[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not sure what you mean about the “neocon legacy”. Most of the purported neocons were Bush appointees who wouldn’t stay on unless McCain wanted them to. In fact, many of them are already gone. You don’t find that group much represented by the career bureaucrats that stay regardless of the administration.
[/QUOTE]
But they’ve already had their greatest success – getting us into Iraq – and McCain has shown no sign he wants us out.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
But they’ve already had their greatest success – getting us into Iraq – and McCain has shown no sign he wants us out.
[/QUOTE]
He’s the only one being honest about it. Hillary and Obama both know we’re going to be there indefinitely. They can’t talk about that now (wouldn’t play well to their Democratic audience), but just wait until the we get past the primaries and are in the general.
Here in Canada we’re extremely interested. The US is culturally similar, our big trading partner and ‘the elephant’*. Canadians generally are not impressed by Bush, Iraq or the last 8 years (my opinion), and are hoping for a Democrat. We get a lot of news from the US, and are generally (my opinion - I’ve lived in both places) nearly as well informed about US federal politics as Americans are.
*“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
* Pierre Trudeau addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C. (1969-03-25)[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m not sure what you mean about the “neocon legacy”. Most of the purported neocons were Bush appointees who wouldn’t stay on unless McCain wanted them to. In fact, many of them are already gone. You don’t find that group much represented by the career bureaucrats that stay regardless of the administration.
[/QUOTE]
Is policy reversal that easy, once the career bureaucrats have been set in motion? I speak as someone who’s worked on the fringes of government in the UK, where policies may change like a dinghy, but the Civil Service moves like an ocean liner. I am being genuine in my query, by the way - I don’t know how the bureaucrats in the US government respond to policy change, and may be making unfair assumptions. I am in particular talking about foreign service and diplomacy.
As for “purported”, I refer you to the signatories to this document. Ain’t no “purported” about it.
[QUOTE=jjimm]
Is policy reversal that easy, once the career bureaucrats have been set in motion? I speak as someone who’s worked on the fringes of government in the UK, where policies may change like a dinghy, but the Civil Service moves like an ocean liner. I am being genuine in my query, by the way - I don’t know how the bureaucrats in the US government respond to policy change, and may be making unfair assumptions. I am in particular talking about foreign service and diplomacy.
[/quote]
Well, we’re not going to just get out of Iraq, so in that sense the policy will continue regardless of who wins in November. But there is no reason to think that McCain would take the neocon ball and run with it.
The term is thrown around pretty loosely, not always limited to the signatories of that document. It’s possible to support the Iraq war and not be a neocon.
People here are surprisingly interested.
People’s concept of the United States is a little hazy, for example, I’ve heard many times:
[ul]
[li]America is either Europe, a country in Europe, or a city in France[/li][li]America is a collection of countries “just like Africa is”[/li][li]America is the entire North and South American continent[/li][li]Republicans are all Jews, who rule the world because they are smarter and more hard working than everyone else. It’s just a shame they keep fighting with the Christians in Israel[/li][li]Osama Bin Laden doesn’t have any religious affiliation and attacks things because he’s Arab and Arabs do wierd things like that[/li][li]America’s president is voted for but that vote doesn’t really count and he is appointed by the senate (a misunderstanding of the electoral college.)[/li][/ul]
But everyone knows that George Bush started the war in Iraq and that Bill Clinton is the reason why they can now get anti-retroviral drugs. Cameroonians are following this election a lot more closely than a lot of the Americans I know here. They realize that America has a lot of power, and a huge amount of influence on their country.
One interesting comment I got was “A woman a black man?! That’s the best you could come up with?!?” People like Hilary because they like Bill. They don’t know Obama is black, but when I tell them, they are worried about a black guy’s chances of being elected.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
I’m sure I’d follow U.S. elections very closely if I lived anywhere in the Middle East.
[/QUOTE]
Hell, yeah!
Oh, and I suspect most Israelis (present company excluded, though) want the Republican candidate to win – because the Rep.'s are **seen **as being more “pro-Israel” (whether that is even true, and whether Republican carte-blanche support of Israel is even good for us, is rather moot when it comes to public opinion…)
Personally, I would favor HRC or Obama – whichever one wins the Dem. primaries. Another 4-8 years of a Republican in the White House cannot be good for the US, and by extension, cannot be good for the world.
[QUOTE=Attack from the 3rd dimension]
Here in Canada we’re extremely interested. The US is culturally similar, our big trading partner and ‘the elephant’*. Canadians generally are not impressed by Bush, Iraq or the last 8 years (my opinion), and are hoping for a Democrat. We get a lot of news from the US, and are generally (my opinion - I’ve lived in both places) nearly as well informed about US federal politics as Americans are.
*“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”
* Pierre Trudeau addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C. (1969-03-25)
[/QUOTE]
And yet, we never seem to pay much attention to Canada, not even at election time. In fact, we probably pay more attention to politics in Mexico. Funny how that works.
