President Obama comforts a woman in New Jersey in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy
As President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney deal with the challenge of superstorm Sandy hitting the US East coast in the final stage of their election campaigns, the world is holding its breath.
In an increasingly globalized world, it’s no wonder that anxiety over a presidential election in a world power like America is felt across the globe.
The 2012 candidates are both intelligent, driven men who want the best for America: the difference lies in their proposed means to this end.
A recent CVOTER International/WIN–Gallup International poll shows that global support for President Obama is high. Based on a sample of more than 26,000 adults from over 30 countries, the poll indicates that 63 per cent believe the US president has a substantial influence on their lives, and 81 per cent favor Obama.
A BBC poll shows very similar support for Barack Obama
Notably, support for Obama trumps support for Romney everywhere but in Pakistan, poll analysts told US News. “In seven countries, the approval for his policies and competence is in the 90s, and in another nine it is in the 80s.”
It’s clear that if the world had a vote, this US election would be a blowout.
And how has the rest of the world calculated the political future of a country that spends over US $6 billion cultivating the campaign platforms of its presidential nominees?
Australian IT consultant Lauren Allen says the American political system can be summed up in two words: confusing and corrupt.
“Consistency is what the American political atmosphere lacks the most, and this is the struggle for many internationals watching the election in distress,” she said. “Constituents expect candidates to keep their promises and when they flip-flop on important issues, it’s disheartening.”
The element of spin in presidential elections is also problematic but many voters are awake to it. American investment banker Zach Ronchon says truly perceptive voters read between the lines and make their choices based on the reality rather than the dream.
“Obama is successful because he has a vision for America, always chooses the high road, and seems genuinely motivated to serve the American people,” Ronchon said.
He believes President Obama has a sense of history and tries to make choices that are consistent with the fundamental philosophy of America’s founders.
“Romney, on the other hand, is a businessman through and through. He approaches the presidency with a capitalist attitude and his primary goal is to make money for his investors. He thinks like an investment banker…his sharp business sense and radical attitude for change is likely to improve the economy.”
Ben O’Loughlin, Professor of International Relations and Co-Director of the New Political Communications Unit at Royal Holloway, University of London, shares this perspective – particularly with respect to the candidates’ treatment of global affairs.
“A first reason why non-Americans find the inconsistency and electoral system baffling is ideology. Certainly for Europe, Canada and Australia/NZ, citizens and parties are generally to the left of the political spectrum compared to the US. Obama’s policies would be considered fairly conservative in the UK or Germany – and, by implication, Romney’s and any GOP candidate would be at a conservative extreme.”
Throughout the 2012 debates, Europe, Latin America, and most of Asia have remained conspicuously absent from discussions. “We are affected by US policy, yet US policy makers will not acknowledge how they affect us. We get offended. Why don’t they care about us?” O’Loughlin asked.
He points out that the candidates carefully manipulate their debates to skirt issues that inflame transnational controversy. They discourage any international opinion from reaching an American audience. “US leaders play a subtle game in the way they acknowledge the rest of the world,” he said.
In 2008 The Guardian published several articles meant to encourage American readers to vote for Obama, but O’Loughlin recalls a largely unfavorable American outcry.
“It’s not for a UK newspaper to tell US voters how to vote, they said.”
But is this fair considering that the choice of US voters has considerable impact on the rest of the world, for example the decision to invade Iraq?
As it is, billions of people around the world bite their nails in anticipation, watching a nation built on stalwart diplomatic foundations stumble its way into a future we will all share.
