Why progressive Canadians shouldn't get their hopes up about the race for the Democratic nomination in the United States.

****

For the past eight years, it's been difficult for Canadians of a liberal disposition to feel anything other than fear and loathing when they looked at American politics. Except for the occasionally hilarious linguistic blunder or intellectual gaffe, they have gotten little satisfaction from watching President George W. Bush govern his country into the ground. It's not surprising then that many of them are looking at the Democratic primaries not as an exercise in America's eccentric interpretation of democracy but as a rare opportunity for optimism. Some have tied their hopes to Hillary Clinton and others to Barack Obama, but Canadians paying attention to the race between the two are united in the belief that their candidate of choice will dramatically change the course that George W. Bush charted during his tenure. They are, unfortunately, quite misguided.

There would be encouraging aspects of a Democratic administration. Should Obama or Clinton win the White House, Canadians can be assured that the President of the United States will no longer be viewing the world through the intellectual prism of a nine year old boy. It's safe to say that a Democratic White House wouldn't appoint ideological sycophants like John Boulton, John Ashcroft, Harriet Miers, or Alberto Gonzalez to important positions that define how America interacts with the rest of the world. It's even possible that a Democratic administration might agree to participate in international institutions and agreements again, perhaps signing the next-generation Kyoto Protocol and recommitting to the Geneva Convention.

It is, however, equally possible that a Democratic President would be worse news for left-leaning Canadians than the Republican. Both Obama and Clinton have mused about the merits of invading Iran, a move that would have catastrophic regional and global consequences. Both are critical of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and particularly so with respect to the trading relationship with Canada. It's conceivable that a Democratic President would force a re-negotiation of the agreement in terms even less favourable than the current deal. Meanwhile, the steady stream of pornographic patriotism that has defined the Bush White House would continue unabated, if perhaps slightly modified.

The problem with attaching expectations of transformative change to any of the Democratic candidates is that in spite of their ethnic, gender, religious, and geographic differences, they're all still Americans. This sounds like a truism but it's an important point to remember. The one thing that all candidates for public office in the United States share, outside of an aversion to atheism and the French, is their belief in their country's manifest destiny, that the United States is responsible for determining not only its own fate but also that of the rest of the world. We non-Americans are but charges in their benevolent care, and those of us who might dare to misbehave are sure to receive a reprimand for it.

The only difference between a Democratic President and a Republican, even one as unsophisticated as George W. Bush, is how they interpret that concept. The question, in other words, is not if they'll pursue their ambitions above those of others but how, whether they will rely on international institutions and diplomacy or "proactive interventions" in "rogue states." More to the point, the possibility that the fate and future of the world does not depend fundamentally upon the United States does not, and indeed can not, occur to the leaders of either party.

This new interpretation on the old American theme of manifest destiny came about largely after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, Francis Fukayama's notorious "end of history." But it was first and best articulated all the way back in the early 20^th century, by President Woodrow Wilson after the First World War. He believed that "this is the time of all others when Democracy should prove its purity and its spiritual power to prevail. It is surely the manifest destiny of the United States to lead in the attempt to make this spirit prevail." The Bush II White House simply took it to its logical conclusion, the export of democracy, liberalism, and the American way of life at the barrel of a gun, or in the crosshairs of a smart-bomb. Anyone expecting a radically different interpretation of Wilson's wisdom from an Obama or Clinton White House is in for one hell of a disappointment.

We'll know who the Democratic candidate for the White House is soon enough. But whether it's Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, we shouldn't get our hopes too high about the possibility of a kinder and gentler elephant sharing a bed with us and a house with the rest of the world. Things won't magically improve just because the world will one day soon wake up to a White House not inhabited by George W. Bush. After all, he's going to be replaced by another American.

Toronto, February 10th - 812 w.

	Written by This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it on 15-02-2008 04:41 - Registered
	But It almost seems as if you are saying that it makes no difference whether a Republican or a Democrat is elected. While I agree that there is no reason at all for Canadians (or anyone) to think that ANY Democratic nominee will transform American society, I would rather have a Democrat in office who at least says s/he will withdraw troops from Iraq than a Republican (John McCain) who says he will commit troops to Iraq for 110 years if necessary. And, of course, he will be the judge of what's necessary. It DOES make a difference! Report

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved