Democracy Calling

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

Hello, this is democracy calling. Whatever you read in the coming months, the American primaries are not another transatlantic electoral fiasco. They are the opposite. They are a nation testing its potential leaders by openly arguing, wavering, splitting, befriending, feuding, cohering and ultimately validating. Would that other democracies did the same. When so much about American democracy is murky, its elections, warts and all, are what America should be trumpeting to the world, not its ideological sanctimony or its military firepower.

This is all the more true since today there is not one American president to be voted into office but two. One belongs to domestic America but the other belongs to the world. The first president is America's business. While those who know and love that country may be concerned at its economic and political health -- and therefore intrigued by the contest -- this president is the one most voters have in mind.

The globalized president is a different matter. This leader must represent America's values -- and consequent actions -- everywhere that is touched by American policy. His or her decisions benefit or afflict millions of people, rich and poor, in dozens of countries on every continent. Yet they have no vote.

Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Colombians, Brazilians, Russians, Chinese have no means of saying yes or no to decisions taken in Washington that may intimately affect their families, their security, their jobs and prospects. Nobody accounts to them or invites them to any caucus. Few of them enjoy democratic privileges even in their own countries. Yet the next president of the United States can mean life or death.

When I was in Pakistan recently, I asked a former army officer how he intended to vote in his forthcoming elections. He said he would vote for a religious party, an answer that surprised me. But it was, he said, the only way a Pakistani could vote against George Bush.

The man was expressing a now widespread aversion to America, especially in Europe and Asia. It is not usually an antagonism to Americans or to America's democracy or culture. It is a response to aggressive policies with which many profoundly disagree yet over which they have no control, other than by punishing those they see as America's collaborators.

I believe that this so-called "crisis of anti-Americanism" derives from nothing more complex than a bitter sense of disenfranchisement. For all the words spoken on globalization, few are expended on accountability. The greatest irony of modern history is that this sense of personal disempowerment, which the whole American enterprise was founded to correct, should now be directed against America itself. The arrogance of George III has become the arrogance of George Bush.

All three presidential candidates have qualifications to be this global president. In public statements they have acknowledged the strategic mistakes made in America's attempt to police the world through a "war on terror." All have proposals for restoring America relations with the world. Leadership cannot exist if others will not follow. America cannot regulate the world under Bush's banner that "he who is not with us is against us." It does not work.

The candidates for the global presidency will not be judged by experience, programme, oratory or novelty. They will not be judged by the prospect of likely success in office, which is always unknowable in foreign affairs. Few American presidents are seen to have been successes on leaving office. The art of presidency is that of managing perceived failure.

The candidates will rather be judged by what they symbolise, by the package of expectations that they carry with them to the White House. Here it is simply incontrovertible that the election of Barack Obama would transform, indeed electrify, America's image worldwide.

Monochrome would become colour. A drone of antagonism would turn into a cry of pleasure. With the genes of an Irish/American and a Kenyan, and the nurture of Hawaii, Indonesia and Chicago, Obama has personal roots in four continents. In choosing a president for a world half of which America seeks to evangelise, voters could hardly find a candidate better cast. He embodies a yearning expectation of a new contract and a new beginning.

Obama's novelty remains a strength and a weakness, but there is no excuse for regarding him as shallow. Not only is he a serving senator but his elegant early memoir, Dreams from my Father, and his more recent The Audacity of Hope reveal a remarkably thoughtful and complex man with a gift for language and an acute sense of the world about him.

These books display no anguish in Obama's ambiguous identity, but an awareness of its richness. He offers the calmest discussion of the politics of race that I have read. He is conscious of the tension between America's battered interventionism and John Quincy Adams's warning "not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, nor become the dictatress of the world." The issues are not discussed in the manner of an ingénue.

Obama's published prospectus must raise expectations, especially abroad, that no president could possibly meet, but it gives his candidature a substance that I had not expected from his platform performances. They offer not the remotest justification for Clinton implying that he is a security risk.

All this may cut no ice among the famously pragmatic American electorate. In election year voters have domestic concerns and the outside world is seen through the far end of the telescope. But they should bear in mind that they are electing not one president but two. When they go to the polls, they carry with them the eager proxies of half the world.

Comments

[wingman1]

Superb post Simon.

[dawlishgal]

I travel to the UK quite a bit (although not enough to suit ME). I have noticed a change in attitude towards Americans there....during Bush's first term people were kind of concerned and a bit worried, then a lot more worried after our invasion of Iraq (especially since Bush had dragged Blair into the fray (at least a lot of the Brits thought so). People I met wanted to talk politics and they were unfailingly polite, no matter how I responded to their questions.

That all changed after Bush was reelected. Then what I heard was things like, "Are you people CRAZY?" "Are YOU people trying to start World War III?" Stuff like that.

It is no wonder that polls show that people are more afraid of Bush and the US and regard us now as the biggest threat to world peace.

We badly need to elect a candidate who is willing to prove to the rest of the world that the opinions of others do matter to us.

[research]

The rest of the world is appalled at the controlling effect of the MSM war profiteering corporations in the political process.

Kucinich and others didn't even get to debate, not because they weren't popular, but because the weren't corporatist.

[marignymitch]

Mr Jenkins:

So the world is feeling disinfranchised? As an American I relate. And I'm glad the world knows in part what it's like to be an American these days. Junior's constituency is not the American people or the world; it is the plutocrats of the military and oil industries and Wall Street, plus Israel, for whom the Iraq war has been a whopping success.

Consider this: The presidency was stolen for Junior by the Supreme Court in 2000, and the 2004 election victory remains suspect. Then came the 'unitary executive'; tax cuts for the rich; illegal invasion of Iraq; illegal domestic spying; establishment of concentration camps; torture; repeal of the 4th Amendment; politicization of the Justice Department; Libby's pardon; upcoming invasion of Iran; and failure to prosecute Executive Branch crooks, such as Junior, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rove et al.

While all three branches of government colluded in these crimes against the nation and the world many Americans opposed them but were powerless to stop the insanity. We remain powerless today, even with a Democratic majority in Congress. Plus we have an indifferent electorate, which routinely has voted against its interests the past 30 years. I therefore am less than optimistic that one election can turn the tide of totalitarianism. So many Americans seems to be OK with it.

P.S. You were kidding about the 'pragmatic' American voter, right?

[MPeter]

Associated Press - April 7, 2008 4:04 PM ET

HELENA, Mont. (AP) - Montana superdelegate Margaret Campbell says she is being forced to retract her endorsement of Barack Obama.

Campbell is a state lawmaker from Poplar, and vice chairwoman of the state party.

Earlier today she said she was endorsing Obama, after the Illinois senator and rival Hillary Clinton visited Montana over the weekend.

A short time later, Campbell said Montana Democratic Party rules prevented her from endorsing a candidate in a contested primary.

Obama did pick up the backing of Jeanne Lemire Dahlman, a national committeewoman. However, Dahlman says she may reconsider if Montana voters pick Clinton in the state's June 3rd primary.

With Dahlman,

[appleknocker]

"Famously pragmatic American electoral"? Unless "pragmatic" is a Brit euphemism for "mindless", you can't be referring to my fellow Americans, who "famously" and consistently vote against their own interests. What pragmatist, for example, would consider gay marriage a relevant political issue? Or be swayed by a flag pin? The "arguing" you refer to is empty verbiage and trash talk having nothing to do with serious issues. This election, like every other, will be a personality contest.

[tea in the harbor]

Probably the most intelligent post I've seen! Like lemmings to some proverbial cliff, members of both party's march lock-step to their own demise. My hope is that the discourse we enjoy here can bring forward a discussion between people and therefore make true Democracy, which we do not currently enjoy, possible. In November, when the distraction is over, We have much to do!

[dadw5boys]

I am American and I feel ANTI- AMERICAN the longer Bush is in office.

I wish Ron Paul would get onboard with Hillary as Vice Presdient.

The USA culd hold it's head up again as they get the USA out of other countries business and away from the World Bank that uses loans and bribes to get control of the natural resources of other countries.

I don't like being ashamed of being an American.

Think Bush will enjoy that 1 million ac. ranch they gave him in Portugal????
The Oil Companies got their money's worth.

[AreYouFibbing]

OMG.....another blatant ad for Obama. He is a serving U.S. Senator, who has barely bothered to be there, who has not called even one meeting of the committee he chairs, who does not even give the impression he is patriotic (but is now peppering his speeching with patriotic banter on the advice of his camp), sat in a church for over 20 years listening to reverse racism and anti-american spew....sorry, but I believe you are way off base here. Obama needs seasoning before he is handed even one more job.

[nk007]

AreYouFibbing:

Amazing! Do you that enslaved Africans had to be "seasoned" before they were certified as humble, meek and obedient slaves! Is that the kind of "seasoning" you want Mr. Obama to undergo? Is it anti-american to point out that America for Rev. Wright to point out the self-evident sins of America? Why on't you just be frank and show your true colors!

