How important is the US election for the rest of the world?

Very important. We should get a vote.

To be fair to the US, though, our countries only go to dumb wars if they decide to - (though we are getting a lot of flak and pressure from the US now for daring to speak of withdrawing militarily from Iraq).

If the US makes dumb money decisions, the rest of the world is, of course, affected. I guess no country MEANS to make dumb money decisions though.

Every nation in the world has a personal stake in the ongoing affairs of the single largest economic power in the world.

I agree. Do you think that Australia, Britain etc. are more, or less, likely to withdraw from the War On Terror if Kerry replaces Bush? Perhaps we'll do what all good servants do, and wait until the wishes of our master become clear...



Agree here as well. I was hoping that Britain would join the Euro and maybe in a few years it'll be a decent currency. Without the exact figures to hand, I believe that the combined economies of Europe would be larger than that of the US. Perhaps the world needs more dominant economies to prevent a slip by the US from bringing everyone else down?

I agree. The outcome IMO is vital to the rest of the world. The current path is not one that I think can sustain humans.

Re: economy, besides world trade which would likely stay consistant between presidents since we are on an irrevocable course with that, probably the biggest difference would be in the price of oil if Kerry wins. Since OPEC bases oil prices on the dollar, not the euro or any other currency, I think getting the current administration - all BIG OIL - out of office would make a huge difference for all.

I also don't think Kerry would go around invading other countries. He would have to finish what has been started in Iraq, but I find him much more thoughtful when it comes to foreign relations than Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld.

In short, I think the rest of the world has a vital interest in who is voted into the White House.

Thanks for the info about possible changes to oil prices, Squinney. It was something I hadn't thought of.

The impression I had (as a non-American with little knowledge of American politics) was that the Democrats are (dare I say) less right-wing (or more left-wing?) than the Republicans, and that governments which are less-right-wing tend to make fewer wars.

Much is made here in Britain of how friendly Bill Clinton was with Tony Blair, and how Reagan got on well with Thatcher. Perhaps Blair will hate Kerry, and prompt a subtle split between Britain and the US (not that they'd care)? How much of an effect the personal relationships of heads of state can have on world affairs?

"go around invading other countries" ! We were attacked...and not just on 9/11...on numerous times during tha decade leading up to it. GO AROUND!? Don't you listen to the President? We did this to defend the US and the free world from ongoing world terror...and to stop the nation states who provided the funding and support for it. And we did it and are doing it with a coalition of 65 countries. Turn off the cartoons and pay attention! You just might save your life.

Fair enough, Chuckster. The reasons for the invasion of Iraq have been discussed at length elsewhere, so I'll not add my own opinion here.

But do you think a different president (not just Kerry, but anyone) would approach the war on terror differently? Perhaps more emphasis on non-military solutions?

Well - Latham, the Opposition Leader, has signalled withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq (but increased dedication to re-building the country) - I don't think Kerry/Bush would affect that - (except that the Bush admin's ham-handed and overtly bullying response to Latham's announcement may have ignited a real reaction in Oz - I note even the current government has begun - through Foreign Minister Downer - to demur on Oz likelihood of being involved in any action against North Korea - which has drawn another bullying response from the USA. I am guessing that they are beginning to see the Australia's slavish following of US policy in recent years as an electoral liability - and moving to change the public's perception on it.)

I cannot speak for Britain, of course - except I think Blair is in trouble for some of the same reasons.

Yes - I hope the EEC becomes powerful - economically and politically - a lone superpower scares me.

So when did Iraq attack the united states?

agrote, Grand Duke has asked that we leave that type of question to other threads.

Still mulling on my vote. The U.S. election results will clearly effect us, but it seems that what happens in the U.S. has slightly less impact than it used to - or have we become numb to it?

I agree with dlowan: very important, we should get to vote.

In Mexico's case it's even more important. We sleep next to the elephant.

Issues like trade and migration are essential to us. Plus there are all the other global political and effects.

I know the case of at least one Mexican ambassador to the US who had to resign to his post because he told our President that Bush was sure to defeat Clinton in '92, and advised him not to be too far away from the incumbent.

Don't ya all non-Americans find it nerve-wracking that, in such an important election for the rest of the world, Americans often focus on things like the private lives of the candidates?

"Character test", they call it, trying to hide their strange brand of self-righteous moralism.
Character schmaracter. Issues is what matters.

Think tarriffs, market stability, job growth, home building, booming or not so booming economy, etc.

