There are all sorts of groups around the world which hate the United States, or at least its halls of power. And like almost all political groups, they present their views as a narrative of Good versus Evil, with them playing the part of Good (of course) and the United States Government as the part of Evil.

And to some degree, it was easy to portray the United States as Evil - even beyond the many errors in judgment by the Bush administration. As long as Americans kept on electing one rich, white guy after another to the White House, it was easy to claim that American foreign policies were just a continuation of European Imperialism. In these narratives, the West and the Whites in general and the United States in particular are out to oppress the poor and desperate of the world, and defying the United States was a struggle for Liberation.

But now, the American people have elected a black guy as their president. And now maintaining the same narrative becomes... difficult. Casting Obama as the central figure of white, Western racism strains credibility, after all.

However, such groups will not let that deter them. After all, they have invested considerable emotional energy into building and maintaining their beliefs, and it is unfortunately human nature to ignore inconvenient facts when they contradict deeply-held beliefs. Therefore, I will predict one of two responses:

- Claims that Obama isn't really in charge, and talk of conspiracies of Evil Old White Men(TM) pulling his strings behind the scene. Joe Biden will likely focus in a lot of these conspiracy theories (especially since plenty of similar theories exist about the current vice-president Dick Cheney). Other candidates for Secret Puppet Masters(TM) will likely pop up as well. Mentions of Jewish Influence(TM) will probably unavoidable. Whatever happens, there will be plenty of people who will simply refuse to believe that Obama is his own man with his own beliefs, goals, and policy decisions.

- Claims that Obama knows what he is doing, but is basically an "Uncle Tom" - someone who has sold out "his people" (whatever that means in the context of the conspiracy theorist) to the Evil Old White Men(TM) for power. I expect we will hear a lot of euphemisms and weasel words for "race traitor" in the coming years from such groups.


Whatever Obama will do, such beliefs will likely persist among some people. But if Obama can use his time in the White House to show America at its best, as opposed to at its worst like it appeared in the last eight years, then such beliefs will gradually dwindle until they are only held by some doddering old relatives in the attic whom nobody likes to talk about because of sheer embarrassment.

Maybe it is not becoming of me to engage in a round of Schadenfreude at this historical moment. But then again, Schadenfreude is a German word.

Some Republicans - most significantly McCain - have conceded their loss in this election gracefully. Others, on the other hand, have been sulking. I want to collect some of the best self-aggrandizing, whining sulks and posts in the aftermath of this election. After all, we might need the laughs in the next electoral cycle.

Here is what I have so far. Feel free to tell me of others.


( Read more... )

Interesting article about mudslinging in American political campaigns:

The Dirty War Moves South.

What can you tell me about Mike Huckabee?

Well, it's been a while since I last wrote on the 2008 presidential elections. Nevertheless, I'm still sticking to my opinion that Rudy Giuliani will become the next president of the USA. Possibly with a Democratic Congress and Senate, but still, he'll get the top job.

American society as a whole still sees itself as being in a war - and as I've read someone else quip on the net, the USA as a whole don't mind war itself, but losing a war. If Giuliani can give the impression that he will be a better war leader than the other candidate, he will win - and all other issues of the campaign will be moved to the sidelines.

I've been reading a fair bit about Rudy Giuliani, and I also have heard much about John McCain thanks to his earlier political activities.

But I don't know anything about the other serious contenders for the Republican candidacy. Can anyone tell me more about them?

After reading this article, I can conclude:


Please, Americans, whoever you are going to vote into office next - at least let it be someone who at least entertains the possibility that he might be wrong before committing to a course of action.

From this article:

"A leading conservative like Newt Gingrich, once crowned Time's "Man of the Year," cannot help but be pleased that Americans have welcomed the break with Bush with open arms. Gingrich, who has repeatedly and semi-publicly toyed with the idea of throwing his hat into the presidential race, recommends that his party base its new strategy on turning its back on Bush.

This strategy worked like a charm in France, Gingrich recently told foreign journalists. French President Jacques Chirac "was in relatively deep trouble, not quite as much trouble as George W. Bush is." Under normal circumstances the opposition should have won the French election. But it didn't. Chirac's Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy was the interior minister by day and, as his admirer from Washington says, portrayed himself as the "candidate of change" by night."

Personally, I'm convinced that the Republicans have a good chance of winning this election. And, of course, my personal bet is on Giuliani...

I'm getting the impression that among American conservatives there seems to be a growing consensus that invading and occupying Iraq was essentially a good idea - it's just that Bush and his team were too incompetent to do it right.

That sounds like a rather dangerous rationalization of something that was a really bad idea in the first place to me...

But I am sure we will hear more about this idea in the future - especially if Giuliani becomes the Republican candidate.

From here:

On Iraq, Giuliani said that the United States had to stay there until the country was stable and wouldn’t serve as a “headquarters for terrorism,” a long effort that, he maintained, required the same kind of Reagan-like steadfastness. “We should try to accomplish there what we accomplished in Japan or in Germany,” he said. “We removed the military capacity for at least a generation or two, and now they’ve been able to develop a whole new way of looking at the world.”

Of course, this ignores the fact that the occupation of Japan and Germany had some slight differences to the occupation of Iraq.

I mean, Germany and Japan had started a war against the USA, which Iraq hadn't in this case (it might have been different if Iraq had been occupied after it had invaded Kuwait, but a delay of twelve years doesn't count). The citizens of both nations had initially supported their militant leaders, but then had suffered through a multi-year war and in the end had no one to blame but themselves. Furthermore, there had been a lawful and ordered transfer of authority between their leaders and the occupation forces, which certainly wasn't the case here. In the end, while many Iraqis might be grateful to the USA for the removal of Saddam, they have speedily squandered any goodwill they might have gathered and outside of the Kurdish area are simply seen as another foreign occupation force, just like the British in the last century (for a good account of all the things that went wrong in the occupation of Iraq, I can recommend Patrick Cockburn's The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq).

And now Giuliani proposes demilitarizing Iraq just as the USA did with Germany and Japan? Take away the last excuses for sovereignity the Iraqis have these days?

No, the Age of Imperialism is far from over, it seems. At least, if Giuliani has anything to say about it...

A lengthy article on Rudy Giuliani and his campaign.

I'm beginning to think that if he is running against Hillary Clinton, he will have a very good chance of becoming the next president of the United States...

It's time to get back to my favorite spectator sport: The American Presidential Elections.

Electoral campaigns in Germany tend to be mercifully brief. For one thing, we don't have US-style Primaries (which sound good in theory, but the way they are implemented in the USA is simply nuts). For another, German parties simply can't get the enormous sums of money spend on American elections (since federal elections in Germany center on parties, and not candidates, it just doesn't provide as much bang for the buck for a company to give millions of Euros to such diffuse organizations, instead of individuals which might feel more grateful after the election).

But American elections are such a long and colorful affair that they can't help but draw the attention of the entire world (and the fact that the winner will make policy decisions that affect the world in a way no other individual can helps, too). Plus, they are genuinely entertaining if you live on another continent. The drama! The sudden reversals! The back-stabbing! The ratings!

So, my dear American readers, even if you might simply hope for all this to get over with with a minimum of fuss, you may take heart that at least this German will gain considerable enjoyment from your suffering. :p



Anyway, as the campaign progresses I will likely comment on it more frequently. Let's start with an issue that's probably closest to the minds of most non-Americans:

The Scariest Possible Replacement for George W. Bush

And my personal candidate for this title is:

[drumroll]

( Read more... )