A Letter to the voters

To many Americans, due to fatal economic situation, this election, at least its final phase is primarily about the United States and its internal economic stability. While this is profoundly understandable and justified, I think it is important to acknowledge, that the choice the American public will make tomorrow will have a sound impact upon the whole world, which empirically has already been proved, a sheer amount of attention this election has received by the media worldwide being sufficient evidence supporting my point.

Indeed, America is at the crossroads right now. Two terms of the Bush administration had a devastating impact upon the reputation of the United States as the global source of stability and prosperity. While still retaining its hegemonic prevailing position, it faces economic challenges from emerging giants in Asia and Europe and to the South, also recently dealing with as some commentators state a most formidable economic issue of all time.

I certainly do not belong among those who support the view stating that America faces its hegemonic decline. America still remains a global first power – politically and militarily – Washington remains a Global Rome to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, both in economic, political and foremost cultural terms. Possible impact of the crisis in the face of the rising China and other competitors does not distort this image, for America will most likely retain its position as the most innovative economy in the world – innovation being a critical factor differentiating it from other rising actors.

The situation however is far from where it is supposed to be. Foreign policy conducted by George W. Bush during his 2 terms profoundly turned global public acceptance to American actions, questioning its values, that were appealing to many as lately as 10 years ago. After Iraq key allies from not so distant Cold War era turned their backs and criticized America for its unilateral negligence for the international law and collective security – a system created based on American values and promoted by American political elite.

The next president in terms of foreign relations has a tough assignment – the US foreign doctrine needs to be restructured – shifted from ideological and dichotomist approach to more multilateral and compromise-based co-existence with other actors. America as a leader must face and accept the rise of other regions and states; herein the perception plays a critical role, American leadership should introduce a more ‘plural’ stance towards the new global architecture. The United States will and undeniably should defend its interest, though never it shall not forget that its role and position is no longer what it used to be a decade ago – a position as of now gradually inclined towards a primus inter pares. While the aforementioned state of affairs is far from being accomplished, its stages must be recognized and a proper response to them should be introduced. While rising eastern economies pose a remarkable challenge to America, they ought not to be perceived as threats, rather as partners. America should forget about ‘crusades’, ‘global evil axis’, ‘who’s not with us is against us’ and many more ideological slogans introduced by the former administration. Awareness of this fact, perhaps explains the reason why McCain’s idea of creating a League of Democracies has been announced by the Brookings Institution as one of the worst plans for current foreign policy – it will antagonize China and Russia, which already have worsened relations with the US, while placing them on the same line, a position neglecting remarkable differences between the two in many dimensions from society to politics. Results of approaches that resemble League of Democracies conducted by former administration in Iraq or in the war on terror are commonly known and obviously negative.

War in Afghanistan and in Iraq, economic and environmental issues proved the inevitable fact –that America cannot unilaterally solve every single issue signifying a relative peril towards its own or global security. There can be no further progress in terms of global warming without engaging China, no progress in Afghanistan and Iraq without the support of both regional and European actors, resurgent left-wing radicalism threatening stability of the region will grow stronger in South America if democratic partners of America will be further unconsidered by the US foreign policy, economic challenges will not be averted without cooperation with China and the European Union etc.

Threats to global security – fundamentalist Islam, Iran, North Korea, and other regimes cannot be dealt with using military force. Diplomacy needs to be re-introduced – and diplomacy clearly does not resemble amicable coffee- accompanied conversations – Kissinger-Mao, Reagan – Gorbachev, Albright – Milosevic to name a few, and generally Cold War era legacy were certainly not an instance proving that point. America should acquire a diplomatic stance due to fatal impact of the Iraq war to its reputation; though also due to inevitable peril of military overstretch if another conflict would be introduced without resolving others. For that reason as well, due to pulsation of security situation around the globe, American leadership needs to focus on Afghanistan and resurgent Al Qaeda in Pakistan and provide a clear strategy for withdrawal from Iraq, which does not mean a defeat and will undeniably affect the mobilization of internal political elites to resolve Iraq’s issues on their own, with assistance of the US. War on terror requires reconsideration as well. American leaders need to focus more on repelling the support for radicalism and anti-west ideologies, which obviously cannot be assured with military instruments, constantly resurgent Al Qaeda 7 years after the invasion of Afghanistan proves ineffectiveness of military approach and necessity of using others – supported by soft power terms and diplomacy.

A candidate who in my view is capable of accomplishing the aforementioned goals and many more, which I did not number above, and foremost restoring America’s reputation and position in the world is Barack Obama. Obama calls for the return of multilateral approach to global issues, cooperation, rather that confrontation, diplomacy rather than conflict, realism rather than ideological prejudice, practical engagement rather than antagonizing and fear. Obama’s plan for economy and foreign policy seems to be more compelling, a plan for Iraq is structured, possesses a deadline, unlike McCain’s, who was ‘delicate’ enough to publicly support a hundred year-long presence there if proved necessary. Obama’s strategy involves collective responses to global challenges – a chance to restore influence of an important to global security actor –United Nations, and more prudent decisions considering concerns expressed by the global community. Supported by formidable experts as Joe Biden, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Buffet and others, Obama represents a new quality combined with old wisdom – credibility, experience and most importantly hope to restore a pre-Bush America, which values and conduct were respected and appealing to the global community.

