The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for

[metta 0]

[/size]The world's verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for

Jonathan Freedland

The Guardian,

Wednesday September 10 2008The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."

In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together, and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom.

Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly. More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce.

So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.

So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.

We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a "rhetorical" question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m "Bridge to Nowhere" project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.

She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed "per diem" allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house.

Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a "Christianist" - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - "really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God".

If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.

But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.

The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was "Drill, baby, drill!", as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

· freedland@guardian.co.uk

Edited September 10, 2008 by metta

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I rather suspect that "anti-americanism" will be defined by the administration's policies, rather than by knee-jerk reactions to personalities.

[peejay 327]

You really have to wonder why people elsewhere in the world that hate America yearn for a particular candidate in our elections. Some on the list I would even go so far as to say are our enemies. What's up with that?

For now I'm still an independent voter but leaning hard in one direction. Earlier in the year I stated on VJ that I probably wasn't going to vote in this presidential election, but that was then and this is now. I'm going to vote for my senator that is up for reelection. I'm still waiting for the presidential debates to seal the deal on that race. I don't know. So far, Obama hasn't really lit a fire under my chair. Change? I think most of the younger generation has no concept of the old style Daley Machine Democrat. The faces change, but it's the same old sh*t. Anything but Bush, right? Yeah, right!

Imagine Chicago style politics on a national level. It's change, but...

[IAMX 3,055]

While I share this guy's sentiment for how ###### up things will be if another Republican gets into office, he's also letting polls get to him far too much. Just wait until freaking November before you start panicking.

You really have to wonder why people elsewhere in the world that hate America yearn for a particular candidate in our elections. Some on the list I would even go so far as to say are our enemies. What's up with that?

Well, that's because, those of us who realize other countries exist, have a vested interest in who becomes President elsewhere.

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Even if Obama fails to win the presidency, I would suggest that for the rest of the world to come back when they have a serious candidate for leadership in their country of a racial minority before lecturing us about our failings to "see beyond race."

[HAL 9000 96]

You really have to wonder why people elsewhere in the world that hate America yearn for a particular candidate in our elections. Some on the list I would even go so far as to say are our enemies. What's up with that?

For now I'm still an independent voter but leaning hard in one direction. Earlier in the year I stated on VJ that I probably wasn't going to vote in this presidential election, but that was then and this is now. I'm going to vote for my senator that is up for reelection. I'm still waiting for the presidential debates to seal the deal on that race. I don't know. So far, Obama hasn't really lit a fire under my chair. Change? I think most of the younger generation has no concept of the old style Daley Machine Democrat. The faces change, but it's the same old sh*t. Anything but Bush, right? Yeah, right!

Imagine Chicago style politics on a national level. It's change, but...

So... assuming you know what there is to know about Chicago style politics... I wonder how different that is from Washington politics. My guess... after living here in Chicago on and off throughout my life- is that there isn't much of a difference.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

So - france, canada and italy don't have democratic elections? Interesting. I would have thought the last thing french voters would do is let the yanquis tell them how to vote.

[IAMX 3,055]

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

So - france, canada and italy don't have democratic elections? Interesting. I would have thought the last thing french voters would do is let the yanquis tell them how to vote.

So someone suggested they don't have Democratic elections? Interesting.

So if, by your logic, French voters vote for French Presidents, why is it because some idiot gives his opinion about America's President, that voting for this person means the world is voting for him, not the American people?

Yet again, hypocrisy.

[HAL 9000 96]

Even if Obama fails to win the presidency, I would suggest that for the rest of the world to come back when they have a serious candidate for leadership in their country of a racial minority before lecturing us about our failings to "see beyond race."

Well there are some folks that think that across the board, the racial minorities throughout much of the civilized world behave in a very "characteristic fashion"... and as such would make selecting such leadership potential much more difficult in [country of choice] due to the very different racial proportions in that same location. Plus it is no secret that contrary to what these same people believe... government policies in many of these countries are much more inclusive of these racial minorities once legalized as nationals in said places. Where marginalization tends to occur much less than what we still see here in the USA. Ironic.

And yes... some of those countries really do have race problems. There are some things time has a hard time of erasing. Specially in mainly homogeneous populations with recently changing demographics.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

So - france, canada and italy don't have democratic elections? Interesting. I would have thought the last thing french voters would do is let the yanquis tell them how to vote.

So someone suggested they don't have Democratic elections? Interesting.

So if, by your logic, French voters vote for French Presidents, why is it because some idiot gives his opinion about America's President, that voting for this person means the world is voting for him, not the American people?

Yet again, hypocrisy.

sorry - I missed your sarcasm in the original post. My sarcasm detector is broke today.

[Ban Hammer 14,286]

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

So - france, canada and italy don't have democratic elections? Interesting. I would have thought the last thing french voters would do is let the yanquis tell them how to vote.

[IAMX 3,055]

American pressure is exactly how Calderon, Harper, Berlusconi, and Sarkozy got into office. You just evidently aren't aware of the pressure Americans put on other countries. Maybe it's xenophobia and the evil countries are trying to invade America by.. giving their opinion. Either way, it's hypocrisy.

So - france, canada and italy don't have democratic elections? Interesting. I would have thought the last thing french voters would do is let the yanquis tell them how to vote.

sorry - I missed your sarcasm in the original post. My sarcasm detector is broke today.

Fail, charles.

You're getting old. And slow.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I fail to see why when we are going to choose our next president that we have to worry about the rest of the world thinks.

Eventually we will elect someone that our so called friends will like and then they will come back to us with hands out stretched.

[HAL 9000 96]

I fail to see why when we are going to choose our next president that we have to worry about the rest of the world thinks.

Eventually we will elect someone that our so called friends will like and then they will come back to us with hands out stretched.

Some let themselves think what others outside of the USA think. Al Qaeda comes to mind.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Well there are some folks that think that across the board, the racial minorities throughout much of the civilized world behave in a very "characteristic fashion"... and as such would make selecting such leadership potential much more difficult in [country of choice] due to the very different racial proportions in that same location. Plus it is no secret that contrary to what these same people believe... government policies in many of these countries are much more inclusive of these racial minorities once legalized as nationals in said places. Where marginalization tends to occur much less than what we still see here in the USA. Ironic.

And yet, I can think of only a handful of MPs in Britain who are black - none of whom have risen to significant positions of leadership.

While I don't for a minute dismiss the problems minorities face in this country, the idea that they have it all figured out in Europe is laughable. I guess the riots in France 3 years ago never happened, or that when black British actors complained they have to come to the US to get work, they are lying. Or my ears deceive me when I hear monkey noises at football matches in Spain.