race and international politics in the U.S. election

[Sisyphus]

Here's the deal. In a true meritocracy, we shouldn't care in the slightest about a candidates race or gender when deciding whom to vote for. The fact that the two main contenders for the Democratic nomination were a black man and a woman should be seen as a sign that such things, even if they do still matter to many people, at least no longer present the insurmountable obstacles they once did, and thus their success should be cause for celebration. However, if we are to truly justify the celebration of our liberal postracism and make it "not matter anymore," we can't support them on those grounds, either, or make ourselves reactionaries and hypocrites.

 

I say these things primarily to convey that I already understand them. Really, I do. Which is why it pains me to say this: in reality, it does matter. A lot. And I don't just mean for America itself (although it does matter for America). Like it or not, I believe the fact that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama with familial ties to Islam might (probably) become President of the United States will have a huge effect around the world, and I believe it will be almost universally a positive effect, and I believe we should seriously consider that as a significant factor in casting our votes.

 

America, including (maybe especially) in recent years, is perceived as being run by white, aggressively Christian, fairly racist men. (The degree of truth or falsehood to that perception is NOT what I'm talking about.) We're on a "Crusade" against the Islamic world, a war of cultures, yatta yatta. We're the "Great Satan" to probably millions of people.

 

And then we go and nominate Barack Obama. Yes, he's half white. Yes, he converted to Christianity long ago. But still, it's certainly making waves. The presidential primary, by all accounts, was watched with interest pretty much all over the world, but especially in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. Think about that. Was the world interested when Kerry beat Edwards, or for that matter when McCain beat Romney and Huckabee? (GWB beating McCain in 2000 made waves, but mostly because people were amused/horrified.) But people are actually anxious about it in these places. Tom Friedman says the question he's always asked in Egypt is, "do you think they'll let him win?" Think about all the implications tied up in the phrasing of that question, and of its frequency.

 

Now think about what would happen if he actually did win. How could it fail to take the wind out of the rhetorical sails of extremists? How could it fail to deal a terrible blow to international Islamic terrorism? How could it fail to make diplomacy in general a few notches easier from day one? We could show the world we really are the Land of Opportunity that we were once known as. And if that's not good enough for you, we can stick it to the French, who for all their egalitarian rhetoric have minorities (specifically blacks and Arabs) who are absurdly under-represented in political offices. And who wouldn't love that?

[ecoli]

It's a good reason to vote for him, but for every reason to vote for Obama, I can think of 2 why I wouldn't want him in office.... things that have strictly to do with his policies and not his race.

[Sisyphus]

It's a good reason to vote for him, but for every reason to vote for Obama, I can think of 2 why I wouldn't want him in office.... things that have strictly to do with his policies and not his race.

 

So don't vote for him. I said consider it a significant factor, not the only factor. And I admit it's easier for me to push it because I also happen to believe he's the better candidate anyway. But his policies are not what this thread is about. So, do you have any further comment on my reasoning in the OP?

[D H]

For the most part, I disagree. I don't care so much what he is (kinda black, vaguely tied to Islam through a middle name and an absent father) as who he is. That said,

... Barack Hussein Obama ...

Stolen right from under the noses of the wacko right! Obama proclaiming that his middle name *is* Hussein might well be a very good idea. It would shut down the stupid claims of conspiracy from the wacko elements of the right wing. Those who think there Obama has strong ties to radical Islam by virtue of a middle name given at birth and an absent Muslim father and would destroy the USA because of these ties are a lost cause. Many of them won't even vote for McCain because he is too liberal.

 

Now think about what would happen if he actually did win.

To tell the truth, I don't care a whole lot about the rest of the world thinks. I didn't care in high school what the rest of the high school thought, and I am not about to change my curmudgeonly ways for FRANCE?? This is not their election, it is ours.

[Sisyphus]

For the most part, I disagree. I don't care so much what he is (kinda black, vaguely tied to Islam through a middle name and an absent father) as who he is.

 

I don't care either, really, but the fact that other people care makes it a real, substantial issue.

 

Stolen right from under the noses of the wacko right! Obama proclaiming that his middle name *is* Hussein might well be a very good idea. It would shut down the stupid claims of conspiracy from the wacko elements of the right wing. Those who think there Obama has strong ties to radical Islam by virtue of a middle name given at birth and an absent Muslim father and would destroy the USA because of these ties are a lost cause. Many of them won't even vote for McCain because he is too liberal.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. His name isn't a secret, is it?

 

To tell the truth, I don't care a whole lot about the rest of the world thinks. I didn't care in high school what the rest of the high school thought, and I am not about to change my curmudgeonly ways for FRANCE?? This is not their election, it is ours.

