America in the World

How might next week's election impact anti-Americanism in Australia?

Today's Australian quotes Brendan O'Connor - a "leading expert" on anti-Americanism - claiming that next Tuesday's presidential election will have a decisive impact on anti-Americanism in Australia. If John McCain is elected, it is likely to "flare up". He attributes this view to polls showing support for Obama in the country, with 62% of Australians believing ties with America would improve under a President Obama.

Associate-Professor O'Connor also observes of Australia's politicians the degree to which neither party leader has attempted to make electoral use of anti-Americanism. This is in contast to the approach of the last German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder (right), who made much of his opposition to the Bush Administration during the country's 2002 Federal Elections, in which he was re-elected. However, he predicts that in fact relations between the new Australian Prime Minister's predecessor John Howard and the departing President George W. Bush were so strong they may be difficult to match.

In one of our web briefings discussing anti-Americanism, America in the World asked if Barack Obama's election would in fact provide the answer to global anti-Americanism.

McCain and Obama criticised for economic isolationism

Daniel Drezner of the Fletcher School of Diplomacy writes for the National Interest on the second of this year's three Presidential debates, which took place in the early hours of Wednesday morning (UK time). He concludes his column by criticising both John McCain and Barack Obama for scepticism of engagement with the world on an economic level.

"What was odd was that [their] hopeful vision of America’s role in the world clashed badly with their rhetoric on the global economy. When talk turned to economics, the rest of the world was viewed as a scary, scary place.

"Both candidates lamented the fact that the United States was borrowing so much from China (Obama added Saudi Arabia for good measure). Obama stressed that he wanted to offer incentives, “so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that’s made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.” McCain warned against returning to the protectionist policies of the Great Depression, but he also warned that some of the $700 billion trade deficit, “ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.” The candidates fell over each other stressing the need to develop energy independence—which most energy specialists believe is little more than a pipe dream.

"Some of these economic security concerns are valid, but the tone of the responses suggested a mismatch between the candidates’ vision of world politics and the world economy. They see the United States playing a positive role in security issues. On the global economy, however, the language was much more zero-sum.

"Foreign economic policy is related to foreign policy—it’s hard to get cooperation on matters of high politics while claiming that other actors in the world are economic threats. Both candidates recognized the relationship between a strong military and a strong economy. It was surprising, then, that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama realize that economic isolationism will cost them goodwill in dealing with the trouble spots of the world."

This presidential election's worst ideas?

Last week the American magazine Foreign Policy produced its list of the ten worst ideas it judged Barack Obama to have come up with.

This week it now follows up with a list what it believes to be John McCain's ten worst ideas.

The common ground that Bush, McCain and Obama share

Los Angeles Times blogger James Gerstenzang notes two articles on American foreign policy that may demonstrate the degree of common ground between the current President and the two men competing to be his successor.

Dan Eggen argues in the Washington Post that Barack Obama's foreign policy resembles Bush's in the last year:

"The administration has pushed ahead with high-level diplomatic negotiations with Iran and North Korea, agreed to a "time horizon" for a reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq and announced plans last week to shift troops and other resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. U.S. officials also confirmed last week that Bush has formally authorized cross-border raids into Pakistan without that government's approval -- an idea that Obama first endorsed, and was heavily criticized for, last year."

Matthew Continetti argues in the Weekly Standard that Obama's foreign policy resembles McCain's:

"[Obama] continues to take foreign policy cues from McCain. On many issues there is little difference between the two candidates. They both oppose torture and want to shut down the terrorist prison at Guantánamo Bay. They both support expanding the Army and Marine Corps. They both support a cap-and-trade scheme to limit carbon emissions. Both promise to reach the quixotic goal of "energy independence." Both want to send more troops to Afghanistan, recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo, and support NATO expansion. Both repeatedly say that America is an exceptional country. Neither man forswears the use of force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. And both say unilateral military action is always an option."

Tim Starks believes: "Both cases, stated at their lowest common denominator, are true. Bush has shifted toward Obama, in some situations. Obama has shifted toward McCain, in some situations.

"There's a kind of three-way game of chase going on here, where each of two candidates and the one president alternately distances himself from and moves closer to one or both of the others."

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...

Barack Obama's popularity in Europe would struggle to outlast the decisions that face the next President

Yesterday we published the first findings of our poll of nearly 2,000 UK citizens.  It found that the British people held many misconceptions about America and was featured in London's Daily Telegraph.

The second part of our survey explores whether support for the two candidates for the US Presidency in this year's elections could survive the big decisions that await them. The answer appears to be 'no'.  Although polls consistently suggest that most Europeans prefer Barack Obama to John McCain we wanted to dig deeper and find out whether that support would survive 'events'.  Our poll suggests that Barack Obama would have a short-term effect on anti-Americanism but that he does not inoculate America against the unpopularity of big decisions.

Iran is probably the biggest decision in the next President's in box and the hope must be that negotiations will still succeed in stopping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  But what if they don't?  The next American President will be damned if he does launch a military strike against Iran but also damned if he fails to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons:

'Damned if it does, damned if it doesn't' seems to be the harsh judgement awaiting America as it confronts the most difficult of decisions.

The biggest risk to Barack Obama's candidacy would be protectionist policies that hurt British industries.  70% of Britons would think less of a President Obama if "he announced measures that would stop some British companies enjoying free access to American markets."

John McCain faces the same consequences of difficult decisions although he is pledged to move America towards freer trade.  49% of British voters would think less of a President McCain if he "downplayed the US-UK relationship and worked more closely with other European nations instead".  Consistently, however, the biggest reductions in favourability come with Barack Obama; perhaps because European expectations of his presidency are high but are likely to be difficult to sustain.

Download a PDF of the full Poll Findings.

Also see our briefing Will anti-Americanism end if Barack Obama becomes President?