Are world citizens in a better position to decide who should be America's next President?

Jonathan Freedland has written an extraordinary article for today's London Guardian.  Judge for yourself but there are two key weaknesses in his argument:

He assumes that world opinion is in a better place to judge the McCain v Obama choice than domestic American opinion.  Within that assumption is a view that (1) political debate within America is poorer than overseas and (2) that the international citizen is well-informed:

• We would contend that the best of the US media - the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times - is at least as good as say the London press.  Anyone who has submitted an op-ed article to either newspaper knows the quality control that these newspapers put writers through.  The blogosphere fact-checks US politicians in ways that do not happen in Europe.  Forty million Americans watched John McCain's address to the Republican Convention.  Nearly as many watched Barack Obama's speech.  Both in full.  How many UK voters have ever watched an hour's speech from David Cameron or Gordon Brown, let alone an American politician?
• Our launch poll showed how ignorant many UK citizens were of America.  They don't know very basic and very important key facts.  Are they well informed about the foreign policies of the candidates let alone their domestic policies?  Take Iraq.  The BBC has hardly covered the progress of the Petraeus surge.  British media opinion decided in 2005/06 that Iraq was a failure and reporting to UK citizens has not provided a serious opportunity to at least think again.

He also infers that a vote against Barack Obama might be racist: "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."  Many may assume that - particularly if they are encouraged to by the likes of Mr Freedland and Jacob Weisberg - but as Iain Dale has blogged, many Americans may not vote for him because he is one of the most inexperienced and liberal candidates for the US Presidency ever.  Will Mr Freedland explain that to Guardian readers or will he present the outcome in the worst possible light?  Judging from the cartoon that accompanies his piece (see scan below) our guess is that The Guardian is preparing to present a McCain victory as a terrible snub to the world...

Comments

[Simon Leonard]

Frank Luntz was on CH4 news a week or so ago saying that he and other pollsters knew that 1-2% of the American public were lying about who they were going to vote for because of race and in an election this close, I think it's a valid point to make.

[Tim Montgomerie]

But Simon does that deserve the prominence that Mr Freedland gives it?

[Ken Stevens]

Isn’t it a bit of an impertinence to infer that anyone other than a country's electorate should influence who its leader should be?

Also a bit inconsistent in deriding McCain’s idea of a US-friendly League of Democracies yet, in effect, advocating such a grouping’s participation in an election.

If we are to properly acknowledge the importance to us of the person elected as US President then let’s go the whole hog and become the 51st State. .. or also 52nd and 53rd, if Wales and Scotland continue to want to do their own thing. .. and how about a unified Ireland as number 54?!

Only then can we have a legitimate interest in the process, as opposed to the outcome.

[Simon Leonard]

In fairness Tim, if it tips the election one way rather then the other it probably does deserve to be given a fair bit of prominence.

That being said, unless Obama starts fighting a lot harder he'll lose cause the Republicans are dictating the race at the moment and he's spending far too much time explaining himself based on their agenda.

[John Leonard]

Jonathan Freedland's piece is little more than an elitist intellectual internationalist self-indulgently trying to make himself feel better because he sees the writing on the wall.

The reality is the Democrats could propose God himself as their Presidential candidate and the institutionally terminally unpopular divisive flaws of the current democratic (liberal/ international socialist) ethos would still show through. That flaw can be summarised very simply. They promise much and they never deliver.

Obama's campaign is floundering because they are making mistakes and are just not as good at politics as the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton's campaign (the powerful 'Clinton Machine') was equally flawed (else she would have beaten Obama hands down) and so is the Democratic primary process which has undermined their cause throughout the election season up until the Convention.

In contrast the Republicans recognised the mountain they had to climb and have been sufficiently disciplined throughout the campaign not to make consistent or major mistakes of any sort.

It is this underlying professionalism, despite having potentially the weaker candidate in presentation terms that has kept the Republicans in the race. They kept their election process incontraversial, they selected their candidate without fuss and they have managed the subsequent period to with effectiveness.

Hence, I think Freedland's illusion that many people around the world would not see the flaws in Obama, his campaign and the Democrats (and change there opinion of who is the better candidate) if they had the same exposure to the election as the US public has is quite insulting.

