But all of that and more has happened. The names of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become internationally known because of the crisis caused in the US by the collapse of the two giant mortgage lenders. I woke up recently to hear on the radio that the UK government has just bought a major interest in the Royal Bank of Scotland, where I am a customer. Job insecurity is no laughing matter, so I resisted the temptation to ask the friendly staff in my local branch how they felt about suddenly becoming civil servants; I just have to trust that the changes won’t affect their ability to look after my overdraft.

I’ve been saddened to hear about the effects of the financial crisis in Iceland, the most beautiful country I’ve ever visited, where the national economy came close to collapse. I can see the effects closer to home, too: suddenly there’s a severe shortage of job opportunities being advertised in my local paper. When I visited a recruitment agency in Leeds recently, I was told that there was just one area in which new jobs were being created rapidly: debt collection. The queues for bargains at my friendly neighbourhood discount food shops in Bradford have never been quite so long.
I’m genuinely sorry that so many people are suffering because of the economic problems, but at the same time I’m relieved that deregulation is now thoroughly discredited (a word that seems singularly apt) just as surely as Communism was discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The economic era that gave us Reaganomics and Thatcherism has now been pronounced dead by no less an authority than Francis Fukuyama, the economist who previously saw the free market as the natural final state of human society and announced ‘the end of history’. Fukuyama has now admitted that ‘…there are certain jobs that only the government can fulfil’, and called for the rebuilding and revitalising of the American public sector. I am no economist, but I like to think that the species I belong to is capable of more than just mercilessly competing and trying to sell things to one another, so I’m glad that greed is no longer believed to be good. As our credit is crunched, we can see all too clearly where over-consumption has led us.

Meanwhile, in the midst of all the economic chaos and worrying news, I’ve found one personal consolation: I no longer have any difficulty in finding people with whom I can have a good discussion about politics. A crisis of this magnitude causes lots of people to watch the news more closely and to look to our elected leaders for some sort of solution. The state of the global economy has drawn more attention to the US election, and probably decided its outcome, as the Republicans have taken the blame for the crisis. This is at least partially fair, since they have been the loudest American cheerleaders for the free market, and Reaganomics certainly carried the Republican brand. The true extent of the Bush administration’s culpability for the present crisis is endlessly debatable; it’s hard to gauge how much control national governments can have over economic changes as seismic as the ones currently shaking the planet. But in hard times, incumbent politicians tend to get punished by the electorate.

The relentlessly negative tone of the Republicans’ campaign has surely made matters worse for

them. In troubling times, people naturally look for hope and reassurance rather than for more reasons to worry. Barack Obama has at least sounded like someone trying to bring his nation together to combat problems. The personal attacks on Obama from the McCain/Palin camp have seemed irrelevant, a bout of petty name-calling as the house burns down.

The stories that emerged about McCain and Palin’s personal wealth and extravagance were also given greater power by the difficult circumstances in which many voters suddenly found themselves. If you’re worried about the mortgage payments on your family’s only home, then reading that John McCain owns seven homes can hardly inspire confidence in his ability to relate to your hardships. Meanwhile, the Republicans’ spending of $150,000 on clothes for Palin seemed staggeringly insensitive, the supposedly down-to-earth Alaskan visiting the most expensive, exclusive designer shops just as many voters were buying their own clothes from charity shops or budget stores.

In one limited sense, the imminent election is now less important. Whoever is handed the reins of government will be dealing in damage limitation; there will be no magical remedy to fix things quickly coming from the White House or anywhere else. President Obama or President McCain will be overseeing increased government intervention in the economy whether it suits them ideologically or not. But for a wide variety of other reasons, the election still matters enormously. The new President will certainly need to be calm under immense pressure, and Obama has gained great credit by retaining his cool in the face of some outrageous attacks while McCain has appeared irritable and impulsive on the campaign trail.

And then there are the questions of war and peace. Leaving aside all the moral and humanitarian questions about the American presence in Iraq, the USA needs a less aggressive foreign policy for financial reasons; the American economy simply cannot afford the vast cost of war on multiple fronts.

