BarraCain? Does it matter?

[lucy]

Ok, i just hope i am not starting a flame thread here, but i have a serious question to all the Americans in this community.

Seeing that there are quite a couple of threads already dealing with every detail of every pro and contra of the two candidates, i thought about it whether Obama and McCain really are so different in their opinions. If i am not completely misinformed (which is entirely possible, given the constant anti-Americanism in most media. Oh my, now that would be fodder for just another uber-long thread...) both McCain and Obama seem to be capable of thinking. And i had the impression that McCain wouldn't exactly mean four years more of Bush-politics. But i may be wrong.

So, does it really matter who's going to be the next president of the USA?

[Laila]

I'm not an American obviously... but I want to say something anyway because I am not so sure every American gets this. But the way you guys vote - its not just about you. Its about the whole world and all of us have to live with your decision.

I think that's one of the key factors of why the anti-Americanism peaked up so much recently. I mean I remember a time not too long ago where America was the coolest country in the world to us (Germans). And today its mostly a cause to roll our eyes with that frustrated helplessness that many of us Europeans feel. Its because for the past 8 years we had to live with your decision - and the first 4 - ok, granted, people vote for strange people for strange reasons (can't say that we Germans don't have our experiences with that) but after he was re-elected, I think many of us lost a lot of faith in American voters. Because it DOES matter who you vote for. It matters to me, to Germans, British, Italians, Iraniens... but we can't vote. You can.

[Thorne]

Unfortunately, whether it matters or not is not really the point. The point is that we have to elect one of these two, regardless of how we feel about either of them.

Given the choices available 8 years ago, and even 4 years ago, Bush was, or seemed to be, the lesser of two evils. Now we have to choose between Obama and McCain and, to be honest, there isn't much to be said for either of them. But does anyone really think that an independent could overturn the stranglehold the Republicans and Democrats have on American politics? Not likely!

In my mind, these two got the nomination simply because they were the least objectionable of all the available candidates. Sad to say but in reality I don't think either of them is right for the job. And one thing to worry about, which is even more important this year than in many previous elections, is the Vice President.

I'm ashamed to have to say it, but there are far too many "Americans" who see only the color of Obama's skin. I'm afraid there could be serious racial repercussions if he is elected. That could mean Biden taking over the job, and I don't see anything really redeeming about him, either.

And for the Republicans, McCain's age is something to worry about as well. The job is stressful enough as it is. Having to take over with the world in such a financial crisis will make things even harder. I foresee a very real possibility of Palen having to take control, something which is also not too palatable.

All in all this country, and I suppose the rest of the world, is going to have to hold their collective breaths and hope that whoever gets the job will have the courage and stamina to actually get the job done!

[Ragoczy]

I'm not an American obviously... but I want to say something anyway because I am not so sure every American gets this. But the way you guys vote - its not just about you. Its about the whole world and all of us have to live with your decision.

I think that's one of the key factors of why the anti-Americanism peaked up so much recently. I mean I remember a time not too long ago where America was the coolest country in the world to us (Germans). And today its mostly a cause to roll our eyes with that frustrated helplessness that many of us Europeans feel. Its because for the past 8 years we had to live with your decision - and the first 4 - ok, granted, people vote for strange people for strange reasons (can't say that we Germans don't have our experiences with that) but after he was re-elected, I think many of us lost a lot of faith in American voters. Because it DOES matter who you vote for. It matters to me, to Germans, British, Italians, Iraniens... but we can't vote. You can.

With all due respect, when it comes to electing who leads my country, I base my decision on who I think will do the best job without a lot of regard for any "frustrated helplessness" or "eye rolling" the rest of the world may choose to engage in.

And I'd hope that all Americans would make that choice based on what they believe is in the long-term best interest of the country, rather than than how "cool" the rest of the world thinks we are -- we're talking about the President of a nation of 300,000,000 people here, not President of the Senior Class ... "cool" shouldn't enter into it at all.

I see a significant difference between the two candidates: one is far-Left (one of the most Liberal Senators we have) and the other's Center-Right.

