, that marvelous link you so graciously provided to John Pilger's searing truth's. Ironically, you're right, Pilger's is a "mighty difficult argument to follow" - if, that is, you follow the "coverage" of these elections in the mainstream media. But for those of us that have always lived here and followed American politics, especially in foreign relations, it's all too distressingly true. And it's about time we all faced up to it and did something about it; including the complaisant media. John Pilger is that rare journalist, a man of courage and conscience, that we can all look up to. Would that America had such towering journalists that wouldn't flinch at the awful truth's that we've hidden from for so long. Thank you very much, sir for publishing this invaluable link; it's the best wake up call you could have rendered the supine American electorate and the fawning journalists that lullaby them.
Mr Webb, though very different, the two articles you provided links to arguably suffer from an undertone of reflexive anti-American hubris (both were patronising), and Mr Pilger, in making his closing arguments personal, appears to be engaging in the very thing he is ultimately criticising.
The US voting sytem may not be perfect, true, but neither is "mine" in the Netherlands - and it's epically boring to boot. So I'm with you on this one: "I find myself wondering..."
"Kennedy magic?" Only in Massachusetts and the UK, I'm afraid. Even among a significant number of Democrats, an endorsement by Ted Kennedy is a political kiss of death. Senator Obama will gain absolutely nothing from Kennedy's endorsement other than an albatross his opponents will tug to tighten round his neck whenever there is occasion.
Read 1984: "New Hampsier vote-rigging"? First absentee balads are used in every state. Tough they are the way in which people outside the state vote within that state, it would be impossible to track every single person in posession of them and make sure they won't abuse their purpose and try to pressure people into choosing their candidate. Also, I'm sure this happens in other countries-perhaps not as much, but if they do have a system similar to that of absentee balads, than I'm sure it does. Also there is a little bi-partison thing known as the "9/11 comission report". Influence is felt in all countries, and the comment on bombing Packistan was, I'm sure, just a way to show that although from a different party, he is no less capable of defending oru country-not just republicans. I'm sure it would never be employed.
As far as Janet Daley's predictions go, God I hope not!! If another republican wins then the rest of the world may as well cut all ties with us and watch us self-destruct!
Arguably, every presidential election in my lifetime (I was born in 1959) has been about change. Unfortunately, the fact that every candidate talks about change, doesn't mean every candidate knows what needs to be changed and how to go about it. While I agree that all the candidates talk about change this year, the media have not examined the candidates' specific plans and their abilities to implement change.
Of the Democrats, only Hillary Clinton has a record of proven effectiveness in bringing about incremental change. Only Hillary Clinton has shown the willingness to improvise after defeat and continue pursuing her objectives. When her massive health-care reform failed miserably, she rebounded and later passed the State children's health insurance program. Barak Obama is clearly inspiring but has been vague on specifics and has no real political record of success. He won his Senate race only after the incumbent Republican decided not to seek reelection and all his challengers self-destructed.
Most Republicans don't want change -- note Romney's desire to double the size of Guantánamo, McCain's intent to stay in Iraq for up to 50 years. Huckabee's hope of eliminating the IRS is risible and who will collect the FAIR tax?
Mr. Webb is right to point out that US voters want change. Now comes the hard part -- reporting on the specific ways each candidate wants to change America and how they plan to go about it. The resources and perspective of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ must focus on this reportorial challenge.
Perhaps Mr. Pilger is correct about the ´óÏó´«Ã½. Other folks in these forums have posed the questions directly as to why Ron Paul is not in the mainstream ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of the election......the coverage that your website claims to be "full coverage". It is far from full coverage (or unbiased coverage for that matter) when you only give space to the power-elite warmongers such as Clinton, McCain, Obama, and Ghuliani. You sweep everybody else under the carpet just as U.S mainstream media does. You fail to report on the real political records of these "sweethearts of the ´óÏó´«Ã½".
How about some balance and fairness....and some integrity and truth in journalism.
Obama is nowhere near finished, in fact it may be Hillary who can't really pull this out.
Check out this:
Remember that the Democratic primary is not winner take all. Currently, Obama leads in delegates and if Edwards stays in the race he might end up being the king (or queen) maker for the Party.
As an American who votes, all I can say is that it's nice to finally have *some* choice in candidates. And I'll just try to stay exited about that.
There are two distinctive approaches to representative democracy in the UK and the US, related by blood and history, and no one could honestly claim either is without virtue or fault.
On the other side of admiration for the American election process, some of us in the States envy your ability to remove a governing party without having to wait four or eight years, and your general election campaigns, which are short, without as much hype as ours, and which provide a media platform for each party that presumably removes raising huge sums of campaign money from the equation.