It is the sort of selective, stealth mentality that has lead Labour to it's worst poll results in generations and made it's leader someone who is not only ridiculed by much of the British electorate but thanks to his latest blunder, mildly ridiculed by the Republicans as well.

It's often said that more often than not elections are lost rather than won and both Brown and Obama through their own mistakes are losing their elections.

[James Smith]

The weaknesses to his argument are too numerous to keep track of, but I'll just point out the particular idiocies in his column to underscore the fact that this guy is essentially a tourist who has not a clue what he's talking about.

1.) " 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. "

If black candidates underperform vis a vis polling data it is a function of voter turnout in black communities. Obama has a very strong ground operation in such places so this is nonsense. He is clearly trying to imply that there is well-documented evidence that a certain percentage of non-black people lie about who they are voting for if a black person is in the race when he has nothing to back up such an assertion.

2.) "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."

The reason Obama is hamstrung is that his sexist and elitist conduct in the Democratic primary towards Hillary Clinton and her supporters turned off a large segment of his own party. And the party basically bullied her out of the race in spite of the fact that she had more votes.

Furthermore, while this idiot sounds like he grabbed a batch of left-wing talking points from Daily Kos, the reality of conservative media in the states is that the overwhelming majority of their audience is people who already agree with them on the big issues. They have value in energizing the base of the Republican party but the idea that they actually sway large blocks of undecided voters is some sort of fantasy conceived by the fever swamps of the left. Hardly, I should say, a competent and dispassionate intellectual analysis of reality.

3.)"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."

Work this out with me ... the guy is attempting to suggest that the campaign's explanation of the library matter is a cover for something more nefarious.The left even sent around the list of books she wanted banned, unfortunately a bunch of them hadn't even been published yet when this was supposed to have occured. So a rational person - of which this author is not - would weigh this against the ACTUAL REALITY that Palin never pursued banning any books, nor has she done anything else in public office which would conform to the narrative he's trying to fabricate.

With regard to the "Bridge to nowhere" the simple fact of the matter is that she did kill it. He is being a misinformed or disingenuous clown for suggesting otherwise. The New York times credited her with killing it. The Alaskan Democrat party credited her with killing it, though they recently tried to cover this up on their website on behalf of Obama but thanks to web archives they were busted. Palin has fudged things a little in that she did initially support the bridge, but she isn't lying.

And as far as her seeking federal money, Alaska is 50 years old as a state and as result is light years behind the lower 48 in terms of infrastructure. The scandal of federal earmarks is not distributing funds for basic needs but rather in things like Obama funneling large sums of money to his wife's hospital in Chicago. A normal, dispassionate person sees the difference but this author is clearly trying to do the bidding of the left rather than offering a clear-eyed dispatch to his readership.

4.) "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."

His first example is a rather disingenuous way to characterize one large capital project - a sports facility in a place where it is dark 24/7 much of the year as well as uninhabitably cold- in an area where population has exploded. It is one thing to characterize a growth in government as a fiscal matter but one would have to have an infant's understanding of economics to characterize a revenue-generating one time expense as such.

With regard to the per diem expenses he is refering to you have to laugh out loud at his audacity. Her home is the governor's mansion in Juneau and the expenses she charged for meals were when they stayed in their own house 1,000 miles away just outside of Anchorage. Even the Democrats are not going to try an argument this foolish since she has massively cut her travel expenses compared to her predecessors.

5.) "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"

I'm sorry, but while I used to have a great deal of respect for Andrew Sullivan, he has become completely unhinged. There are lots of theories across the political spectrum as to what has happened to him and readers can Google him to discover the most common of them, but I'll restrain myself. Suffice it to say he has, among other things, tried peddling the rumor that Palin's baby was actually her daughter's and that it was the result of incest. He was getting so out of hand that his own website just put him out to pasture.

As to the second quote he offers up, one wonders exactly how the man supposes a governor - who happens to be religious - should address a church. Perhaps a colloquy on Jonathan Freedland's penchant for buggery? I suppose that among a particular brand of secular leftist the mere fact that one believes in God is creepy, but there is not a single action of Palin's as a public servant which merits these implications. By the same token, Barack Obama is a devoted church goer and his preacher of 20+ years has a very public record of marxist black nationalism. Rather curious that the author feels the need to scare Britons about the former's religious life.

6.) "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."

