Excelsior, Mexico

McCain, yes; Obama, no?

The fact that McCain is leading shows that the conservative leadership has discovered that, after Bush’s failure, only a non-republican republican has any chance of winning the elections.

By Agustin Basave

Translated By Fortunato Brown

January 28, 2007

Mexico - Excelsior - Original Article (Spanish)

Some people say half jokingly that in American elections we all should vote. That is, that the right to elect the president of that country -and its legislators, I would add- should be extended to all of the citizens of the world, as we all are affected by the decisions of those who govern the superpower. And although Americans do not seem to be willing to give ‘universal suffrage’ that connotation, nobody can prevent thousands of people in all corners of the planet from following the electoral process with interest as if they were participants. We not only learn the perspectives and proposals of the candidates, and follow the polls, but sometimes we cheer for some of them.  Our inclination is usually the result of their party line and, above all, of their position on immigration, foreign policy and economic policy.

To me, American bipartisanism looks like monopartisanism with two facets. I think it was Gore Vidal (I may be wrong) who said the American system was the only system of a single party with two right wings. I find the idea at once remiss and an instance of dejà vu: on the one side it reminds me of the system that prevailed in 19^th century Mexico, when liberals and conservatives consisted of ideological currents more than political organizations, and on the other side, I can perceive them as the prefiguration of the shrinking of the ideological spectrum brought about by globalization. In short, the situation is one of two parties whose doctrinal frontiers are nebulous at present. Therefore, I am conscious that the difference between them is sometimes unnoticeable. Moreover, we Mexicans cannot choose, and both alternatives are unappealing.

But if I am forced to make a choice, I prefer the democrats. It is a lesser of two evils. Still fresh is the memory of the interests of the great corporations, the jingoist unilateralism and the overwhelming vacuity of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and the contrast of their governments with that of Bill Clinton. So I tend to prefer the donkey to the elephant. And that factor makes my scale tip toward Barack Obama; I don’t like some of his proposals, but I am attracted by the idea of seeing a negro president, son of an immigrant, who opposed the Iraq invasion and has some progressive ideas. Obviously that is only a wish - not a prediction.

On the other front, however, there is a very interesting candidate. John McCain is a politician who walks in the border between the two parties, a sensible man who has backed legislation on undocumented immigrants. His electoral banners and his improving trajectory in the caucuses are significant. The fact that McCain is the forerunner shows that conservative leadership has discovered that after Bush’s failure, only a republican who is not a republican has an opportunity to win the election - because the unpopularity of the incumbent president is distilled poison for his party. Beyond the lies and cynicism of his administration, the failure of the war and the imminent recession are two forceful, demolishing facts that not even the right-wing voters can ignore.

John McCain was resurrected in New Hampshire and therefrom can reach high. On the opposite side, although in Iowa the winner who hit first and in the South Carolina race was stronger than gender, Barack Obama’s triumphs over Hilary Clinton do not seem to be definitive in the face of “super Tuesday”. The two primaries are close, and at the end there will not be any surprises because there were surprises from the beginning.  Precisely because the amount of uncertainty in the result is high, the temptation to bet is irresistible.

I would stack more chips on McCain than on Obama because I think that the American establishment would allow the former to win but not the latter. Both parties are certainly forced to resort to the mantra of change, but republicans evoke continuity and what they need to exhibit is heterodoxy, while democrats represent the change in direction and what they need to demonstrate is orthodoxy.

In the U.S. no heretic can be a candidate. Barack Obama is not a heretic, but looks like one.  If his speeches and proposals are analyzed, it is clear that, according to neoliberal standards, he is less radical or populist than John Edwards. But as McLuhan would say, the medium is the message. Obama is many things without being them. His origin, his color and his youth enclose a presage of change that attracts North Americans as much as it scares them.

I hope I am wrong and the final contest is between the Senators from Illinois and Arizona. I am under the impression that if that were the case, the rest of the world would not mind being impeded to vote at this election

CLICK FOR SPANISH VERSION