U.S. election is a global affair

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4548570/
Larry Downing / Reuters file

A wary world watches for clues to its future
By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 2:12 p.m. ET March 17, 2004
WASHINGTON - Bulletin: The first Planetary Election has begun. It’s a global contest of the highest possible stakes for control of the machinery of American might. There are many reasons why the Bush-Kerry race has started so early and is so nasty. Most are tactical. But this is profound: There has never been a more crucial issue to debate and never a sharper contrast between theories of how to protect America and achieve world peace.

In that sense, an eight-month campaign isn’t long enough.

The notion of a Planetary Presidential Election came into focus in the bombing in Spain and its political aftermath — including, most recently, Howard Dean’s statement that President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was partly to blame for the death toll in Madrid. Sen. John Kerry repudiated the accusation, and his handlers got Dean to recant it, sort of.

But in his typically blunt way, the former governor of Vermont merely was voicing what most Democrats — including Kerry — probably believe, and that most of the rest of the world’s citizens take for granted: George Bush’s punch-in-the-nose method of dealing with terrorism will not work, indeed it will weaken democracies abroad and threaten America at home. (As if to underscore that, a car bomb struck a Baghdad hotel Wednesday, killing dozens.)

SNIP-

... among the press, one of those most inclined to fawn over Bush....

"We are the most powerful, if reluctant, imperium since the days of Rome...."

Reluctant, my ass. The guys running Bush's show have been champing at the bit for decades, and now they have their chance. That they're the biggest group of screw-ups ever assembled in a single government doesn't seem to occur to Fineman....

You are right on point!

.
.
.
More from the Article:

“Foreign” money is barred from playing a role in American elections, but foreign public opinion is not. Kerry seemed to applaud overseas participation when he said that “more” leaders abroad privately had told him that they hoped he would beat Bush. Kerry’s point was that we can’t protect this country without being respected, if not beloved, by the community of nations and that he was just the man to improve our standing in the world. Military might and “pre-emptive” wars against totalitarian regimes won’t win the forbearance, let alone the support, of the world, his argument goes.

To which Bush has two answers, at least so far. One, he contends, we do have a strong coalition with us, and even Spain will continue to be partners in the wider war on terror. The other answer is more basic: If we’re not militarily strong, and committed to bringing democracy to the planet — through the use of force, if necessary — then the planetary forces of cold-blooded terrorism will destroy freedom. There is a third answer, which you can hear faintly in some cable chatter and that the Bushies no doubt will use openly in the months ahead: that Kerry’s view is too “French” — too foreign, too accomodationist — and somehow fundamentally “foreign.” Nativism is an ugly strain in American politics. Expect to see it.

Arguments don’t get any more basic, or global.

The whole world obviously has a stake in which sides wins. We are the most powerful, if reluctant, imperium since the days of Rome, and, as in those days, the politics of Rome reverberate throughout the known world.
.....................................................................

I have to admit, that the outcome of this election will definitely have an influence on my personal decisions for the future.

I had decided some time back that there is no way that I will vacation in the United States again as long as present policies exist. I will not even cross the border to tour the south side of Lake Ontario on my way to Kingston(I have family there) as I have done in the past.

I had aimed on retiring to California, which I have visited and liked, but that is no longer a consideration.

To put it bluntly, I'm scared to go in the US now, and I really have no need.

But I miss it.

(sigh)

"The whole world obviously has a stake in which sides wins. We are the most powerful, if reluctant, imperium since the days of Rome, and, as in those days, the politics of Rome reverberate throughout the known world."

Now...check out this website. Notice the reference to SPQR!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm

Senatus Populusque Romanorum

The Senate of the People of Rome.

The phrase was coined during the Roman Republic, with the idea that the Senators would represent the interests of the Roman freemen. It was a democratic system, if imperfectly so.

Rome later turned into an empire, and the Senate became a part-time abbatoir. After Julius Caesar, Rome was so disunited that it was unable to turn away the invaders from the north.