 

Except that high school politics doesn't matter in the slightest, but international politics matters a great deal. If you say it shouldn't matter, then I agree with you completely, but this is the real world. If you claim it doesn't matter, then you're also going to have to claim that foreign policy as a whole doesn't matter.

[CDarwin]

Tom Friedman says the question he's always asked in Egypt is, "do you think they'll let him win?" Think about all the implications tied up in the phrasing of that question, and of its frequency.

 

It just struck me as funny that that was coming from Egypt, which is a country that has been under emergency rule for the last few decades and where literally they "don't let" candidates win. It doesn't matter how well Islamists do in elections, they're never allowed to take power. Oh, irony.

 

But anyway, as to the drift of your comment, I think a lot of it depends on how much Obama delivers on what people around the world seem to be expecting of him. If he actually strikes in Pakistan to get at Al Quaeda, the honeymoon is going to end pretty quickly.

[iNow]

I personally agree with the idea that Obama would be a more unifying figure for our globe than any other candidate right now. I cannot say for certain that this has anything to do with just his name or race, but I'm somewhat idealistic.

 

I think it has to do with the fact that he's a leader, and a good one, with a vision.

 

 

 

Also, if you want to compare something, look at what's going on in Zimbabwe. We've got it pretty good.

[D H]

I'm not sure I understand your point. His name isn't a secret, is it?

His name isn't a big secret but it is not well publicized and most people do not know his middle name. Right wing wackos have made a big deal of his name. McCain has apologized for them, gotten very angry with them, and demanded a stop. Some articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/politics/27name.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806090013?f=h_latest

 

By acknowledging Obama's name, the Democrats steal the issue from the wackos. It might be a good idea for the Obama team do exactly this, as I suspect doing so will win more votes than it loses.

 

If you claim it doesn't matter, then you're also going to have to claim that foreign policy as a whole doesn't matter.

Of course it matters to some degree, and both candidates have pluses and minuses here. What doesn't matter to me is foreign perception. Most liberals in the US would be viewed as conservatives in many other countries. Our conservatives are mere Neanderthals in the eyes of most European nations. Bottom line: Foreign affairs and how the president will act is important. How foreigners rank our candidates on the other hand doesn't matter much at all to me.

Edited June 12, 2008 by D H

[ecoli]

So don't vote for him. I said consider it a significant factor, not the only factor. And I admit it's easier for me to push it because I also happen to believe he's the better candidate anyway. But his policies are not what this thread is about. So, do you have any further comment on my reasoning in the OP?

You have a good point, I just feel that voting based on race and not purely merit (which you aren't doing, I understand, but others are) and then complaining that we don't have a meritocracy is a self-defeating attitude.

 

Yes, it recognizes the realities of the situation, but it doesn't do anything to fix the problem.

[Rev Blair]

To tell the truth, I don't care a whole lot about the rest of the world thinks. I didn't care in high school what the rest of the high school thought, and I am not about to change my curmudgeonly ways for FRANCE?? This is not their election, it is ours.

 

Funny, when the west told Palestine to have an election and we didn't like who they elected, we effectively cut off their food supply.

 

It does matter, very much, who you elect. The rest of the world may not have a say in it, but John McCain is unlikely to have a whole lot of support when he goes visiting.

 

It matters what France thinks because they are very influential in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Same with Britain. Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser extent Germany, are influential in South America.

 

China has a lot of influence with anybody who has oil right now.

 

The US doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's going to need the goodwill of the world in the coming years.

[ecoli]

It does matter, very much, who you elect. The rest of the world may not have a say in it, but John McCain is unlikely to have a whole lot of support when he goes visiting.

Doubtful;this is probably an exaggeration. McCain's policies are decidedly more middle than most republicans. Therefore I suspect they would cheer him if, for example, if they compared him to Bush.

 

... though I'm thinking that McCain is going to try avoid such comparisons if he actually wants to win (which seems questionable, actually).

[CDarwin]

Doubtful;this is probably an exaggeration. McCain's policies are decidedly more middle than most republicans. Therefore I suspect they would cheer him if, for example, if they compared him to Bush.

 

... though I'm thinking that McCain is going to try avoid such comparisons if he actually wants to win (which seems questionable, actually).

 

McCain is also a strong free-trader. That was most countries' favorite thing about Bush and its an issue he really was courageous on (when he wasn't distracted by being the savior of goodness, democracy, and the American way).

 

It's a balancing act between fears of American imperialism which Republicans tend to represent and fears of American protectionism which Democrats tend to represent. Which I think is sad evidence how little American politics has grown up since the Gilded Age.