I'm opposed to big government, entitlement programs and policies that encourage reliance on government instead of self-reliance -- so I'll be voting for McCain.

I'm opposed to government confiscation of private property through eminant domain for purposes of increasing tax revenue (Kelo vs. New London), which the Liberal justices approved of -- so I'll be voting for McCain.

I'm in favor of school choice, rather than the failed, bloated public education system we have now, so I'll be voting for McCain.

[Laila]

With all due respect, when it comes to electing who leads my country, I base my decision on who I think will do the best job without a lot of regard for any "frustrated helplessness" or "eye rolling" the rest of the world may choose to engage in.

And I'd hope that all Americans would make that choice based on what they believe is in the long-term best interest of the country, rather than than how "cool" the rest of the world thinks we are -- we're talking about the President of a nation of 300,000,000 people here, not President of the Senior Class ... "cool" shouldn't enter into it at all.

With all due respect back but it should matter. We live in a world so dependant on its interlinking framework of international law, contracts and organisations that whoever you vote for will effect you as much as many other people on this earth. Be it in terms of the environment, in terms of a chance to maybe someday creating a functioning UN or in terms of making this world a safe place to live in.

I should maybe have explained the choice of word 'cool' in this context - but before Bush I WAS in High School - so 'cool' was exactly what America was. It was 'in', 'hip' and a few other irrelevent terms. But there is a serious side to this because as someone already pointed out, there was a time where America had a lot more allies and a LOT more sympathy abroad. And you might say that it doesn't matter for a country of 300,000,000 people and by rule of the strongest it might not. Of course then you put yourself on the same moral basis as China.

[Thorne]

One of the really big reasons I have for feeling that it's ultimately unimportant which candidate becomes president is that the power of the president, while great, is still severely limited. Certainly, a strong president can usually manage to get things moving in the direction he wants, like Reagan did. But ultimately, the president must answer to Congress.

Sure, Bush sent us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But where did the money come from to keep us there, and to pay for all of those Haliburton contracts? Why, from Congress!

Sure, Bush pushed for a financial bailout of the crumbling banks. But who passed a bill containing so much crap, like the wooden arrows tax break? Congress!

Who creates laws which are costly for people to abide by, then exempts themselves from those laws? Congress again!

True, it's not quite as simple as this sounds. I'm simplifying enormously. But ultimately, nothing gets done without at least the tacit approval of Congress. The president cannot directly pass laws.

What really scares the hell out of me this year is that, with the financial problems we're having, right before election, we're probably going to see a Democrat in the White House while at the same time seeing even more Republicans losing seats in the Congress. That could make it much easier for far left legislation to become law, which may not be a good thing, for America or for the rest of the world.

[Logic1]

I see a significant difference between the two candidates: one is far-Left (one of the most Liberal Senators we have) and the other's Center-Right.
.

That is really wierd for me to read since both candidates are way right of any politicians we got here in Sweden so... far left means hmm way right to me .
Far left here in Sweden means the Communist party pretty much...

[Ragoczy]

That is really wierd for me to read since both candidates are way right of any politicians we got here in Sweden so... far left means hmm way right to me .
Far left here in Sweden means the Communist party pretty much...

I think that's one of the reasons that there's so much confusion and frustration between America and Europe when we look at each other's politics. Most American's self-identify as Center-Right, regardless of how they vote -- so from our perspective, most of Europe appears to be Commie-bastards -- while from yours we look like a bunch of Fascist-pigs.

Personally, I'm mostly Libertarian, which means that I'm stuck with the Republicans because my own party doesn't have a chance in hell -- primarily because they won't lose the damn "legalize drugs"-plank in their platform.

[mkemse]

Yes, i beleivei t makes a HUGE difference, by Nature Republicans and DEmocrats are different Idiologicly, so after 8 years of Republican Rule, seeing what has happenended in general, I believe the people of this Country want to see a change, and the best way to do this is to switch parties in office, will Obamma make a major difference hard to say it took us 8 years to get where we are today, what Americans need to ask themselves is : "Am I better of today after 8 years, then I was when Bill Clintonm was in Office?