[Hilleluiah]

Well that sounds like a great case for an Ambassadorship position and if that's what Senator Obama wants to be, then more power to him. As for the presidency of the United States, he will get my vote in 2016 when I feel comfortable with our position in the economy, the end of the Iraq war, and the kitchen table issues affecting every day Americans. The US should be concerned with cleaning it's own back yard, before going abroad and telling others how to clean theirs. There in lies the US's problem. It's always ready to stick their nose in other people's affairs before fixing their own; sometimes making the situation worse. We are not the only superpower on this planet and it's time that the rest of the developed nations start carrying their weight and contributing to the social welfare of the planet that we all live on.

[hippynanainblingland]

Hilleluiah: You say that "it's time that the rest of the developed nations start carrying their weight and contributing (sic) to the social welfare of the planet that we al live on." Oh, for sure, like we're doing such a great job!

You mean the rest of the world such step up on having universal health care, lower neo-natal death rates, better care of new mothers and elders, longer lives, better, free educational systems, a more advanced awareness of "greenness", smaller, if not nonexistent, militaries? (the list is long: I cannot think of all the things that would apply)

Oh, for sure they all have their problems, but If it were at all possible, I would emigrate, even if I had to pay more taxes to support the social net. This country needs to get past adolescence.

Peace, Hippy Nana

[wmfor]

"We are not the only superpower on this planet and it's time that the rest of the developed nations start carrying their weight and contributing to the social welfare of the planet that we all live on."

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at, but you appear to be suggesting that the other industrialized countries should be waging a few wars of aggression or at least joining us in ours. That is how we are contributing to the welfare of the planet isn't it?

[Hilleluiah]

I think I explained myself below.

[tea in the harbor]

Three comments, nearly six hundred words, and not a single FACT! Fascinating. You may find, as I have, that opinions carry more weight when seasoned with an occasional statement that cannot be refuted without resorting to illusion.

[Hilleluiah]

When the US sent military envoy to remove a democratically elected president in Haiti, that was sticking our nose in other people's affairs. People in that country are dying left and right or being kidnapped for ransom, where is the military help now?

When we say that we want to broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, when we clearly have an alliance with Israel, how can we be seen as an objective negotiator?

When we used the Taliban to help us fight the Russians and then walked away, what reaction do you think that created?

We have military presence around the world. Can you imagine a foreign country having a military presence here?

When we say that we want to liberate the people of Iraq, where women were doctors, lawyers, etc. but we're holding hands with Saudia Arabia where women aren't allowed to drive, something doesn't add up.

The rest of the world is looking to the US to take the lead on Global Warming. Well, if we don't make that our priority, why can't one of the European countries take the initiative that we can follow?

I understand that countries don't have friends, but they do have political interests and at the top of that list should be the interests of its own citizens.

[Hallucinocynic]

I agree with all of your observations. But, taken in combination with your comments further down the thread, I'm wondering what political direction you're headed... Your comments regarding Barack Obama, and your potential support for an Obama run in 2016 seems to indicate that you're not supporting him during this election cycle. If not, who are you backing? Or are you suggesting that no one in the field will lead an administration that would meet the yardstick you've provided? Frankly, I'm not encouraged to believe that Hillary Clinton would do any better a job than BO, and perhaps would not make as an assiduous effort to meet the challenges you've described. McCain? I can't believe you'd head in that direction... I have misgivings about each of the Democratic candidates and believe that there are several better options that have been forced off the table, so perhaps that's what you were implying?

[hippynanainblingland]

Hilleluiah: There's another comment by me in response to your first comment on this page, which I wrote before I read your second comment. Like Tea in the Harbor, I agree that your second comment is much better, and I see that our concerns and awarenesses are not very different from each other, though I still think that the points I made in my first post are relevant.

Thanks for your insight and intelligence, sister. Peace, Hippy Nana

[tea in the harbor]

Much better.(Not that I have the right to judge, just my opinion.) I agree with every point you make, there are very few problems in the world that we have not had a hand in, and I believe that is due to our two party system , which allows only two points of view, both bought by corporations. We may disagree on candidates, but our agreement on the problems is far more important, and our ability to communicate this way can take us in the direction we all seek! I also believe it will be We the People that actually make the progress we seek, the President is merely a symbol! Presidents did not start the civil rights movement, the struggle for gender equality, or the environmental movement, they begrudgingly joined these struggles only after WE demanded it!