International co-operation is going to be required to solve the international economic crisis. The election of Obama would have huge symbolic importance in convincing the rest of the world that the world’s most powerful nation would in future be using its power in a more conciliatory manner. I can only agree with the editorial verdict in a journal that endorsed President Bush at the last US General Election, the Financial Times: ‘The challenges facing the next president will be extraordinary. We hesitate to wish it on anyone, but we hope that Mr. Obama gets the job.’

Anyway, we’ll soon know, and I won’t be lonely in my waiting. For one thing, the coverage of the election by the BBC and by Britain’s serious newspapers has become comprehensive and excellent lately.

What’s more, it so happens I spend a lot of my social time around the University of Bradford, where one of the specialities is archaeology. Many of my friends have been trained in that science, and even the most conservative church regulars among them are affronted that the most powerful politician in the world could conceivably soon be Sarah Palin, a believer in creationist theories that they know are demonstrably absurd. The student union bar there is staying open till 4am on the morning of November 5 so that we can watch the results come in while clutching a glass of something calming or celebratory. Hopefully I’ll be back here soon afterwards to tell you what the atmosphere was like. But if I’m a little late, I’m sure you’ll understand.

You see, it’s like this: I simply cannot get enough of the US Presidential election.

My habit causes me pain. It reinforces a depressing sense of helplessness in the face of human irrationality and overwhelming power. I can, and do, subscribe to Barack Obama’s e-mailing list

Barack Obama photo by SEIU International

to get the latest updates directly from the candidate I hope to see win; but US electoral law prevents an un-American like me from responding to his frequent appeals for money. I don’t have the funds to commute across the Atlantic to help with canvassing, and I’m sure that even if I could go knocking on doors in a crucial swing state like Ohio or Florida, some voters would tell me that America’s choice of leader was none of my goddamn business as soon as they heard my English accent. But I’m still fascinated by the electoral events – partly, of course, because the choice that American voters make will be so important for the whole planet.

From an environmental point of view, there’s a world of difference between Obama’s enthusiasm for alternative energy sources and John McCain’s loyalty to the oil-centric energy policies that have characterised the Bush administration.

International relations will be strikingly different if American voters reject the neo-conservative demand for US domination of global affairs contained in Republican foreign policy, and instead give Obama the opportunity to repair old alliances and restore his country’s good name in the world.

John McCain photo by Image Editor

McCain voted for the invasion of Iraq and has declared that the USA’s military presence there should last for a century if it furthers America’s aims. Obama opposed the invasion and wishes to withdraw the troops as soon as practically possible, while striving to end the dependence on oil that focuses so much American attention on the Middle East.

These practical policy considerations are reason enough to take an intense interest in the choice of leader for the planet’s dominant nation; but what really fuels my fascination is the drastically different views of human life that are represented by the American right and the American left. It is a clash between faith and reason; between an embrace of diversity and a craving for a simpler time when life had clear rules and authority always prevailed, between an acceptance of progress and equality, and a longing for a mythic past when men and women knew their God-given places and everything was so much more certain. It’s the 21^st Century versus The Waltons and John Wayne; and of course religion makes this clash of philosophies so much more passionate. Perhaps the biggest choice before the American electorate is the one between plurality and theocracy: between those who truly accept that there can be more than one valid view of an important issue, and those who see the election as a ‘culture war’ between their God and sinful, un-American depravity. It is this latter group that brings into American elections issues that thankfully do not usually greatly intrude into British party politics.

Abortion may be a minor issue at the next UK General Election; Conservative leader David Cameron supports a reduction in the time limit for late abortions. But we certainly won’t see any mainstream British politician echoing Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s call for a total ban on all terminations, even if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Likewise, the legal rights of British gays and lesbians should stay much the same regardless of who the Prime Minister might be following our next General Election; but the issue of same-sex marriage is more important than the economy for many voters on the American religious right. It was courageous of Obama to demand during his speech to the Democratic Convention that ‘…our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters…’ should not face discrimination; he must have been well aware that for many American voters, supporting anti-gay discrimination is quite literally an article of faith.

