Obama and McCain offer a choice, not an echo

Irwin Stelzer

31 May 2008

This presidential race will be the first real Right v. Left contest in a long time, says Irwin Stelzer. On free trade, healthcare, tax and pariah regimes, the two men are worlds apart

It is no secret that most British, European and other voters would cast their ballots for the Illinois senator, given the chance. This despite that fact that he has signed on to the protectionist programme of the trade unions in response to the now-widespread feeling in the USA that free trade is the cause of job losses and the general ‘de-industrialising’ of America. He is opposed to new trade-opening agreements and wants to review and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). McCain, meanwhile, is a free-trader to his fingertips, not a popular position in America these days. Or in France or Italy, for that matter. If Obama makes it to the White House, Australia and Great Britain might be the last men standing in the fight over trade policy.

Then there is the question of race. Obama claims that in his person — white mother, black father — and in his politics he is the first post-racial candidate. With some reason: he has abandoned the strident ‘we are victims’ politics of Jesse Jackson and the older generation of black politicians who reached their political manhood in the days of Martin Luther King and the battle for civil rights. His wife, however, has not: this Princeton graduate and successful corporate lawyer claims to have had no liking for America until the nation showed it would accept her husband’s candidacy. Nor has his pastor of 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man who preaches against white America (the government unleashed an Aids epidemic on the black community, so ‘God damn America’), and believes that there are important differences between the brains of whites and blacks.

More important, the voters don’t believe that race has become irrelevant, although things aren’t as the Americans-are-racist crowd in Europe believes. Large numbers of white voters, especially upper-income, highly educated, professional groups — upscale voters — supported Obama in state after state. But virtually no blacks voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries — some 90 per cent cast their ballots for Barack Obama. Their pride in the first black candidate is understandable, but if 90 per cent of white voters had opted for Hillary Clinton, charges of racism would undoubtedly have filled the pages of the predominantly pro-Obama media.

In the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater’s supporters promised Americans a choice, not an echo. Voters here will have just such an election in November, a real choice between candidates with different views of America’s role in the world, and the government’s role in the lives of its citizens. Non-voting residents in other countries, although likely to be affected by the outcome, will have to be content with the role of observers.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Irwin Stelzer | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

DougS

May 29th, 2008 9:13am Report this comment

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . . OK summary, but nothing new really.

And "world's apart"? That's nonsense. Communists and monarchists are world's apart; by the standards of the West, European parties are more like world's apart; Reagan v Carter or Reagan v Mondale by the standards of the U.S. are world's apart.

But Obama and McCain? No.

McCain rather famously (or notoriously) has to shore up his "base," which means the Reagan conservatives don't particularly like him. At the same time he was considered the most "independent" Republican running and the one probably most appealing to cross-over Dems.

Why? Cuz' on some issues (e.g., immigration) his politics are indistinguishable from Democrats. On others, he's not that far off, including Israel, Afghanistan, NATO, etc. And even on free trade, Obama is hardly a tariff monger; mostly a free-trader.

Petty differences over the environment, gas mileage standards, corporate regulation, campaign finance reform, etc.

Summary: On the scale of American politics, these two are closer than any two Dems. and Repubs. since possibly Ford and Carter. On the scale of all possibilities in politics, there's scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.

Matthew Blott

May 29th, 2008 1:08pm Report this comment

I agree with a lot of Doug S's comments. Obama is against doing anything about gun control, supports the death penalty and is largely backed by big business. Michael Foot he is not. Similarly McCain is divorced from the Christian Right and would be a welcome break from the theocratic approach of the White House's current occupant. It's not quite the Left versus Right election Irwin Stelzer would have us believe.

Scott Redding

May 29th, 2008 4:25pm Report this comment

With regard to white voters and Obama, you need to look at age as well. 40% of white voters in North Carolina under the age of 40 voted for Obama, even after the Wright firestorm. Obama will have problems with older white voters in Penn and Fla during the general election. If he does well out west, he might not need Appalachia as much as pundits think.

In South Carolina, in July 2007, amongst African-Americans, Clinton was at 52%, Obama 33%, Edwards on 5%. (the figures are from Meet the Press, last Sunday, transcript on their website). When Obama won South Carolina, he carried the African-American vote by 78 to 19%, over Clinton. Clinton had the African-American vote, but Iowa showed that Obama was viable and a possible winner. Between that, and her hubbie's comments in North Carolina, and her "hard working Americans = white hard working Americans" guff, she blew it. So, it's a bit more complex than saying all the black folks were voting Obama from day one.

Napoleon

May 30th, 2008 1:22am Report this comment

"but if 90 per cent of white voters had opted for Hillary Clinton, charges of racism would undoubtedly have filled the pages of the predominantly pro-Obama media."
Agreed. I don't always agree with your articles, actually most of them I disagree, but this time you're spot on(maybe it's because most of them are facts!).But it's nice to read a fair and balanced article about the American election, when everyone seems to be pro-Obama!

V.R.S. Arni

May 30th, 2008 1:44pm Report this comment

For a journal of the repute of Spectator, this is a wishy-washy article giving no insight. Any commentary column in NYT brings more to the reader than this.

jon livesey

May 30th, 2008 11:47pm Report this comment

I'm not sure if the author understands Europeans as well as he thinks.

No matter what they say, Europeans are happy to have an assertive US, because it keeps the heat off them, but they are also appreciative of Obama because in his person he flatters their image of themselves, an American politician who wants to adopt some of their social policies, and so on.

The last time something like this happened, they got JFK, a guy who talked like an anglo, but who was not afraid to confront the USSR. A man who flattered Europe and then protected it. Who could ask for anything better?

It is, however, not clear that Obama is a second JFK. JFK could talk and blockade, negotiate and threaten. There is a residual fear that Obama gets the talk part, but hasn't thought through the rest.

My own nightmare scenario is that Obama starts with the talking, gets nowhere, and retreats into isolationism. While this might be poetic justice on Europeans, it does not bode well for world stability or for Europe itself.

David Chorley

June 1st, 2008 3:58am Report this comment

Selzer repeats the global warming mantra as if it were true: There is no way the president or anyone else can affect our climate: All the protocols are designed to build big government and tax the US middle class, whom everyone simultaneously hates, and wants to join.