Sports and US politics

[glittertigger]

I wouldn't usually write about either sports or politics, but as what I've been doing for the last few weeks has largely been watching the Olympics followed by watching the US political shenanigans, I'm going to make an exception. I thoroughly enjoyed the Olympics - the venues were spectacular and there were some fabulous sporting performances. And I'm patriotic enough to get a buzz when we win things. What was really refreshing was seeing our athletes so openly saying they were going for gold. I've never liked all this "what matters is taking part" rubbish - competitive sports is about who wins. Rebecca Romero in particular was a huge breath of fresh air.

On the political front - I know the US election isn't really my business as I don't have a vote, but I reckon the future leadership of the US could make a lot more difference to the future of this country than which of our tedious centrist politicians happens to be in Number 10. I was enormously relieved Hillary Clinton didn't get the Democrat nomination. Whatever happens next, at least it won't be a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. On the other hand, I haven't really taken to Obama either. He's eloquent, intelligent, liberal and handsome and the mixed race background is probably an electoral asset. However the foreign tour and the grandstanding (especially his acceptance speech) come over as breathtakingly arrogant. He seems to believe the presidency is his by divine right. I've been waiting for months for someone to land a few decent punches and make him fight for it, but until this week no-one seemed to have succeeded.

Eight years ago McCain looked by far the best bet for the presidency and I was disappointed the Republicans didn't pick him. He now seems a little past his best and this time I was surprised but basically pleased by their choice. And I was more surprised by his choice of Palin as his running mate. I don't think it was aimed solely, or even primarily, at picking up Clinton's disaffected voters. I think the main objective was to fire up the conservatives. She has a phenomenal back-story (you can read that in a million places so I won't bother here) and classic conservative politics. She would be a danger to the Democrats if she was just a prettier Dubya and a better public speaker. I think their supporters have made a huge mistake in the petty way they've attacked her (to be fair, Obama himself has handled things very well). By using her to both bring home the right and attack the Democrats, McCain can keep his hands clean and make a play for the independents. It might even work and it's going to be one hell of a race to watch.

I think the huge danger to the Democrats is that part of her appeal (I wonder if McCain saw this) is that of the spirit of frontier America incarnate, in a very attractive female form. I even wonder if the reason the reactions to her are so visceral is that she stands for some deeper seated ancestral dreams. I saw a comment somewhere (apologies to the author but I can't remember where) saying that Obama stepped out of his Greek temple (boy was that temple an error) and got shot by Artemis. That struck a chord for me. Those who have fallen for her aren't going to give a damn about the details of her economic policies.

Comments

[dr-bob.livejournal.com]

I actually think that this election may be less significant for world politics than Bush-Gore was - I often find myself thinking What If.... regarding the amazing job the US did in alienating the entire world in the two years post September 11th. Bush's dogmatic, insular nationalistic politics compared with Gore's internationalism. And then there's the climate change thing...

McCain seems a much more considered politician than Bush et al, and has generally more nous on the international stage, so either way, I think there will be improvement. But I do fear for the future should he be forced to cede power to Palin for whatever reason, and his age makes this more of a fear than for most candidates historically.

[mrlloyd.livejournal.com]

"I actually think that this election may be less significant for world politics than Bush-Gore was" - just remember that at the time of that election, nobody thought it mattered. America was prosperous, the nation was at peace, and there were few clouds on the horizon.

Now they're running a record defecit, 9% of home owners are reported as being either behind on their mortgage or in foreclosure, and unemployment is heading toward 10% (measured properly). Today comes the news that the two biggest mortgage providers in America are stuffed and need a bail out / nationalising.

Overseas they're bogged down in Iraq so badly that Russia can invade Georgia and its impossible to even rattle a sabre, much less draw one.

Personally I'd suggest that this election might matter rather a lot.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Oh for pity's sake. It's never that tough for unemployment to head towards 10%, if you're using U6. Check out Europe's U6 rate.

As for America being so bogged down they can't stop Russia... I'm sorry. For several years I've been hearing about the vaunted European soft power, that was just as good as hard power, except it doesn't involve tanks (and thus is much better than the stodgy old US hard power kind). Russia is, last I checked, in Europe's bailiwick. What happened?

[mrlloyd.livejournal.com]

"Oh for pity's sake. It's never that tough for unemployment to head towards 10%, if you're using U6."

Certainly not in the last eight years.

As for European soft power, we don't go round claiming to be the world's only superpower, the global policeman or the last best hope for whatever it is. It's not about where we are, its about how far you've fallen.

[glittertigger]

I agree - I would rather see either McCain or Obama in the White House than the current occupant. Time for a change :)

[mrlloyd.livejournal.com]

Having been watching this race rather closely and more specifically, the coverage of this race; I'm curious. How much have you (or anyone else) picked up in terms of policy differences?

Without further research could you outline the key differences between the candidates of economics, foreign policy, the environment, social policy and so on based on the news coverage you've seen?

I find the news coverage of this election virtually fact free, the story is the race, the attacks and the spin.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you read the Guardian.

The Economist has, as usual, done a fairly good job, but for policy you'd be better off reading Volokh.

[glittertigger]

I don't subscibe to The Economist and the articles available to non-subscribers on the website haven't told me a lot about the policies, but maybe they save the substantial articles for subscribers? I'd never heard of Volokh until I saw your comment just now - looks good on first read.

[glittertigger]

I've read a lot of articles in the UK broadsheets about this election and picked up virtually nothing about policies, it's all been about the personalities. I've also read a fair amount in the New York Times and that didn't tell me anything about policies either.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the genius stroke of Palin -- the only danger is that one of the series of oddities currently popping out of her closet may turn out to be a really damaging one.

I think Obama may have felt defeating Clinton was the difficult bit. Hopefully he's now had a shock and will start campaigning properly.

As a non-American, my main selfish concerns about the President elected are (a) will our alliance with him involve us in foolish and damaging wars and other such foreign policy situations? and (b) will he be able to restabilize the US (and hence global) economy? So far we don't know much more than hints about either.

[glittertigger]

Sadly it looks today as if it's mud-slinging all round, which isn't much of a step forward on anyone's part.