Then, of course, there is the American citizen’s ‘right to bear arms’, enshrined in the Constitution and so dear to much of the electorate that even a would-be reformer like Obama dare not threaten it, however strong a case for doing so might be made by US violent crime statistics; even the most tentative moves towards tighter gun regulation must be couched in terms that reassure rural voters that their hunting rifles will not be taken away.

Finally, there is the American addiction to ostentatious, sentimental patriotism that has made a genuine election issue out of the occasions on which Obama has or has not worn a ‘flag pin’ stars and stripes badge on his lapel.

Would I want these things in British politics? Most definitely not. And yet, at the same time, American politics awakes in me a kind of nostalgia for the days when our elections generated such visceral passions. Part of me misses the days of Thatcher versus Old Labour, when our political parties stood for dramatically different outlooks on the world rather than representing subtly different approaches to free-market capitalism, as they do today. It is strangely refreshing to view an election with real partisan zeal, fervently rooting for one side and feeling revulsion towards the appalling attitudes of the other.

Having said that, I’m very well aware that Obama is not actually the Messiah, even if that is the sneering nickname that some Republicans have given him, For all his charisma and charm, he can be a ruthless political operator when necessary; and after the barrage of attacks he faced at a relentlessly negative and fear-fuelled Republican Convention, that’s just as well. Obama’s election as President would only begin a process of change in America and across the planet over which the USA holds so much sway. Indeed, one of the most endearing things about Obama’s style is the way that he stresses empowerment: his slogan is ‘Yes, we can’, not ‘Yes, I can’. Popular opinion at home would render him unable to change some of the things that appal outsiders about America; the gun culture would remain, as would the death penalty. Even so, the choice before the US electorate is stark.

The Democrats offer a plan to withdraw from Iraq and repair America’s relationships with the outside world, a programme of taxing the richest to help the poorest, policies aimed at making health care affordable for all Americans, broad-minded social attitudes, an appreciation of eloquent intelligence and plans for huge investment in alternative energy.

The Republicans stand for war and conquest, religious intolerance, entrenched privilege, narrow national self-interest, support for the free market at its most merciless, disdain for welfare, a mistrust of intellect and an attitude to environmental protection summed up by the chants of ‘DRILL! DRILL!!’ at their Convention, demanding that nothing must get in the way of the search for American oil. For a liberal European like me, it looks like the closest thing I’m ever likely to see to an election between good and evil.

The US Presidential Election 2008 is a story with most of the elements that make for great dramatic entertainment. There’s a dashing hero to cheer on, loathsome villains to despise, the future of the planet at stake, a plot with plenty of startling twists, and now the certainty of history being made one way or another: either the first African-American President, or the first female Vice-President.

If a screenwriter had come up with the story of Sarah Palin,

Sarah Palin photo by Thomas Roche

the obscure woman from the backwoods suddenly transformed into a serious contender for the most powerful position on earth, then surely the script would have been rejected as absurdly far-fetched. Come to that, rarely in even the most lurid of soaps can so many skeletons have come clattering out of a single character’s closet in so short a space of time; yet it seems that a lot of Americans love Palin no matter what powers she’s abused or how many lies she’s told. It’s a bit like what happened when Jade Goody first stomped into the British Big Brother house; some viewers were appalled by her behaviour, but she became a star because many others were thrilled to see someone a bit like them become famous and important.

So I’ll keep missing sleep waiting for the latest developments, anxiously scanning the opinion polls and scouring American political blogs for the background detail. Some good friends of mine follow their favourite soaps or TV talent contests with comparable intensity, yet cannot understand how I can find politics so compelling. All I can say to them is that this US election is anything but boring. Bizarre, yes; frightening, frequently – tedious, never. Our own domestic politics may have become pretty dull; but for better or for worse, they do things differently over there.

]]> http://www.eurocriticsmagazine.com/politics/us-politics/the-loneliness-of-the-long-distance-election-watcher/feed 56