What is the role of a commentator in an election in which he or she cannot vote? And how would I vote tomorrow if I could?
The response of many British journalists to the American elections is to do one of several things. These include becoming either a mystical seer or a partisan hack.
The former have been doing particularly well in this election. People with no notable back catalogue of work on the US keep popping up writing, ‘Why Romney cannot win unless he does X’ pieces, or ‘Why Obama has it in the bag if he does Y’, etc. Few of these seers know what they are talking about. Most are just churning out the received wisdom of their political ‘side’ and will carry on regardless even after repeatedly being proved wrong.
Then there is the partisan hackery which mistakes shilling for a campaign for commentary. The web is now full – from all political sides – of these excuses for journalism. Consider, for example, those hacks who have leaped on any story of any Republican anywhere expressing personal moral concerns over abortion. This is an issue which even if a President Romney wished to address – and he does not – he could not alter. Nevertheless, the ‘Republican war on women’ motif, pumped out by the Obama camp has taken hold and Obama merely has to stand still to receive the benefit. ‘Rape is rape and is always wrong’ he can say, when pushed. When a candidate is handed reaction lines as easy as that then you can tell he is not being fed the tough questions. Ask most non-American voters what they think Romney would do as soon as he got to office and they will come up with some variant of him nationalising all female reproductive organs.
This scare-tactic nonsense makes the bridge between UK / European voters and American Republicans seem unnecessarily wide.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in