Only racist rural idiocy--self-imposed for the most part, it would seem-- would let people think that all that could be new and important about Obama's candidacy is his blackness, he otherwise being--so Robert Wood cluelessly says-- a run of the mill politician running an efficient campaign. This is an election about the US position in the world, and most of the world's citizens cannot vote. Start from there. There has probably been a 1000 times more comments on this list about Obama's relationship to American blacks and poor than his foreign policy differences with Hilary Clinton. This probably has something to do with the hold of race over the imagination of the left. Or more accurately the racism and the popuist nationalism of the left. Obama is not only a black man. But that's what people see first here. As for Obama's identity... he is the only statesperson running for office. Looking over some of the posts on Obama's candidacy, I see that neither supporters nor critics understand what is most important about this election; why this election is world-historically important; and why there is now as there was between Gore and Bush much more than a dime's worth of difference.
Abu Hartal ______________________ Print This Page Magazine| Feb 18, 2008
opinion
Meet The New Sheriff
An indifferent US public is electing a prez who will determine our fate
PREM SHANKAR JHA A few days ago, the New York Times devoted an entire article to the way the whole of Europe was sitting on the edge of its seat watching the unfolding drama of the US primaries. Not without a tinge of pride, it implied that despite the precipitous decline in America's standing over the past five years, most Europeans still consider the US as the leader of their world and this election, therefore, is to elect the de facto ruler of the world. The NYT's assessment was only half correct. Europeans are watching the US elections not only to see the new leader of the world but whether he or she will be the one who stems or accelerates the drift towards chaos in which they are now trapped.
Things couldn't be more indifferent here. Despite the fact that the outcome of the next US elections could dramatically affect not only India's prosperity but its security and internal stability, the fierce battle in the two parties' primaries has evoked only a minimal interest in the Indian public.
This is surprising because the fate of the Indo-US nuclear treaty hangs in balance and because the US's continuing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the main cause of the growing enfeeblement of Pakistan and, therefore, at one remove, of threats to India. Contrary to President Musharraf's assertions, today the writ of his government runs fitfully in much of Balochistan and the nwfp. In the latter areas, a new Taliban—the Tehreek-i-Taliban—has all but eliminated the traditional tribal leaders and is increasingly in control. The sole reason for their rise is the continuing involvement of Pakistan in what the Pashtoons consider a genocidal attack on their fellow Pashtoons.
The longer the war in Afghanistan continues, the weaker will the Pakistani state become and the greater will be the eventual victory of the jehadis. Once it is achieved, these fighters, flushed with success, will not return to the obscurity, penury and insecurity of civilian life, but will look for new fields to conquer. Kashmir, which represents to them the anathema of a Muslim population living under 'Hindu' rule, will almost certainly become the next target.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, in both parties the electoral battle is beginning to focus on domestic issues more than the global issues upon which its fate rests. In recent weeks, the US's steep slide into recession has pushed Iraq, Afghanistan and even terrorism off the American radar screen. President Bush's determination to resist a $4.3 billion increase in welfare spending that will give a mere three additional months of relief to the chronically unemployed has suddenly thrown a halogen light on his tax cuts of $165 billion for the rich last year. The effect of the plunging stock market on the incomes and security of the aged has suddenly eclipsed the terrifying implications of Bush's demand for a new agreement with Iraq that will make the four huge, fortified military bases in that country permanent and thereby provide endless fuel to the terrorism it is feeding.
As these issues shift to the wings, it will become easier for Bush's spin doctors to 'persuade' the public that Iraq is finally calming down and on its way to democracy; that toughing it out will pay similar dividends in Afghanistan and that once special forces operations in Pakistan's tribal belt have killed Osama and Zawahiri, the war on terrorism too will be won. It will become more difficult for the Democrats to campaign for a withdrawal from Iraq, more difficult for them to propose a time limit for operations in Afghanistan and more difficult to shift the focus of foreign policy from force to diplomacy.
Within the Democratic party, this is beginning to tilt the balance away from Obama in favour of Clinton.Within the Republicans, it has tilted the scales sharply towards John McCain. Should these two emerge as the candidates, the first casualty will be the rapidly crumbling world order. Clinton has pitched her entire campaign upon 'experience' and her ability to forge centrist consensus. These by definition rule out any new departure in American foreign policy. This includes Iraq, where she has never expressed a single moral regret at her country having destroyed a people for literally nothing, and Iran and Palestine...
The only hope that America would tacitly acknowledge its mistakes and recognise that most of the world views it as a source of threat and not of stability, lay in Edwards and, to a slightly lesser extent, in Obama. But Edwards was pushed out of the Democratic race and the US's increasing domestic woes make it more likely that Clinton's appeal to reasonableness will prevail over Obama's promise of change. The rest of the world does not matter. The outcome of an election that will probably determine the fate of the world will be decided by those who have almost no interest in it. How much more dysfunctional can the world become?
ABOUT US CONTACT US SUBSCRIBE COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER
outlooktraveller.com | outlookmoney.com © Outlook Publishing (India) Private Limited _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/