Dutch TV broadcasts the US presidential debates live at around 03:00. They even ask viewers to send in questions to the NOS‘s American correspondent. That means that the viewing public doesn’t just consist of VCR and DVR owners who watch the broadcast the next day. Apparently, there are people here who stay up (more than) half the night to watch this stuff. They must either think it’s important or be suffering from insomnia.
Make no mistake, though, this is important; in theory, at least. Whomever America elects, the rest of the world (that’s us!) gets saddled with the consequences; and those, whilst never good, have been particularly dire over the last few years.
We in Europe have no say in this, of course. Whilst America’s foreign policy arguably has more of an impact on our daily lives than our own country’s policy (which mostly just sees us begrudgingly dancing to American pipes), we have little choice but to sit back and hope that the American electorate will get it right.
Unfortunately, though, getting it wrong is a foregone conclusion. A country with a population of 300 million people somehow each time manages the incredible feat of producing just two credible (yes, I use the word advisedly) presidential candidates. Evidently, the entire political spectrum in that country can be neatly represented by two parties, the most liberal of which is still firmly right of centre by European standards.
To Americans, Obama and McCain are as different as chalk and cheese. Progressive Americans view Obama as the salvation of a nation, a shepherd to lead a nation out of the bleak wilderness of the Bush era, a beacon of light in a world currently shrouded in darkness, the imminent new leader of the free world; and other such hyperbole.
By the same token, progressive Americans see McCain as the logical prolongation of the Bush dynasty, a man who would continue to scrap services and indulge the rich, whilst continuing to mire America in Iraq for the next 100 years.
As a European, I view all of this with much cynicism and a fair amount of bemusement. I fail to see the supposedly huge differences between the two camps.
Let’s examine a few facts.
Both Obama and McCain favour continuing the supply of $3 bn per annum in military aid to Israel. Like Bush and Clinton before them, they intend to adopt the pretence of brokering peace with the left hand whilst passing weapons to one of the warring factions with the right. There can be no peace in the Middle East while the US continues to support Israel in its acts of aggression, oppression, occupation and apartheid.
Both Obama and McCain say that they are prepared to disregard the UN security council when determining whether to go to war. Neither camp apparently has any respect for international law, yet both are hypocritical enough to criticise other nations, such as Russia, for the same flagrant disregard. If the UN is to have any meaning, all nations that wish to be regarded as respectable, democratic states must submit to its authority. The same applies to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, another institution for which the US has (even greater) disdain.
Both Obama and McCain are critical of Iran for its ongoing commitment to nuclear technology, yet the US has a fearsome nuclear capability, as does Israel. I’m no fan of Ahmadinejad, but I don’t see an argument for denying Iran nuclear technology — even if that means weapons — whilst nations such as the US and Israel have them. Obama fears an arms race in the Middle East if Iran develops nuclear weapons, but he curiously doesn’t fear it enough to stop selling arms to the nation from which Iran would be seeking to protect itself. The double standard here is ludicrous and dismisses any notion that the US is truly interested in achieving peace in the region.
You see, to get elected in the US, you have to support Israel. Not only the large Jewish lobby, but also American Christians are, by and large, sympathetic to Israel; much more so than Europeans. I attribute this to a couple of things. Firstly, there’s the much more one-sided portrayal of the conflict in the American media. Secondly, a large number of fundamentalist Christian Americans believe that the presence of Jews in the promised land is necessary for the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. That’s Armageddon, by the way, and I, for one, would like to avoid it.
McCain supported the invasion of Iraq and continues to favour a long-term American presence there. Obama, on the other hand, favours stepping up operations in Afghanistan, because he believes that to be the main breeding ground of terrorism. Both conveniently ignore the fact that much of the world’s terrorism has its origin in America’s disastrous foreign policy, which for decades has sought to enrich corporate America, achieve absolute military superiority, and sequester huge quantities of the world’s natural resources in an attempt to assuage the insatiable appetite of a populace addicted to an unsustainable lifestyle.
Hundreds of thousands of lives have already been lost due to this myopic policy, and the loss will continue under either Obama or McCain. Only the theatre of operations and the associated media limelight may change.
Speaking of death, neither candidate has said anything about working to abolish capital punishment in the US. Civilised nations do not execute their miscreants; it’s as simple as that. In fact, even most uncivilised nations draw the line at executing children, but the US continues to flout international law by occasionally putting a child to death. There are scarcely words to describe my revulsion towards this. See this Amnesty International report for more details.
Neither candidate supports homosexual marriage, which effectively means that neither candidate supports equality under the law. This is a basic human right, not to mention part of the American constitution. Even Spain has legalised same-sex marriage, and they still torture animals for sport in that country.
So, perhaps the above serves to illustrate somewhat why I fail to perceive much of a difference between the two main American political parties and their chosen figureheads. Whilst they diverge more convincingly on domestic policy, you’ll have to forgive me if I can’t find it in myself to consider their effect on their own nation anywhere near as relevant or as important as their effect on the rest of the world, including its ecology.
Those of you going out to vote this November, do so with your conscience. In my opinion, a vote for either Obama or McCain is ultimately going to leave you with blood on your hands. In your position, I wouldn’t vote at all.
To not vote is viewed by some as akin to apathy or, at the very least, as an implicit abdication of one’s civil responsibility, by dint of which one forgoes one’s right to complain about the country’s elected leaders.
Bollocks.
Not voting is not akin to apathy. Rather, conscientious abstention demonstrates a proud conviction. It embodies the twofold rejection of an inherently undemocratic electoral system and a farcically piss-poor choice of candidates, under either of whom the world will not be a safer place
Seven years on from the levelling of the World Trade Center and most Americans still don’t understand why America is so deeply reviled across the world. I keep waiting for the penny to drop, but it never does.
After the events of 11th September 2001, I remember thinking that some good may actually come from the horror of what had unfolded. I thought that America had been so fundamentally shaken that it may pause for political self-reflection; that it might hold its past behaviour up to the light, blush and mend its ways.
No such luck.
I’m still waiting for the penny to drop.