SPQR conjurs up the idea of military might and moral integrity. The neo-cons forget that by choosing a champion (Caesar) and elevating him to Dictator -- and then Imperator -- they cut the heart out of Roman culture.

What will America be, say, in 2300?

--bkl

its "the senate and the people of Rome" (the 'que' suffix means 'and'). Which does make a difference - the Roman Senate was never the representative of the common man (women didn't get a look in, of course) but of the aristocrats - the tribunes were the elected representatives of the people, and often in conflict with the Senate. The Roman Republic was far from a perfect democracy.

I even double-checked the que part. 's cool!

The Roman Senate, and their Republic in general, was extremely elitist, but it wasn't a monarchy, and one of the strengths of Rome was that bad ideas would often be rejected. In monarchies and empires, that stopgap didn't exist at all.

When Rome rejected even the small civic improvement that their poor implementation of Republican ideals brought, Rome went into a spectacular decline, and we have been worrying about it since 1776.

With good reason. George Bush at least hasn't appointed his horse to the Cabinet, and doesn't bathe in the blood of his enemies. Not yet, anyway.

--bkl
Si non convivere, non tintinere

But I miss it.

You probably miss an America that once was. Trust me, you don't want to be here now. The place is overrun with big SUVs hogging the roads, operated by drivers with cellphones to their ears paying no mind to anyone else. The media totally sucks; it's just commercials and r-w crap all day long. The people are callous and indifferent, trained only to be consumers to whom job one is to spend more money on stupid, mindless objects. Then they buy plastic bins to store it in the basement.

Culture is just about nonexistent, with the book market being overrun by celebrity hits, leaving little for any new talent. Cells of young republican brownshirts in universities threaten the free speech of academics by monitoring what they say. The capital itself, which was once a beautiful place, now looks like an armed fortress. Taxes are careening out of control--property taxes alone here are a grand a month and that isn't even counting the other ridiculously high taxes we pay, such as a six per cent sales tax. Health insurance? Forget it. 18,000 a year die here because they can't afford it. But never mind, we'll go out and spend $155 billion killing everything in sight in Iraq.

Thirty years of republicans have turned a once shining country into a paradise for the rich and a living hell for the middle and lower income groups.


Cher

.
.
.

I lived in and around San Diego for all of 79 and part of 80.

Places I lived in included Mission Valley, Chula Vista, Bonita and National City. What I remember about San Diego then was that rarely did I ever see traffic jams, well except there was a gas shortage when I was down there and line-ups for the pumps were not uncommon.

But it was a "low-profile" city, spread out with lots of parks and not too many high-rises, be we ARE talking about 25 years ago. And the people were friendly, at least to this Canuk they were anyhoo.

And, yup, I guess I can understand what you are saying about your capital, I was sort of amazed and dismayed to see them closing up streets and putting up fences all around it. Made me think of the compounds around government buildings in Russia. . .hmmmm

So, if that's indicative of how the USA is now, then you are right. I wouldn't want to be there.

Well, the USA WAS a great country for awhile, but it's over now it seems.

And if Canada lets itself get bullied into putting missiles up here, well, then Canada will be jumping on a downhill slide . .

(sigh)

Our leaders have been pushing the globalization stuff for years, so this is a natural evolution..

Presidents (especially US presidents) have the ability to get LEGISLATION that affects people ALL OVER THE WORLD.. why would anyone be surprised that they feel like they have a stake in the outcome of our elections..

The pretend naivete is misplaced.. The nations of the world have suffered, due to Bush, and they probably want to be rid of him MORE than we do :(

Americans should have 50% of the vote, and the rest of the world, combined, accounts for the other 50%. It would be only fair!

...you won't mind if I endorse John Kerry for president will you? :evilgrin:

A vote for Kerry will be a vote for the devil. That will be the next slogan that will excite the Christian base and bring guilt to the simple minded.