My goodness. First of all, someone needs to explain to this man that the red state/blue state dichotomy is not a literal one. Metropolitan New York City for instance, is among the wealthiest, most sophisticated populations in the world and while it is majority Democrat this is much less true among the educated classes. It is not a simple matter of backwards rural states versus progressive ones.

With regard to the youth vote, there is a long history of young people being on the left and then when they grow up and have to deal with reality and life's responsibilities they become more moderate or conservative. Not that one could expect Mr. Freedland to understand this but the only reson the youth vote is perceived to have greater poignancy this year is because we have reached the peak of a baby boom in the 80's, thus they are a more sizable than usual percent of the population.

The author has a rather patronizing view of African Americans. If the left cynically plays this hand to fan resentments in the event of an Obama defeat then it is a possible outcome. But to suggest that this is an inevitable or even likely scenario independently arrived upon by the majority of black individuals borders on racist. Perhaps the author is under the impression that America is a gangsta movie and that most blacks are uneducated and desperately poor. But there is a very large black middle class in America and they're not stupid. They are following the campaign just as everyone else is and they'll know just as well why the results are what they are.

7.) "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. ......"

Only two things need to be said here. The preceeding stupidity by this author is a rather good example of how foreign media can serve to manufacture Anti-Americanism. One has to wonder not only why this author would delude himself into thinking a strong America would be favorably portrayed in world media in a time when they do not need us and thus can espouse petty jealousies, moral equivalency gibberish and suggest demented theories about American motives. A man who can fathom why so many people hate Manchester United should be able to grasp why America engenders a like reaction, especially when projecting strength in the world.

And second, Americans do not care what the world wants or thinks. This is a certainty. The American left will give Europe or the world her due when it serves their own purposes, but it is a cynical gambit from which they retreat when it does not. Anyone who fails to understand this need only relize that it was not long ago that many were pushing for the bi-partison, moderate, maverick John McCain to be John Kerry's running mate on the 2004 Democratic ticket. Now, suddenly, he is a right wing Bush clone whom America and the world should tremble about.

[James Smith]

I should note that I typed my exceedingly long post rather quickly, in a state of annoyance, quite obviously, and hadn't seen the other posts. Another poster suggested Frank Luntz stated that 1-2% of people lie about their intentions when there is a black candidate and he is a very respected pollster so I'm inclined to believe there must be some factual basis to it.

[syn]

Freedman's argument is the same intellectualized-left argument heard in America; that being, anyone who does not think like them is an ignorant, racist 'Deliverance' hick incapable of thought much less leadership. In America's case, the opponent is marketed under the name Republican.

The essence of Freedland and other like-minded is that they are enamoured with their intellect, they are smart everyone else is stupid. The problem however, this 'intellectual superiority complex' is a weak position to maintain; they've spent so much time projecting their intellectualized perceptions on to their opponent, they lost time developing their ideas. Further, when their perceptions are confronted by the reality that all they have known is not what it appears to be the survival instinct to preserve their superiority takes over and the threats become increasingly hysterical.

That said, right-leaning blogs here in America were debating Gov Palin's VP potential back in June 2008 along with several other possibilities. She isn't new to me however her campaign and media skills are quite surprising!

More importantly, over the last year of learning about Obama's William Ayers/Annenberg Challenge connection, his Rezco association, his State Legislative action against the Born-Alive Protection Act, his activity with ACORN voter fraud and his thin resume in Executive-National Defense experience Obama's race isn't even taken into consideration.

[Jason Francis]

Are world citizens in a better position to decide who should be America's next President?

Hmmm...Are Americans in a better position to decide who should be the next British King?

Ok, that was a bit harsh.

But really folks, the majority of Americans can't even be bothered to actually educate themselves on how the American government works (most are unaware we have three branches of government or are unable to name them!) much less bother to research candidates properly.

What makes you think a bunch of American-hating Europeans and African dictators (you didn't really think they hold fair elections there did you?) are in a better position to decide who should preside over the republic?

If you really must have a say in who is elected President of the United States there is a line down at the American Embassy for American citizenship you can go stand in, though I doubt you'll get yours before the election.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Of course not! It would be nice if Americans thought of the rest of the world when casting their ballots as decision made by the President of the USA often have far reaching effects throughout the world but it isn't going to happen. Americans are, I suspect, just like the rest of us,they'll decide their vote on the interests of themselves and their country.
The fact that Obama appears to be favoured by most of the world may not in the end be of any benefit to him amongst the people who matter, the American electorate.Perhaps amongst some, including those posters on this board who seem to dislike foreigners, overseas backing will be a hindrance to Obama.