He left a $350Billolin Dollar Surplus, Bush leave with close to a Trillion Dollar Defect, when clinton left office gas was $1.75 a gallon, when Bush does it will be $3.50-$4.00,
When Clinton Left Office we had Countless Alllies Around the World, I belieive it is safe to say right now we have very few
So yes there will be a difference, but it will not be seen right way, you can't clean up 8 years of Fiscal Mismanagement, Economics Polocies that did not work, ect in 90 days

[gagged_Louise]

I think it matters hugely which one is elected. Not being an American I don't have to make any run-down of the issues or try to predict in detail how the two would act in office. Of course the financial turmoil is likely to change the conditions too.

But McCain is a military man in his outlook, the Vietnam war and his captivity was the defining experience of his life. If a conflict between the US and an "enemy country" or "rogue state" is knotty, he goes for a military solution, open or veiled (gunboat diplomacy). He argues by posing ultimatums and mowing the enemy down, or trying to. That's what he proposes to do in Iraq (the 'success' of the surge is partly delusory I think, it depends on frail truces to keep some of the militias calm, plus any attack on Iran would make Iraq flare up again), to North Korea, to Russia in a crisis, to deter Iran from getting nuclear weapons - to any enemy. That's really just a continuation of Bush, father and son, and it ignores that sometimes this kind of attack mode will just make the problem much worse. We've seen enough of this "me against everyone who's evil" atttitude under Bush, and many NATO countries are fed up with it.

Now that the US is already carrying on full-scale war in two theatres in the Middle East and some are looking to another war effort in Darfur or Iran, while the military spending is weighing the economy down, there's a dire need for more multi-partner solutions, not world policing by one country. And peaceful or diplomatic solutions. You don't build a free country by exposing it to war and trying to bring on some elections afterwards. Democarcy often takes time and peaceful efforts.

Obama clearly understands the need for engaging more countries as allies, more on their own terms, and to build understanding, not sectarian resistance and despair (in that, and in his overall secular outlook, he's just like the Kennedy brothers).. He wants to keep the US in the forefront of course but he realizes it can't be done by some kind of Roman Imperial style where you act as if America always was the chosen country. That's probably a hard bullet for many Americans but the time when you could count on just one power dictating everything is rapidly slipping away.

Obama seems to grasp so much clearer, too, that political change and new openings in life comes from below, from the ordinary people, not from just following your leader and his scheme. However much he's been jibed for having been a community organizer by McCain's campaign people, it's the kind of work where you have to engage people and listen to their needs, instead of trying to march them into your own design. Where McCain only thinks in terms of encouraging single acts of heroism and endurance to survive bad conditions, Obama sees that you may have to empower those city people to get their trust and make them stand up.

[mkemse]

The best thing that can happen right now is a DEmocrat in the White House and in Full Control of the Senate, to clean up the mess of the last 8 years

[delish]

I don't usually quote Chris Rock regarding politics, but I totally liked this. Larry King asked how he felt about Obama and if he was proud, and Chris talked around it for a bit and finally said words to the effect of: "Yeah, it's historical that Obama is black, but that's not why I'm voting for him. Here's my criteria: I vote for the guy with one house." And Larry's all, "Huh?" Chris responds with, "Given the current status of the economy and the housing crisis in particular, I'm voting for the guy who has one house. McCain has something like 12. He could lose half his homes and still sleep VERY well at night. Obama has one. Who's going to be looking out for the people with one house, do you think?" (Obviously, I paraphrase)

I also think that the rest of the world should have an impact on how we vote, because our global relationships *gasp* actually matter. Foreign policy and diplomacy has been decimated by this administration, which is what I suspect the earlier poster was getting at.

