All Posts Tagged With: "infighting"

“In a democracy, the people (always) get the government they deserve.” – Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America,

Being an Englishman and therefore European, I have always fully understood the importance of the United States as the hegemonic leader of the free democratic world. But what I fail to understand is the sheer tinsel “Hollywood” run-up to the actual Presidential elections.

Americans don’t seem to be bothered that millions and millions are spent on spin, media infighting and travel — money hugely wasted on these presidential candidates, money that could be so useful helping the American needy, particularly in these worsening economic times. The people place all their faith in one candidate and then rant and rave about their policies, leadership qualities and seem to trust them implicitly. Hope does have this effect on people, but the eventual reality can be so cruel. The real acid test is what the elected candidate will actually do when he or she becomes president. Isn’t this the whole point ? Put it this way, is there anybody out there who regrets the fact the Dubya was elected instead of Gore or Kerry in the last two presidential melees ? I, for one, cannot understand the reasons why the American public ever even considered Bush Jnr. His reign has been continually characterized by mumbling gaffs, bad grammar in full media view, apparently non-existent geopolitical knowledge, an unhealthy infatuation with World Terrorism, who supports outright torture, zero-level diplomacy, complete disrespect for the UN and therefore the International Community, shadow agendas and he is someone who has a distinct penchant for taking the Second Amendment to illegal international extremes. I surely don’t have to describe anymore do I ? It is notable that Colin Powell served briefly as Secretary of State in the Bush administration. His moderate and calm diplomatic voice was always at loggerheads with The Shrub. Powell was a man who fully understood both the necessity for National Security (having served very favourably as US National Security Adviser under Reagan), as well as for the clear need for the support of the international community. He had wide experience as well as  international respect. If ever a particular person should have become President of the United States — he was it. Simply because he had that international respect.

So, how could the American electorate get it so wrong ? How come the American Electorate actually trusted G. W. Bush and elected him to be President — and not just once but twice ?

In my thoughts and wonderings about all this, my conclusions seem to point to differences in personality and character regarding the Presidential front runners and not their policies. Or perhaps it’s just a case of “I have always been and always will be a Republican” and has nothing whatsoever to do with leadership qualities or policies ? Is this true ? I think it is. After the feckless leadership by Bush Jnr under the Republican flag, why else is McCain neck and neck with Obama ? It is certainly not based on Dubya’s winning Republican Presidential achievements is it ? And, as a comparison, how does Dubya compare with the present unpopular English leader and Labour PM — Gordon Brown? Both Bush Jnr and Brown compare very favourably in regard to current national hatred and dissent although, in terms of international respect, I would suggest that Gordon Brown is just a tad ahead. And I can safely tell you now that the Labour party in England has not got a cat in hellfire’s chance of winning the next election (even with a diffferent Labour leader) in 2010. It’s already a foregone conclusion. That is the punishment which is politically due to the Labour party(Brown’s party). But not so with the current Republican candidate and the American electorate. No, no — McCain will definitely be different…

So how do you find out what any presidential candidate stands for or what their policies are and, most importantly — Why ? Trouble is, the US system is not particularly transparent — not as transparent as the UK system anyway. Particularly in the support and funding by that candidates’ backers. It’s far less transparent in America. It even allows a running candidate such as Hillary Clinton and husband to refuse to declare their funding or earnings openly. In UK it is Law, any politician or political party must declare all earnings, funding and support.

Has Electorate America ever thought of looking “behind the door” to see who is supporting Obama or who is supporting McCain ? Who are the Oil Barons supporting or funding ? Who is Big Business funding or supporting ? Who is the Mafia supporting ? Who are the Green Ecos funding (indeed, have they got any money to do this?). Doesn’t this tell you anything significant about the real policies of the candidate? Remember that words are just that — words. But actions are the only thing that should ever convince us. Not high platitudes, plagiarism, promises, blah, blah. This, of course, is only a guarded European view.

But one thing I do know — the monetary candidate support from the Oil Barons, Big Business or Mafia or whomever can only mean one thing - Of this, I am sure…

Payback in full by any future American President.