Recently, there has been some furor over The Guardian’s attempt to influence the upcoming election by asking their readers to write to undecided voters in Clark County, Ohio and convince them to vote for Kerry.
Many, including some on this board, have decried this meddling in American politics from abroad. My question for those who oppose outside influence, is this: how do you feel about more subtle maneuvers, such as OPEC lowering oil prices in support of the current administration. Is one kosher and the other not? What is the difference? Is it the fact that one is obvious and the other subtle and easily attributable to other factors?
Personally, I am unable to draw a distinction, so I come to the premliminary conclusion that all influence is fair game as long as it’s not actually illegal, which neither of the examples here are.
I can’t think of any laws that would be violated. It might, however, have an unintended consequence. The negative pubilicity will cause some to go contrary to what they were asking, and vote for Bush. The size of this effect is open to debate.
The best part of the whole situation was the Guardian’s headline when they published some of the letters they received from the US (keep in mind the differences in what words we use on each side of the pond). The headline was “Dear Limey A**holes.”
Cite that Opec lowers oil prices in order to support the current administration? Prices are still inching up at this very moment when the administration would find it most agreeable to see them come down.
But I agree with your central point, that the world should be able to express its opinion on US elections since so much of what happens in the US affects the world.
Poster from abroad, here. I realize I’m not who the thread is addressed to, but I thought I’d say something.
I made a resolution awhile back not to get too involved in American politics. We’re so flooded with American news up here that Canadians get a bit too involved (at least a couple Canadian posters on this board seem to forget they’re Canadian from time to time). We’re different countries and that’s the way I prefer it.
Still, it’s getting harder and harder to ignore what’s going on down south. Bush has shown him so clearly incapable of respecting other countries sovreignty, so eager and willing to use violence even when no justification exists, that I think we have every reason to be frightened. America has moved to a stage where it takes what it wants by force, attacks without provocation, and doesn’t negotiate – and we share an awfully long border with you guys.
Your ambassador to our country has also made veiled threats on subjects like not joining the Iraq war, and legalizing marijuana.
I don’t know a single Canadian (except one on these boards), who doesn’t have their fingers crossed and is hoping for a Kerry win. Nobody thinks he’s an angel, but at least we wouldn’t have to be afraid up here.
America is now making decisions for the world. It’s deposing dictators (but only those it’s not on friendly terms with – it’s happy to prop up others), policing countries, setting economic policy. But only 5% of the world can vote for the government that’s now set itself up as de facto world government.
Is it any wonder why the rest of us would try to convince the few voters in the world oligarchy not to keep supporting a dangerous lunatic?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I am not claiming that has happened, merely offering it as a hypothetical, since the posibility of such an action came up a few times over the summer.
Other countries should not interfere with each other’s elections. The Guardian thing was tasteless and pointless trollery. However, since the U.S. has interfered quite a bit with other countries elections, I can’t really complain when someone does it to us. Not that anyone has even come close to the level of interference the U.S. has done in the past…
The US is still interfering with other countries’ elections. Witness the coup and recall campaign in Venezuela, and the threat of mass deportations and loss of US visas if the “wrong” candidate was elected in El Salvador. Admittedly the US hasn’t assassinated any democratically elected leaders lately, but it’s still a bit more than a newspaper campaign.
The Gaurdian is calling for a person-to-person grassroots campaign. That is hardly the same thing as an international oil monopoly fixing prices to ensure a certain result.
I couldn’t be more anti-bush, or more pro-European, but this is indeed embarassing for the Guardian. I like the Guardian most of the time too. Did they really think that we would appreciate people meddling in our elections?
Putin endorsing Bush is one thing. As far as I’m concerned, any entity is entitled to state their opinion as to who they think the better president would be, but encouraging readers to try to affect the election isn’t necessarily unethical, or illegal, but just in bad taste. Americans are certainly very proud of their country, probably more than most, but I don’t think I could imagine any country in the world that would appreciate this kind of medling.
I gotta say, that does seem to be more than a little over the edge. I don’t imagine the Brits would be thrilled if the New York Times editorialized for the beheading of, say, Princes Charles, William, and Harry, as a means to putting an end to an archaic institution. Then again, the very fact that the policies of our Beloved Leader manage to engender that kind of vitriol is revealing.
Probably the same misguided sense of righteousness that led to the assasination of Pim Fortyn; the Left is not exactly known for its inclusiveness and understanding, you know. Don’t try to play ‘blame the victiim’ here.