Further, just because McCain says he's a maverick, or whatever he's been spouting lately, does not make it so- repetition does not turn a lie into truth. Do research about the things he has voted for and against. Don't just read the surface truths of the news organizations that are going to support your chosen candidate. What was the number that McCain thinks is middle class status? $200k/year? How often has he supported the Bush administration? Why the hell would he choose a vice president with no foreign policy experience when he's been hammering home that Obama has none? Who would elect McCain knowing that he's had cancer... what, five times now? And would be the oldest president sworn in, with Palin as the contingency plan? Does anyone think that's a good idea, really?

Obama may not be perfect, I'll readily agree, but he and Biden are way more invested in the American people than McCain is. McCain has changed who he is SO many times in order to secure this nomination that it's really become obvious that he'd kill puppies on national television if that's what it took to get the poll numbers up. (Okay, probably not, but you see my point...)

Don't just listen to what they're saying, look at who they are and where they've been.

[lucy]

Thank you all for your replies. Just one thing i wanted to add: Although i'm definitely not pro Bush i think you can't blame him for your gas prices doubling. Gas is much more expensive in Europe too than it was two years ago. However, since it's heavily taxed here, the rise was not as steep as it was in the U.S.
But however, i think America (and to a lesser extent the rest of the western civilization) has to find ways to use (or rather waste) less oil. This will be hard. Not doing it now but waiting till there's no other way will be much tougher, tho.

As for democrats taking over control: Yesterday Iceland more or less declared itself bankrupt. And Iceland was and still is governed for a rather long time by the Icelandic version of Maggie Thatchers tories. So at the moment i think we see that although republicans/tories/liberals (as they're called in Switzerland or Germany) claim to be the ones who know about economics, in fact they know sh** about it. Or the market forces don't work like the theory would like to have it, and they weren't smart enough to realize that or honest enough to acknowledge it.

[MMI]

... in fact they [monetarist politicians] know sh** about it.

If any number of economists can hold the same number of views about how to manage an economy, why is it surprising that politicians are no wiser. They believe in one particular system or another because its a shiboleth they hold on to to save them the trouble of understanding it.

(Incidentally and slightly off-topic, but likely to excite a reaction, I was browsing the website of "Pravda" as is occasionally my wont, and I noticed the American political system was described as a one-party police state - implying the Democratic and Republican parties are just two sides of the same base coin ... I'll leave that thought for someone else to pick up ... )

[MMI]

I wonder what the result would be if non-Americans did have the vote. I would vote for Obama, I think.

[gagged_Louise]

Most American's self-identify as Center-Right, regardless of how they vote -- so from our perspective, most of Europe appears to be Commie-bastards -- while from yours we look like a bunch of Fascist-pigs.

Yeah it's true much of the mainstream field of political beliefs in Europe is more to the centre-left, plus it's overall wider. And the parties as such are stronger here too, taking charge, so it doesn't leave the leadership and guiding of a party to the Chairman/elected President/PM in office and some leading party bosses (I know the US President isn't chairman of their party, but during their tenure he/she is in many ways the most important person in the party, right?)
. Looking at domestic political fighting in the States from Europe, you can feel like you're watching an accordeon being played. It pushes together, it's pulled out and then comes rushing to the centre again in a loose rhythm, and tones change all the time. There seems to be few steady positions and not a very great distance between the two parties in some key issues; the span within either party is bigger than between centrist Democrats and the GOP centre. On non-election years, the parties seem to be half asleep, what really counts are the individual positions and decisions of high-profile members. That's much less true in Western Europe, the parties as corporate leagues, and the people who voted for them, identify with them, define much more of what's going on, not just a bunch of leading men defining their positions.

I once saw a clip of a republican senator - no idea of his name - saying in a booming voice "I'm tired of all those liberals and communists!!" The line sounds pretty corny to any European - how could anyone confuse liberalism and communism? Liberal and socialist governments here fought and fended to hold off the Warsaw Pact for fifty years! Now liberal in the US isn't the same as in England, Germany or Sweden for sure - to you it means radical, anti-traditionalist (and sloppy?), it's moral as much as political, but that quote pinpoiints how different the political fields in Europe and the US really are.