A Brilliant and Insightful Examination of the Upcoming American Elections from South Africa, Part 1

First off, if you are looking for what was promised in the post title, I must warn you this is a classic bait-and-switch.  I will actually write a disappointed, somewhat bitter analysis of this “historic” (aren’t they always billed as such?) election, interpreting it through my conservative libertarian biases and the narrow sample of South Africans I have talked with about it.  I don’t claim to “know” all the answers or to be somehow smarter than all those who have been observing and participating in American politics for far longer than I have, but the election has helped shape my experiences here in South Africa, and so I will blog about it.

In my own all too predictable opinion, Senators McCain and Obama have indeed brought about the elusive “change” they promise.  They have changed what could have been an illuminating and ultimately healing dialogue about the basis of our foreign policy, the roots of the financial crisis, the proper balance of the national government and states’ rights, and our broken healthcare system, among other pressing issues, into yet another spiteful, divisive battle with both candidates converging toward a mushy, socialistic, and invariably indefinite consensus, agreeing on massive government expansion all around and income redistribution from the taxpayers to their loyal supporters.  You don’t have to agree with me that we should withdraw American troops from the vast majority of the more than 120 nations they occupy in our name worldwide or that the financial crisis came about largely through government policies rather than free market greed to see that this election season was the time for serious reconsideration of our government’s role in world affairs and in regulating our own financial system, even if the ultimate course of action after this reflection differed little from present policies.  No offense to all the passionate supporters of either honorable senator but these men squandered that opportunity to bring about real transformation.  Neither of them has run a campaign worthy of the future “leader of the Free World.”

As an international affairs major studying abroad, the candidates’ treatment of foreign policy stands out as my biggest disappointment with the whole campaign season.  America’s government has been growing since our late republic’s founding, so I’m not surprised that both candidates have no real plan for balancing our budget, paying down the debt, or even reducing the government’s rate of growth.  After the disastrous foreign policy of President Bush (with the removal of Saddam Hussein and the dismantling of Libya’s WMD program as his only significant triumphs) and the growing hostility to American military interventions in Iraq and elsewhere, the two candidates could have at least treated their fellow Americans to a genuine debate on our government’s relations with other nations.  Initially, I almost believed Senator Obama stood for real foreign policy change, but he quickly changed his tune.  He discarded his more balanced understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favor of the foreign policy establishment’s usual pro-Israel rhetoric, even telling Israelis that Jerusalem’s status, one of the primary areas of contention, shouldn’t be negotiable before his campaign aides quickly reassured us he didn’t mean it.  The brief war between Georgia and Russia exposed his supposed emphasis on diplomatic engagement instead of preemptive war as mere window dressing when his belligerent response to Russia was only slightly less confrontational and slightly slower than McCain’s war rhetoric.  Even with regards to Iraq, Obama has stated his position is now essentially the same as the gradually phased withdrawal being negotiated by the Bush administration, and McCain has also moved his frequently quoted out-of-context “100 years” position toward this legitimized temporary occupation.  Both candidates support a surge in Afghanistan, where even the British commander says we can’t achieve victory.  Note that when the British say a colonial war can’t be won, they know what they’re talking about.  In short, Obama’s foreign policy will end the Cuban embargo (cigars for the people) and maybe talk to some “bad guys” before we blow them to kingdom come, whatever kingdom it is they think they’re going to, instead of blowing them up first, but generally looks like a politically correct version of the McCain and Bush foreign policies.

Of course, those Democrats and Republicans interested in engaging in real debate wound up sidelined by their parties, the media, and eventually the voters themselves during the primary season.  Not just my own Dr. Paul but fellow Republican Senator Sam Brownback and Democrats Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and, to a lesser extent before he sold out to Obama, Joe Biden all got blackout or dismissive treatment for most of their campaigns.  Although I disagree with much of his proposed foreign policy, former United Nations ambassador Richardson had far more experience than the Democratic frontrunners, and he got steamrolled by the establishment.  This strangulation of any alternative views carried through to the general election where the Four Horsemen, or rather three horsemen and a horsewoman, of the Alternate Political Apocalypse have been largely marginalized.  Former Congressman Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, independent consumer activist Ralph Nader, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, and former Florida Moral Majority chair Rev. Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party all represent views delightfully out of step with the stale establishment consensus, but they get no media attention except as possible “spoilers” who somehow steal votes “belonging” to McCain or Obama and thus help the other one.  That’s too bad because all of these candidates, despite their own squabbles, prejudices, and sometimes irrational policies, would add a serious dimension to the national debate.  I don’t agree with Nader that we need state-run universal healthcare, but after hearing him and Rev. Baldwin respectfully debate the issue, I have no doubt Nader’s presence would improve any McCain-Obama healthcare debate.  All these candidates opposed the bailout, although for varying reasons, while both McCain and Obama supported it.  Does that segment of America, anywhere between 20 and 80 percent depending on which poll you believe, opposing the bailout deserve no “viable” candidate?  Apparently so.

Our political system will have again produced a disappointing outcome, regardless of who wins and by what margin on November 4.  I still support Barr and the Libertarian Party (and applaud the LP for actually nominating a pro-life candidate I could vote in good conscience), as I have since the Libertarian convention, even though all hope for a breakthrough into even the 5% range disappeared a long time ago.  America, land of the free, has again experienced another campaign waged by major party operatives over trivial issues in the midst of nontrivial times.  May God bless and save America.

[Note: this rant got so long that I will add a second post on how South Africans view the election in the near future rather than continuing this one.]

God bless,

Andy