[AnninCA]

*blink*

He's disenfranchising MI and FL, and he's the new wave?

Oh please........

[tea in the harbor]

"He's disenfranchising MI and FL" What? He signed a pledge, and he is standing by it! Why is that so objectionable to you? He did not vote on primary dates in either state, he did not make the rules he pledged to obey, he is simply keeping his word. What part of that is so difficult to understand? More importantly, why isn't it the norm?

[CitizenE]

In the end, whomever the American electorate puts into the office of President will be judged by the world in how he or she responds to the myriad global problems that face the world while in office. Whomver it is will be starting with an enormous deficit in worldwide disfavor created by the last 8 years and unrealistic (unless perhaps Mc Cain is elected, which will merely exacerbate the problem) hopes for change. This will be a dichotomy that will effect Obama more than Clinton, for good and ill. Obama will definitely be given a honeymoon period on a worldwide basis that Clinton will not be afforded. On the other hand, he will be facing an almost insurmountable task of putting Humpty Dumpty together again, not very likely, if we are honest. Nonetheless, for the world and our nation, it appears we have the possibility of a leader who will grow and even perhaps be equal to his time. I hope he wins the nomination and the election.

[Heidfeld]

And just to provide another prospective to that of Mr. Jenkins.

Aside from hating our foreign policy, most people in the world despise American culture. Consumerism, fads, get rich quick schemes, salesman... All of which are perfectly embodied by Mr. Obama.

If he wins, instead of cursing us as they did with Bush, they will just laugh at us instead.

[CaptainObvious]

Right. They hate us for our freedom.

[Heidfeld]

Ok, can we have just a small does of reality here? The majority of the world wants to see Hillary Clinton be our next president. Sure, in some liberal circles in some countries (a sub-set of a sub-set) there is support for Obama... but as I said, the majority want Clinton. That is the REALITY of the situation.

Also, I'd love to know how all of you think his being black will automatically heal so many wounds? I'd love to know not only how his being black makes gives him an advantage in foreign policy (laughable), but also how your statements to that effect make you any different than Geraldine Ferraro? You people are so delisionaly it is scary!


As a young (famous 20-30 bracket) American living abroad, allow me to offer some personal experiences on the matter. Many of my workmates (around my age) have taken notice of Obama. They ask me about him, and now that they know that I don't support him (cause I am capable of objective thought), they like to tease me about his winning. So, on the surface, they seem to like him.

However, if I ask any of them why they 'want' him to win, they can't answer. If I ask them to tell me what they know about him, they can't answer. Best of all, when I ask them if they would want him to be the president/PM of their country, to which the answer is always NO.

[PhDiva]

Abroad where? It's a big world. Are you in South Africa or Spain. It makes a difference.

[Hallucinocynic]

People are people, everywhere. Some lean left, some lean right, some are clueless. I have business partners in Canada, Scotland and Germany. The view that is shared - WHEN it is shared - is that HRC will probably perpetuate the current administration policies (which is comforting to some folks in those three countries, while especially disconcerting to others). The surprising thing to me is how well-informed our colleagues are regarding the American political landscape - much better than we are about theirs! But I wouldn't try to draw any conclusions based on casual conversations with a few business colleagues, any more than I would try to draw specific conclusions based on the propaganda that is presented by either campaign.

[Joshuaack]

Look, Heidfeld, I live in the UK and have lived in Italy, with close friends in both countries. The vast majority of them would like Obama to be president of the US. Sure theirs is mostly a gut feeling, but you can't really blame them for not caring enough to investigate his policies: after all they can't vote in the States. My point is, your evidence about everyone abroad wanting Clinton to be pres is just as good as mine about everyone wanting Obama instead, that is, anecdotal at best and not so much. Also this whole thing about Clinton supporters calling Obama supporters cultists and O supporters calling C supporters ignorant or whatever is becoming so very tiresome. You like her better and I respect that: can you respect me for liking him better?

[Heidfeld]

The whole point of the blog (which is what I was responding to), is that the president isn't just the president of the US, but also of the world (to put it simply). The assumption, then, is that if they support someone for a position which affects them, then they should know a little something about that person. Logical, no?

These people whom we have encountered who "would like" to see Obama win, are making a whimsical decision at best. If they did actually have the authority to vote, I suspect they would take the decision a little more seriously.

As I said in another reply, the few people I work with obviously do no represent the sentiments of the billions around the world.... but as Mr. Jenkens claims that everyone wants Obama, I claim that the rest of the world does not think like Anglo-American progressives do. Even European progessives seem quite different from their American counterparts.