When a president in the United States looses 3 Million jobs, and over the course of his presidency is barely back to getting half of them back, there is not money circulating around the United States. That also means there is not money circulating around the world. I have to have a job in order to buy what other countries want to sell me here in the US.

When the stock market is unstable, people do not invest and the money is not circulating,. There is little or no confidence in the economy, causing people to hoard what they have. Again, that leaves other countries with less money circulating.

Without a job and an unstable stock market, new homes are not built. The items needed to build a home come from all areas of the world.

When a US president declares war on another country, unprovoked, it causes a huge riff. Not only does it force leaders from other countries to have to decide their own political careers by having to choose to participate or not, it also puts their own citizens at risk when having to send supporting troops.

The policies on tarriffs, foreign relations, diplomacy, etc. are really quite different when looking at how a Democrat or Republican president executes those policies. I don't think that has ever been more clear to me than now after four years of Bush.

I think I've about convinced myself that everyone in the world should be allowed to vote in the US election in November. What say you?

fbaezer, for what it's worth, this American finds the character tests and self-righteous moralism infuriating. Issues, indeed. Bring THOSE on.

As for purposely making dumb money decisions, there is a plausible case that the dumb money decisions are being purposely made, so that some of the big social programs will have to be dismantled for lack of funds.

(And I agree, Squinney. Maybe, like, fractions of votes according to how much of a stake they have. Mexico gets 7/8ths of a vote. But see, now I'm thinking of who would be at the other end of the scale and who is NOT affected by the US and our decisions? Scary.)

sozobe - I hear ya. The whole PNAC thing is very sick in my opinion.

I consider this election to be far and away the most important election of my lifetime. And I am a Canadian.

In many respects, the world has become borderless. Communications technology, trade agreements, and the ease with which people now move around the planet have all worked towards a reduction in national sovereignty and cultural isolation. Given these circumstances alone, aside from present policy matters and ideologies, the rise of a single superpower has real and significant consequences for everyone outside of America, and in certain cases, probably far more consequence than for those living inside America.

Now add into the equation the explicit policy position of key people in this administration that the US ought to work to ensure that no other power emerges to challenge US hegemony.

Further, add into the equation the explicit policy position that America refuse to place itself under any international agency or set of codes which might reduce its ability to operate without constraint in military matters and, commonly, in economic matters.

Modern America, then, is unilaterally establishing itself as world boss.

It does so, I think, with two quite separate mindsets. First, and it's evidenced here often, that such 'leadership' will be benign and good for all, better in fact, than any other sort of international arrangement. Those of us who don't live in the US (or some client state like Israel) are rather less optimistic. Dlowan's note of the 'bullying' carried out within her country by US representatives when Australian leaders make statements in conflict with present American wishes (and Canadians have similar experiences which I've spoken of elsewhere) gives a bit of a taste of the experiences that citizens in third world countries might have with the US. This 'America is the benignest or goodest' mindset is the one that voters might hold. It is in part justified and in part a simple mythology which allows denial of the ugly consequences of America's footprint in the world.

The second mindset is that of the folks who are at the top in present American politics and corporate activities. Here, I'd argue, the mindset is elitist, Machiavellian and opportunistically amoral. Consider, for simplicity, the single issue of environment. Treaties unratified (in aid of commercial enterprise), objective scientific studies denigrated and shelved, massive public relations campaigns supported or initiated to deceive the American public into believing there is no problem, regulations (under this administration particularly) repealed or eviscerated under cover of claims that the oppositie is in process, etc. And as the world shrinks, the consequences of these matters will and are hurting everyone on the planet.

No American administration in my lifetime has evidenced such a consequential disregard for people inside its own borders and outside.

soz

Yes, I'm afraid that is so. Most Americans have never heard of Grover Norquist, and that's unfortunate because he is probably the key idealogue behind this. Happily joining in, of course, are the huge conglomerates who wish to reap the profits from privatized social services.

and a big hello to my favorite mexican

Character matters.

What good does it do to agree with the issues management a candidate promises if you know he doesn't mean what he says--or if his past behavior shows what he is saying is merely for political expediency?

Its not a litmus test for a saint--it is a test of whether he intends to do what he says he will do.

Anybody can promise 'better times' or 10 million jobs, or a better approach to a war... Have they shown they have that ability? Have they ever done anything that shows they are capableof fulfilling such promises? Have they repeatedly lied or waffled on their promises?

This is character.