[QUOTE=even sven]
I’ve heard many times:
[ul]
[li]America is the entire North and South American continent[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
That one is actually true. The rest are pretty funny, though.
It gets some coverage here (Obama winning one of the first primaries was headline-on-lamp-post news, and the primaries are regularly reported on) but I don’t think the man-in-the-street gives a hoot. I care only in as much as GD and the Pit are more full of the minutiae of US politics than usual.
I favour Clinton, is as much as if you had a gun to my head, that’s who I’d choose. Don’t like Obama much, post Oprah-endorsment.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
And yet, we never seem to pay much attention to Canada, not even at election time. In fact, we probably pay more attention to politics in Mexico. Funny how that works.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I’d say that you folks do pay attention–but under GWB’s administration, it’s been almost always bad, at least according to our POV. We’ve been accused of harboring terrorists due to our so-called lax immigration policies, we’ve had WTO rulings in our favour in trade disputes ignored by the US government, and in spite of the fact that we’ve stood by you in all ways for over a hundred years, your President isn’t shy about saying other nations are the best friends you’ve got. (Jeez, who helped your own citizens on 9/11 who were unable to get into the US because you closed your skies? How many other countries’ diplomats helped Americans escape Iran during the hostage crisis?) Yes, I’d say you pay attention, but you can be forgetful at times. I don’t know if that’s GWB’s fault, but I think it has become more irritating during his administration.
Up until GWB, I’d say that we’ve always had minor squabbles and disagreements like any two neighbours, but we don’t let those get in the way of being good friends. But GWB doesn’t seem to want to talk nicely over the fence, as neighbours do, to solve our mutual problems. Oh, he will talk with Mexico, his neighbour on the other side, and he’ll phone across the street to the UK, but we might as well not be here at all. Unless he wants to tell us he’s going to put up some sort of higher fence between us, so we have even greater difficulties communicating.
And here lies the important point: Canadians are watching and caring about the US election, because we feel we have a stake in it somehow. Certainly, sharing a border with you folks gives us, we think, a bigger interest in the outcome than any nation you don’t share a border with. We’d like to see a new President who actually knew we were here, welcomed and trusted our presence in a geographical sense, and who wants to work with us again to solve our mutual problems. Perhaps we’d like to return to the friendly and open relations the US and Canada used to enjoy, and so we’re watching the various candidates in both parties carefully, trying to get a sense of which one(s) will encourage greater dialogue between us, rather than discourage it.
So yes, to answer the OP; here in Canada, we care very much.
I’m interested in the contest more than the actual policies – shallow, I know – so I follow it like you would a sporting event. Not sure if that counts as “caring”. I guess a Clinton win would be the most interesting outcome, for me. So on that pathetically flimsy basis, I’m backing Hillary. Got slightly put off Obama by some of the BBC Washington staff getting carried away and behaving like they were on his campaign team (since rectified though, I have to say). Looks set to be an exciting election this time, whatever happens.
[QUOTE=Spoons]
Oh, I’d say that you folks do pay attention–but under GWB’s administration, it’s been almost always bad, at least according to our POV. We’ve been accused of harboring terrorists due to our so-called lax immigration policies, we’ve had WTO rulings in our favour in trade disputes ignored by the US government, and in spite of the fact that we’ve stood by you in all ways for over a hundred years, your President isn’t shy about saying other nations are the best friends you’ve got.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m sorry about that, if I had been making that speech I would’ve thanked Canada before the UK. Whaddaya want? Dude’s a moron. One more year, just put up with this one more year, that’s all we ask!
[QUOTE=Spoons]
And here lies the important point: Canadians are watching and caring about the US election, because we feel we have a stake in it somehow. Certainly, sharing a border with you folks gives us, we think, a bigger interest in the outcome than any nation you don’t share a border with. We’d like to see a new President who actually knew we were here, welcomed and trusted our presence in a geographical sense, and who wants to work with us again to solve our mutual problems. Perhaps we’d like to return to the friendly and open relations the US and Canada used to enjoy, and so we’re watching the various candidates in both parties carefully, trying to get a sense of which one(s) will encourage greater dialogue between us, rather than discourage it.
[/QUOTE]
Well, Obama’s from Chicago, so he’s at least very aware Canada exists.
US citizen in Japan.
It’s definitely in the news here. Election-related stories routinely make page 2-3 in the papers, and the Super Tuesday results will almost definitely by front-page news. I also get a lot of people asking me why there’s another election every week. Most seem horrified at the idea that this is all going to drag on until November.
Why would they care? Well, the US is a major trading partner, and US economic events make waves over here. Bush has not been popular, with an overwhelming majority of the populace opposing going to war with Iraq. There are also about 50,000 US troops still stationed here.