The choice however is yours, do not forget though– it will affect also those who do not have the right to decide.

“One heck” of a debate…

One, distinct clash of vice presidential candidates in this campaign was widely anticipated due to rather tied results of previous showdown between Obama and McCain and stunning media focus on VPs with respect to that. Both candidates had to face and deal with remarkable media pre-debate assessments, especially Gov. Sarah Palin whose -being absolutely delicate – ‘unfortunate’ interview in CBS surprised, and not necessarily in a positive manner, both left and right-oriented commentators and the public in general.

Both candidates had to prove their credibility – Biden his prudence , Palin her experience – which is why this debate and its aftermath appealed precisely to the undecided section of American electorate, for neither of the two participants committed any fatal mistake or undertook a move that would break those solidly decided and turn them towards respective tickets. Biden’s situation seemed more severe :

• being already in advantage (tremendous background and foreign policy credentials),
• being a man (taking Palin down decisively had a risk of turning women voters away attached to it),
• being previously a supporter of war in Iraq and in disagreement with Obama in congressional resolutions regarding that issue, which Gov. Palin pointed out during the debate.

Palin’s situation was no bed of roses either – expectations indicated another gaffes, and troubles with responding to questions regarding state matters. Palin had to dispell her image of incompetence recently drawn in the debate over her credentials , and that was not an easy thing to do.

The organizers focused again on the same issues that were discussed earlier in previous presidential debate, however this one was better prepared in terms of merits. Foreign policy issues were uptaded with Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the climate change. Neither of the candidates showed any sharp-ended differences on the first issue, though we could see entirely different approaches with respect to climate change. Senator Biden and Gov. Palin did not agree upon the causes of global warming, which Biden described as undoubtedly man-made, while Palin did not attribute any shifts in climate with misconduct of men. Palin focused on a well known element of McCain’s eviromental/energy strategy – offshore drilling, and interconnected enviromental issues with U.S. energy situation. Biden prudently highlighted Obama’s postulates for new technologies such as clean coal and the importance of exporting it to primary polluters (one being China) and emphasized on McCain’s lack of commitment for them throughout congressional votings as well as deficiencies in McCain’s enviromental plan.

In general, Senator Biden’s posture in the debate revealed and proved correct, majority of pre-debate comments regarding his approach to this showdown – he did not intend to discredit Palin herself, instead focused primarily on John McCain, which in my view was a correct formula for success. Biden consequently discredited McCain’s strategies in every aspect from the economy to Iran, highlighting fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, which was necessary after the last debate, where the line was not drawn directly enough. In a very important moment – that is at the end of the debate he elaborated on ‘maverick’ image of republican ticket and intended to slam it down, after numerous repetitions of that phrase in praises raised by Palin – succesfully as I suppose. “Maverick he is not” could without a doubt serve as a catch-phrase of that debate. Biden’s success was also appealing to emotions, which in previous debate was entirely McCain’s field (family values, single parenting and addressing the troops abroad). Obviously that scored few points for him. On the negative side of Biden’s performance it is important to focus on crucial element of Democratic strategy throughout the campaign – which is indicating the Bush administration’s failures. Palin took advantage of Biden’s notorious as she entitled it – ‘finger-pointing’. This should be a warning. Bush administration is certainly not admired among the public, however debating on current issues should be more constructive, over-emphasizing Bush’s failures is not a firm recipe for the White House, and at some point ‘…past is prologue’ may not be enough.

As for Sarah Palin’s performance – it is safe to say that she saved her VP position in this debate. Prior to the debate news media expressed republicans’s concern about whether the choice made by John McCain was right. Her performance will definitely cause reconsideration by aforementioned republican commentators. She spoke directly to the camera, was more opened than Biden and less serious – being able to joke during a debate after such pressure endured before, is a remarkable feat. Palin intended to highlight her experiences derived from governing Alaska – primarily issues of energy and economy. In addition, she advocated McCain’s policies and intended to discredit both Obama (same issues as did McCain previously) and Biden (here questioning his allegedly ambiguous position on war in Iraq). Governor definitely surprised her critics and foes and succeeded in tasks assigned to her by various commentators. Negative aspect in my opinion was her language expressions, statesmen of a statue she aspires to become should rather avoid excessive uses of phrases like ‘Darn right’. What could also be found slightly annoying were her constant praises to McCain, ‘maverick’ being one, and dismissing the necessity of reconsidering some programs from the election strategy due to economic crisis and praising McCain’s leadership skills instead -  being another.  Question at hand now is really the one posed by one of democratic commentators right before the debate: Is letting Palin be Palin as  some commentators indicate should be the right approach while judging credentials of a candidate aspiring for a second most important office in America? To some – Palin’s perfomance does not prove her credibility.

Ultimately, again it is difficult to name a decisive winner. Biden based on merits and performance – as polls show was victorious, though it has to be admitted – both candidates received what they needed from that debate and what was essential to improve their image among the undecided to whom this debate was really addressed.

For more on this debate : http://binarychoice.wordpress.com