For a lot of non-Americans, the US election is one of the more important elections that we can't vote in. Who the president is actually has an impact on the rest of the world. It's not just that what's important in the US is important for the world, it's also that the particular areas of US politics which the president has a greater degree of influence over tend to be more international in nature.
So with that in mind, I'm interested in discussing who the non-Americans of CFC would like to see as president, or more generally what they think of the US presidential candidates. If you are American, feel free to put yourself in the shoes of a non-American (or if you think non-American opinions on this topics are irrelevant, feel free not to care).
I'd predict that a Democrat would be far more popular internationally than domestically - I doubt it there would be anywhere near a 50-50 split of opinion.
Of the Democrats, personally, and perhaps just projecting from my own opinions, I suspect Bernie Sanders is not as popular with the left outside of the US as he is within the US. The 'working families' platitudes and motherhood statements have been absolutely done to death in Australia, and are just reminiscent of the worst aspects of Gillard's populism, which really did her no favours.
More broadly, I think his appeal relates more to domestic issues. For example, given I see myself as a generally nice person, I'd like to see a solution to the civil rights issues in America, but on the grand scale of things, it's really not something I'd place priority on compared to issues which actually do impact on me more directly. It's an intellectual concern, but not something I have an investment in anymore than civil rights issues in other parts of the world. Similarly, there are things I care about a great deal more than the minimum wage in the US. These types of concerns are at the core of Sanders' appeal, so he's probably not going to appeal to foreigners as much. (There's also the really annoying and cultish astroturfing that infests reddit, which is a real put off more than one year out from an election that I only have a voyeuristic interest in).
Clinton, on the other hand, does have international appeal. As much as some people might like to paint her time as Secretary of State as unsuccessful, I think it's fair to say that the rest of the world largely saw it as a huge success. She is undoubtedly the best placed of the candidates to deal with the international community, in the same way that Obama has. She's also probably the 'safe pair of hands' candidate in terms of the global economy.
International compatibility is where a lot of the Republican candidates fall down from an international perspective. Their policies (such as on climate change) could have a dramatic international effect, and not for the better. Even conservative leaders around the world will be crossing their fingers that they don't have to deal with an overly nationalistic Republican. I also think that there's not an adequate realisation by many Americans that the choice between the US and China is quite a live question for many countries, Australia included. If Trump were to become president, for example, I think that could genuinely result in a pivot from the US to China for Australia - we'd opt for the saner ally. In the post-Bush world, the standing of the US with its allies is contingent on precisely the type of internationally compatible diplomacy that Obama has practiced so well. It shouldn't be assumed that the US would be able to maintain its unquestioned leadership position amongst Western powers if it's presenting opinions that the rest of the West do not agree with.
But assuming that amongst the Republicans there's a lesser evil, I suppose it would have to be the candidate that is the least bombastic on issues like Iran and terrorism. I guess that's Kasich.
Thoughts?
So with that in mind, I'm interested in discussing who the non-Americans of CFC would like to see as president, or more generally what they think of the US presidential candidates. If you are American, feel free to put yourself in the shoes of a non-American (or if you think non-American opinions on this topics are irrelevant, feel free not to care).
I'd predict that a Democrat would be far more popular internationally than domestically - I doubt it there would be anywhere near a 50-50 split of opinion.
Of the Democrats, personally, and perhaps just projecting from my own opinions, I suspect Bernie Sanders is not as popular with the left outside of the US as he is within the US. The 'working families' platitudes and motherhood statements have been absolutely done to death in Australia, and are just reminiscent of the worst aspects of Gillard's populism, which really did her no favours.
More broadly, I think his appeal relates more to domestic issues. For example, given I see myself as a generally nice person, I'd like to see a solution to the civil rights issues in America, but on the grand scale of things, it's really not something I'd place priority on compared to issues which actually do impact on me more directly. It's an intellectual concern, but not something I have an investment in anymore than civil rights issues in other parts of the world. Similarly, there are things I care about a great deal more than the minimum wage in the US. These types of concerns are at the core of Sanders' appeal, so he's probably not going to appeal to foreigners as much. (There's also the really annoying and cultish astroturfing that infests reddit, which is a real put off more than one year out from an election that I only have a voyeuristic interest in).
Clinton, on the other hand, does have international appeal. As much as some people might like to paint her time as Secretary of State as unsuccessful, I think it's fair to say that the rest of the world largely saw it as a huge success. She is undoubtedly the best placed of the candidates to deal with the international community, in the same way that Obama has. She's also probably the 'safe pair of hands' candidate in terms of the global economy.
International compatibility is where a lot of the Republican candidates fall down from an international perspective. Their policies (such as on climate change) could have a dramatic international effect, and not for the better. Even conservative leaders around the world will be crossing their fingers that they don't have to deal with an overly nationalistic Republican. I also think that there's not an adequate realisation by many Americans that the choice between the US and China is quite a live question for many countries, Australia included. If Trump were to become president, for example, I think that could genuinely result in a pivot from the US to China for Australia - we'd opt for the saner ally. In the post-Bush world, the standing of the US with its allies is contingent on precisely the type of internationally compatible diplomacy that Obama has practiced so well. It shouldn't be assumed that the US would be able to maintain its unquestioned leadership position amongst Western powers if it's presenting opinions that the rest of the West do not agree with.
But assuming that amongst the Republicans there's a lesser evil, I suppose it would have to be the candidate that is the least bombastic on issues like Iran and terrorism. I guess that's Kasich.
Thoughts?
)
)
)