Most of the media focus seems to be on Clinton vs Obama. If I had to guess why, I’d say because they make more interesting news. McCain is just another white gaijin, and Romney is just another white gaijin with better hair. The Clinton name is already very well-known, while Obama is something different. Many people I talk with aren’t exactly certain who’s in which party, probably because of Primary/Final confusion: if they’re fighting against each other, they must be from opposing parties, right?
Most of my friends and clients can name Obama and Clinton, although more are harder pressed to name any Republicans.
Another reason for the confusion in Japan is that there isn’t much difference in ideals or policies between the current leading parties in Japan, and the previous Social Party was a joke when it was the only opposition (many years ago).
Most Japanese who were a little more internationally savvy used to support the Republicans, as there was a popular belief that Republicans were more pro business and pro Japan, but the Clinton years showed that a Democratic administration wouldn’t be any more anti-Japanese.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
It gets some coverage here (Obama winning one of the first primaries was headline-on-lamp-post news, and the primaries are regularly reported on) but I don’t think the man-in-the-street gives a hoot. I care only in as much as GD and the Pit are more full of the minutiae of US politics than usual.
[/QUOTE]
Pardon my ignorance, but where are you located? Not exactly sure what “the Mother City” is.
I know that friends in Germany and New Zealand seem to be following this Primary Election season with great interest - most are in pleasantly in shock that it has narrowed down to either a black man or a woman. I think they, like many Americans, never thought they would live to see this happen.
[QUOTE=DMark]
Pardon my ignorance, but where are you located? Not exactly sure what “the Mother City” is.
[/QUOTE]
Did you try Google? The first page of hits leaves no confusion. There is only one Mother City.
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
Most Japanese who were a little more internationally savvy used to support the Republicans, as there was a popular belief that Republicans were more pro business and pro Japan, but the Clinton years showed that a Democratic administration wouldn’t be any more anti-Japanese.
[/QUOTE]
I find that invariably, the people who like Republicans better base their opinion on the notion that Democrats would tend to be more protectionist and a Republican administration would be better for exports.
Interestingly, I just had a conversation with a colleague about the elections (neither of us are from the US) and he expressed the opinion that the outcome of the election would have enough impact on our daily lives that we should have the right to vote.
[QUOTE=xtisme]
In your countries, how much interest is there really in the US presidential elections?
As a side question, who do you feel is the better choice? Hillary or Obama (I assume practically no one favors a Republican president)? And who do you feel is the more popular in your country as well (if anyone…I suspect it’s going to be a matter of vast indifference to the majority, with only those politics hounds really caring)?
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Probably far more interest and attention than the spectacle merits, but that’s only because within the US system the president has the powers that an old style monarch used to exercise as a matter of course. After all, the American system of government is, basically, an elective monarchy.
The most fascinating aspect of the US system is how it enables such a small number of people who are both well read and have genuine intelligence to end up with the final prize. Since World War II probably only two men with any real intelligence have gained that office. Nixon and Clinton.
Unfortunately, both had a rancid kind of intelligence. However, in their own way, both were hugely entertaining to observe.
As to who is most likely to bring on a new Camelot for our enjoyment? I’d say Romney and Obama, in that order.
I dunno. I like Mitt Romney because he’s a backstabber. It’s pretty much a guarantee that his actual policy as President would be so different from what he says on the campaign trail as to be unrecognizable. Ergo, the more you disagree with Romney, the more reason to vote him into office. Just ask a Massachusetts Democrat.
Not to debate you, but you should know that McCain has grown fervently more pro-Bush since he lost the nomination to him in 2000, and particularly since 2004. He’s also completely fucking useless at getting things done for his constituents. I should know–I was one of them until a few months ago, and he’s probably the only Senator who doesn’t even care enough about his constituents to respond to them with a fucking form letter.
Yeah, I’m a little pissed. (In both the US and UK sense.)
I assure you that we don’t, negative or otherwise. We’re talking about elections here, and, even as the guy who’s generally the most pro-Canada in the room, I again assure you that if I polled 20 random Americans (OK, 20 random Californians–don’t know about the colder states), I probably wouldn’t find one who could name a Canadian political candidate. (ETA: Myself included.) You’re saying “you folks” when you mean “Bush”, and that’s a sure way to start a fight.
That said, it’s interesting to hear the Canadian perspective on US-Canada relations. It certainly seems that our government is less trusting of yours than before GWB, and there’s generally no love lost between our right-wing element and (their image of) Canada. But keep in mind that for every anti-Canadian here, there’s at least one person who has considered moving to Canada for political reasons in the last eight years.
Better solution: we should scale down our government until our local elections stop having so much impact on the rest of the world that they can claim the right to vote and be taken semi-seriously. Fercrissakes, White House, WWII was 60+ years ago–we can stop building and tearing down nations at our whim now!