The premise of the blog is flawed... and further, if only due to pure name recognition, the reality is that Hillary would win in some sort of 'world-wide election.'

[wmfor]

"These people whom we have encountered who 'would like' to see Obama win, are making a whimsical decision at best."

At the risk of sounding too too cynical, I will note that all too many Americans I talk to have made "whimsical decisions" on Presidential candidates.

Of course, our MSM sure are aiding and abetting them by constantly playing up non-issues. This is the same MSM that told us in 2000 that George W. Bush would be a great guy to have a beer with. Someone should ask the German Chancellor if he was. Then we can breath a sigh of relief that the right guy was elected.

[tea in the harbor]

Maybe I can help your friends. Issue 1. Predatory lending. Both candidates have introduced bills. Hillary's bill calls for "Disclosure" of the practices, Obama's Bill makes it illegal. Issue 2. The War. Obama has been against it from day one, Hillary voted for it, and is now saying that for some reason his opposition shouldn't count before he was in the Senate,and that she spoke against it first if you do that, which is a lie! Obama spoke out TO Condoleeza Rice in his first meeting on the foreign relations committee, over a week before the statements she she made. Issue 3. Trustworthiness. Obama is criticized for statements by his Pastor and a few surrogates, Hillary herself has made the following untrue statements; snipers in Bosnia, the tragic death of a pregnant woman in Ohio, her role in NAFTA, and her role in Peace negotiations in Ireland. Issue 4. Organizational Ability. Hillary started this race as the front runner, she had the support of Bill's winning advisers and fundraisers, and is now a distant second to someone who was unknown when she started. Obama has put together from scratch an organization 1.3 million donors, and over ten thousand volunteers in just over one year, resulting in his lead in every statistically relevant category. This is just the surface. If you have an interest in "Objective thought," I suggest you find the rest yourself, it will mean much more that way!

[Heidfeld]

Again, objective thinkers (and my argument is predicated on the fact that most non-Americans are more objective since they haven't been tainted by the media, party history/identification...) see the candidates for what they really are.

Objectively, they laugh when a guy like Obama tries to dismiss Hillary's experience, when sorely lacking his own. They realize that a brilliant person who spends 8 years watching and helping their spouse do something just might learn a thing or two about it in the process.

They realize that giving an anti-war speech while you are a nobody doesn't mean that you have some amazing judgement that will lead you to make every decision perfectly for 4 years.

They realize that this is Bush's war, and that in reality Hillary has nothing to do with it.

And for those in hear that claim that she "voted for war", I claim that you are not a real member of the party. The democrats I know understand sublety, nuance, and the complicated realities of the world. They understand the difference between an authorization used to push the UN, and given with a brilliant speach clearing outlining the issues at hand, and backing for the war.

[speakeasy]

Ah, the classic narcissist. You think HRC will win so its only fair to think that we all think like you. Talk about delusionary. See what you want to see, hear what you want to hear. HRC was the early frontrunner and the rest of the world jumped right to her because anyone would do against Bush. Now that there is another choice, people are taking notice and changing their vote.

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

I'm thrilled to read that you're "capable of objective thought, while insulted by the insinuation. Now tell me how your objectivity led you to a conclusion about all the nonAmericans of the world preferring Hillary based on your highly-unscientific, personal, little poll.

[Heidfeld]

Um, again... it is called REALITY people. Do you think anyone in Eastern Europe supports Obama (if they even know who he is)? Do you think anyone in Asia likes Obama (outside of the few people who know he grew up in Southeast Asia)?

Sure, a lot is just name regocnition... from all the work she did around world. You know, the stuff Obamabots like to brush off as unimportant... well it made an impression on some people. See the info about all the streets named after Hillary in the world.

But as much of it relates to people knowing her name through Bill, it is equal parts the perspective of other people. Most non-Americans obviously see things more objectively than americans do... and what do they see? They see a young guy with no experience, they probably don't understand English, so his MLK rip-off preaching cadence is lost on them.

Right or wrong, they are going with basic judgements. They see a Woman with a lot of experience and a lot of toughness, and they see an untested young guy that makes gets crowds excited. They realize the impilications for the world, and so they go with the sure thing.

My personal annecdote was just that... it wasn't intended to be extrapolated into some worldwide consensus. One thing, in my opinion, would probably be true across many cultures: those who find Obama appealing wouldn't want him as their leader.