It is also some time since we've enjoyed a US press 'pack' who are willing, as those in the UK, to confront the politicos and ask hard, often nasty questions, the answers to which are required in an open society.
i've been hearing about this presidential election for the past 2 years now and how important it will be. it's just too bad that my vote will never count. the way that we Americans elect out president is a joke, any real candidates that promote real change are ridiculed to obscurity. those with the most money and popularity will always win, the only thing that changes is the political ideology in command.
get rid of the electoral college and let the populous decide would help a bunch.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better."
-Abraham Lincoln
I wouldn't worry too much about John Pilger's opinion, Justin. These days he's not so much a journalist as a medical curiosity.
"To Americans who worry so much and want to make it up to the world after the Bush years, I say - "DON'T BOTHER!" We actually don't owe them anything for the most part, and they'll STILL insult us and try to drag us down no matter who wins."
I can understand that Americans are sick to the teeth of being vilified because of George Bush. It doesn't mean that everybody carries the same attitude. I have expressed positive opinions about the US election process (even though I feel the same way as most of the world about Bush) and been shouted down for daring to have an opinion of any sort. I know that doesn't mean all Americans would shout me down for having an opinion (though if I went by my personal experience it might point to that conclusion).
Like it or not, the world is affected, sometimes in very direct ways, by US policy, and the world will inevitably have an opinion about it. And no, most people will not insult you "no matter who wins" the election. I think you will find you would get a lot of support for your support of Obama.
I'm sorry, having lived in the USA for the past three Presidential elections before this one, I do not share Justin's enthusiasm. Voter turn out in the real elections in the USA are just the same as in the UK. General apathy is the same.
What is different here in the UK is, in spite of the convergence of parties into the middle ground, elections are still more about issues than personalities. The primaries are a personality contest celebrity fest. There is very little real substantive discussion of policy. All the candidates spout the same uber-patriotism that would be laughed off screen in Europe. "The land of the free" yesterday from Rudy being a prime example.
Very little coverage of the endemic corruption in the political system in the USA, which I witnessed when I lived there. UK citizens pining for US style democracy should understand they are govered by saints compared to the financial shenanigans in Washington.
Pilger is an embittered one trick pony, but hey, if people are still willing to read his rants, bully for him.
I do wish the world press would BACK OFF their microscopic analysis of these early primaries and attempts to draw national conclusions from local turnouts, as if what happened in the deep South tells you what's going to happen in the Pacific NW. First there was the international hand-wringing and tut tutting over Huckabee's strong showing in Iowa. Then the clucking about the "Obamamonster", Bill Clinton's peppery comments, and the Kennedy endorsement. (International pundits, please note: Ted Kennedy does NOT carry much national influence. IOW, Vote Quimby.)
Please, take a breather for a few days. Go whinge about rogue French traders for a bit. Come back after Super Tuesday.
Neither Daley nor Pilger should be taken seriously. Pilger's article is laughable. I had to keep checking the date; I felt like I was in a time warp. What's scary about the left is that they consider their views to be axiomatic. They no longer see the need for outdated bourgeois concepts like evidence, or argument.
As for read_1984's comments on what journalists should "really" be investigating, I suppose part of a journalist's job is to report on aspects of a story that may be unfamiliar to their readers or viewers. These days, reflex anti-americanism is so common and so often based, apparently, on zero knowledge, that journalists need to tell the other side. However, for the anti-american left, their side is always "the other side", always the perspective that should be reported on. That's what happens when the rebels end up forming the establishment.
Serious question:
As a riveted observer of the US electoral process can someone explain to me what is the Kennedy 'magic'?
With all the world, and Americans in particular, now knowing a great deal about the Kennedys, why is Edward Kennedy is still in the Senate?
I would have thought that Mr Obama viewed a Kennedy endorsement as the kiss of death.
"I'm sure this happens in other countries-perhaps not as much, but if they do have a system similar to that of absentee balads, than I'm sure it does."
Remain confident - it does! And in the UK it's much more corrupt in that a political party can manipulate the system to decide in which constituency they wish these absentee ballots to be placed.
And they do, oh my, they do.
Kennedy endorsement?
I was surprised to learn that there was still a real live Kennedy kicking around!
But then I'm an Englishman from far away and long ago.
Neither Daley nor Pilger should be taken seriously. Pilger's article is
laughable. I had to keep checking the date; I felt like I was in a time
warp. What's scary about the left is that they consider their views to
be axiomatic. They no longer see the need for outdated bourgeois
concepts like evidence, or argument.
As for read_1984's comments on what journalists should "really" be
investigating, I suppose part of a journalist's job is to report on
aspects of a story that may be unfamiliar to their readers or viewers.
These days, reflex anti-americanism is so common and so often based,
apparently, on zero knowledge, that journalists need to tell the other
side. However, for the anti-american left, their side is always "the
other side", always the perspective that should be reported on. That's
what happens when the rebels end up forming the establishment.
I had no problem going to thr Pilger site and giving him enough information to get him out of his siberian state of mind