[Jason Francis]

Posted by: James Smith | September 10, 2008 at 08:15 PM

It's called the Bradley effect. Americans are so afraid of being labeled a racist that when confronted by a pollster they lie and say they will vote for the black candidate but when in the privacy of the voting booth they cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice. The saddest part is that once the ballots are counted, and the dark skinned candidate loses, there is an immediate claim of election fraud or racism because all the polls leading up to the election show the darkskinned candidate doing much better than the actual election results.

[Wally Balls]

"The saddest part is that once the ballots are counted, and the dark skinned candidate loses, there is an immediate claim of election fraud or racism because all the polls leading up to the election show the darkskinned candidate doing much better than the actual election results."

Sounds like you're talking about "community organizers!"

By the way fellow humans of a different nation than mine, the article below explains one of several reasons why us yanks don't give two hippity hops and a shammalammadingdong about who you want in our presidency.

Cheers -

No consensus on who was behind Sept 11-global poll

REUTERS
Reuters North American News Service

Sep 10, 2008 08:28 EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no consensus outside the United States that Islamist militants from al Qaeda were responsible, according to an international poll published Wednesday.

The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York and Washington that killed about 3,000 people in 2001.

U.S. officials squarely blame al Qaeda, whose leader Osama bin Laden has boasted of organizing the suicide attacks by his followers using hijacked commercial airliners.

On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks.

The poll was conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland in the United States.

In Europe, al Qaeda was cited by 56 percent of Britons and Italians, 63 percent of French and 64 percent of Germans. The U.S. government was to blame, according to 23 percent of Germans and 15 percent of Italians.

Respondents in the Middle East were especially likely to name a perpetrator other than al Qaeda, the poll found.

Israel was behind the attacks, said 43 percent of people in Egypt, 31 percent in Jordan and 19 percent in the Palestinian Territories. The U.S. government was blamed by 36 percent of Turks and 27 percent of Palestinians.

In Mexico, 30 percent cited the U.S. government and 33 percent named al Qaeda.

The only countries with overwhelming majorities blaming al Qaeda were Kenya with 77 percent and Nigeria with 71 percent.

Interviews were conducted in China, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Egypt, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Mexico, the Palestinian Territories, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Ukraine.

The poll, taken between July 15 and Aug. 31, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 to 4 percent. (Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Source: Reuters North American News Service

[Iain Lindley]

Freedland's article is indeed absurd, but there's a certain irony about criticising it and then (in the same post) being so forthright about who you think the best candidate is...

[rightwingprof]

I think another letter writing campaign from British lefties would be a good idea.

[Jason Francis]

Now Rightwingprof, that's just mean. Don't you think we should give the Liberials a fair chance?

[rightwingprof]

It's astounding, and more than a little scary, how poorly the British seem to understand us. Some do, but most don't. The Aussies, on the other hand, understand us perfectly well. I don't mean to be anti-British at all, but it really must be said: We fought two wars to rid ourselves of foreign rule, remember? What in the world could make any foreigner, particularly one from the UK, think we can be guilt tripped into perverting our elections into a foreign popularity contest?

For an excellent response to this, see here, and follow the links.

http://rightwingnation.com/2008/09/11/schadenfreude-time/

[liamascorcaigh]

I support the premise of this site and the sentiments expressed in it but if, sir, you number the NYT among "the best" of the American media you're really out of touch with the reality of the country which you're seeking to defend. The NYT is one of the most ideologically committed anti-American organs of 'opinion' in the English-speaking world and has for years preached, hectored, propagandised and outright lied to promote the very world view you have set up this site to counter! The reputation you reference so blithely is at least 20 years in the grave.

I also find your reliance on Professor Chomsky somewhat quaint in an old-world gentlemanly sort of way. He is the very Jeremiah of anti-Americanism, the stone-faced denouncer of his country in season and out, as reliable as an Ayatollah in his enmity towards 'the Great Satan'.

If I were you I'd regard my adversaries with a colder more dispassionate eye before engaging them in battle.