[Sisyphus]

It's a balancing act between fears of American imperialism which Republicans tend to represent and fears of American protectionism which Democrats tend to represent. Which I think is sad evidence how little American politics has grown up since the Gilded Age.

 

Another way of looking at it that I find helpful is that Democrats tend to favor employees while Republicans favor employers. In reality, though, both tactics are ultimately bad for the economy, whatever short term benefits they each might have. We should be favoring the consumers, which, among other things, demands free trade even if it means a few jobs get outsourced or the Dow takes a dip. Libertarians tend to have the most resolve in that area, although their squeamishness about consumer protection via, for example, the FDA or the EPA, make them not necessarily the best choice, either.

[john5746]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrcs0J2BpQ

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/07/foxnews-ed-hill-on-obamas-fist-bump-a-terrorist-fist-jab/

[CDarwin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plrcs0J2BpQ

 

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/07/foxnews-ed-hill-on-obamas-fist-bump-a-terrorist-fist-jab/

 

I don't know that I would call a lot of Fox News 'journalism' at all, but I don't see the connection.

[timo]

America, including (maybe especially) in recent years, is perceived as being run by white, aggressively Christian, fairly racist men.

Not sure if you are referring to perception inside or outside the US. I don't think that points fit the perception outside the US (e.g. note that the foreign minister -I think the US title for that position is "secretary of state"- is the 2nd most percieved US representative).

[Rev Blair]

Doubtful;this is probably an exaggeration. McCain's policies are decidedly more middle than most republicans. Therefore I suspect they would cheer him if, for example, if they compared him to Bush.

 

Bush is pretty much universally despised outside of the US. The big exception right now is the evil robot running Canada, but even he has been working hard to distance himself from Bush in the public eye.

 

Howard is gone from Australia, and Maggie Thatcher's bastard son is gone from Britain where the Tories are arguably running to the left of Labour. Sarkozy is in trouble in France, and the German right is doing flips and twists to appear more moderate.

 

A lot of people are looking at Bush's trade policies as little more than an extension of American hegemony around the planet. They are looking at US economic failure under Bush, both domestic and foreign, as a failure that is now threatening their own economic policies. They are looking at US military and foreign policy as a real problem that has played a huge part in the other failures.

 

That's not the kind of legacy that's going to allow McCain...who has cozied up to Bush's policies in order to please the Republican base...a lot of room to move.

[CDarwin]

A lot of people are looking at Bush's trade policies as little more than an extension of American hegemony around the planet. They are looking at US economic failure under Bush, both domestic and foreign, as a failure that is now threatening their own economic policies. They are looking at US military and foreign policy as a real problem that has played a huge part in the other failures.

 

Western Europe, maybe. But countries in South America, South Asia, and Africa are quite pleased with Bush on trade generally. Most bemoan if anything his lack of emphasis on his own trade policies as terrorism and what-not has taken over American attentions.

 

Canada (and the US, of course) benefits a good deal from NAFTA, too, which Obama is threatening to "renegotiate."

[foodchain]

Now think about what would happen if he actually did win. How could it fail to take the wind out of the rhetorical sails of extremists? How could it fail to deal a terrible blow to international Islamic terrorism? How could it fail to make diplomacy in general a few notches easier from day one? We could show the world we really are the Land of Opportunity that we were once known as. And if that's not good enough for you, we can stick it to the French, who for all their egalitarian rhetoric have minorities (specifically blacks and Arabs) who are absurdly under-represented in political offices. And who wouldn't love that?

 

I regularly participate in state elections but I fail to vote for presidential elections for some reason. I think this goes back to how Gore lost and the subsequent events of that in terms of how W Bush got elected. That being said I think one of our modern political issues is how political issues tend to segregate into parties. I don’t mean that minority races do not far well depending on either being democrat or republican for instance, just that difference is treated heavily in America pretty much regardless of form.

 

Personally I do not want to vote for Obama simply over the issue that I am tired of devoutly religious presidents with no real plans to tackle global warming. Even if obama is a democrat, a party it seems more poised to act liberally in regards to preventing global warming, most of it seems to lack ever really coming about, I just do not see Obama as something far from this mold. Plus early on in his campaign career for president he seemed to favor fighting heavily for Baghdad in the Iraq war. I did not view this as any great departure from the "stay the course" mentality of our current president. Though now as this stance as changed I guess is broadcast how much of that change is really just politics in a sense of party politics only for votes? I really did not see a democratic congress voted in on a slogan of change doing much anything really.

 

I view is that its more or less more of the same with being elected having far more importance then doing any kind of a good job for political America.

Edited June 15, 2008 by foodchain
bad spell checker