Now Australia wants to vote for OUR President???

[BrianR]

Here is a column written by an Australian writer who seems to be calling for a worldwide turnout for OUR Presidential election.

I will post it here because it's broken up into several chunks.

**************
Shouldn't we get a vote?
September 27, 2004

The truth is, Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in Canberra. By Jonathan Freedland.

There's a reason every newspaper in the world will have the same story on its front page on November 3. The American presidential election will be decisive not just for the US but for the future of the world.

Anyone who doubts this need only look at the past four years. The war against Iraq, the introduction of the doctrine of pre-emption, the direct challenge to multilateral institutions - chances are, not one of these world-changing developments would have happened under a President Al Gore. It is no exaggeration to say that the actions of a few hundred voters in Florida changed the world.

So perhaps it's time to make a modest proposal. If everyone in the world will be affected by this presidential election, shouldn't everyone in the world have a vote in it?

It may sound wacky, but the idea could not be more American. After all, the country was founded on the notion that human beings must have a say in the decisions that govern their lives. The rebels' slogan of "No taxation without representation" endures two centuries later because it speaks about something larger than the narrow business of raising taxes. It says that those who pay for a government's actions must have a right to choose the government that takes them.

Today, people far from America's shores do indeed pay for the consequences of US actions. The citizens of Iraq are the obvious example, living in a land where a vile dictatorship was removed only for a military occupation and unspeakable violence to be unleashed in its place. The would-be voters of downtown Baghdad might like a say in whether their country would be better off with US forces gone. But they have no voice.

It's not just those who live under US military rule who might wish to choose the commander-in-chief. Everyone from Madrid to Bali is now drawn into the "war on terror" declared by President Bush. We might believe that war is being badly mishandled - that US actions are aggravating the threat rather than reducing it - and that we will eventually pay the price for those errors. We might fear that the Bush policy is inflaming al-Qaeda, making it more likely to strike in our towns and cities, but right now we can't do anything to change that policy. Instead we have to watch the US campaign on TV, with our fingers crossed - impotent spectators of a contest that could shake up our lives.

So we ought to hold America to its word. When George Bush spoke to the UN last Tuesday, he cited America's declaration of independence that insists on the equal worth of every human being. Well, surely equal worth means an equal say in the decisions that affect the entire human race.

That 1776 declaration is worth re-reading. Its very first sentence demands "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind": isn't that exactly what the world would like from America today? The document goes on to insist that authority is only legitimate when it enjoys "the consent of the governed". As the world's sole superpower, the US now has global authority. But where is the consent?

By this logic, it is not a declaration of independence the world would be making. On the contrary, in seeking a say in US elections, the human race would be making a declaration of dependence - acknowledging that Washington's decisions affect us more than those taken in our own capitals. In contrast with those founding Americans, the new declaration would argue that, to take charge of our destiny, we do not need to break free from the imperial power - we need to tame it.

Such a request would also represent a recognition of an uncomfortable fact. It would be an admission that the old, post-World War II multilateral arrangements have broken down. In the past, America's allies could hope to influence the behemoth via treaties, agreements, and the UN. The Bush era - not just Iraq, but Washington's disdain for Kyoto, the nuclear test ban treaty, the International Criminal Court and the rest - suggests that the US will no longer listen to those on the outside. Only those with votes get a hearing.

Will this modest proposal fly? Will it hell. Despite Bush's smooth talk in New York last Tuesday, his position remains that America does not need a "permission slip" from anybody to do anything. If Washington won't listen to the UN, it's hardly likely to submit itself to the voters of Paris and Pretoria.

Besides, every good Republican knows the world is solid Kerry territory. A survey by pollsters HI Europe this month found that, if Europeans had a vote, they would back Kerry over Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Bush would win just 6 per cent in Germany, 5 per cent in Spain and a measly 4 per cent in France. No US Republican is going to cede turf like that to the enemy.

You would think those numbers would hurt Bush, making clear how unpopular he is in the world. But they don't.

If anything they hurt Kerry, suggesting he is the candidate of limp-wristed foreigners and therefore somehow less American. We may find that a sorry state of affairs. But there is little we can do about it. In the democratic contest that matters most to the world, the world is disenfranchised.

**********************


I think this guy has been out in the sun too long.

Brian

[xoxoxoBruce]

Sounds like one of those "limp-wristed foreigners".

[Cyber Wolf]

Hey, any one in the world is entitled to their opinion of our leaders and should be able to voice said opinion without being told to hush. The governments of the world SHOULD be able to express their like or dislike of our People In Power and are more than welcome to say "Our Government doesn't like X's ideas for These Reasons. Our stance will be XYZ if he's elected." However if they want to participate in the polls, they need to pick up, move here, naturalize and become American™ citizens, get a voting card and polling station THEN vote their opinions. They'd be raising just as much fuss if the US wanted to grant its citizens the ability to vote in THEIR elections.

[jane_says]

I wonder if that guy realizes that *we* don't even elect our president. Maybe he's forgotten the 2000 election already.

I say sufferage for Australia and the rest of the world! Isn't that part of the rhetoric? Making the WORLD SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY? The editorial writer is correct. US foreign policy decisions DO impact individuals in other countries. If the US doesn't like this, well and good. Let's become an isolationist nation and mind our own business - a move that would be long overdue in my opinion. Otherwise, if we're going to meddle with the rest of the world, the rest of the world should have a say in who does the meddling.

[Bullitt]

He can start voting for the prez of my government as soon as he starts payin the same taxes that I pay to my government. Until then, he can, pardon my french, go f*** himself because he has no business deciding who runs MY country.

[smoothmoniker]

Well, the US is pretty heavily effected by the economic policies of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the EU, China, Japan, India, and almost every other developed nation in the world. Are you going to start arguing that we should have a hand in selecting leaders for those nations?

Or do you just favor a blatantly anti-american policy as a matter of principle?

-sm

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Well, the US is pretty heavily effected by the economic policies of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the EU, China, Japan, India, and almost every other developed nation in the world. Are you going to start arguing that we should have a hand in selecting leaders for those nations?

Or do you just favor a blatantly anti-american policy as a matter of principle?

-sm

Why do conservatives start waving the flag in every discussion with a liberal? As one of our great American forefathers, Samuel Adams stated, "Patroitism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." My flag has as many stars and stripes as yours, and I am fed up with my country meddling in the affairs of other nations instead of taking care of itself. If you want to call that anti-American, you're welcome to your opinion. :p

[bluesdave]

Guys, cool it, please. I can't speak for all Aussies but I can assure you that the majority of us do not want to vote for your president. We are currently enmeshed in our own election campaign, and have enough to worry about without adding the US presidency to our list. Of course we take a keen interest in the US election, because as Mari has already pointed out, the US exerts a great influence on the whole world, but that is the full extent of it.

Australia has just agreed to a free trade agreement with the USA, and part of that agreement means that the US has some say in how we do things here - like to what extent the government can fund our pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We are not happy about this. Most Aussies do not like being told by the US, what we can or can't do, so we would expect you to object to us trying to tell you how to live your lives, too.

Don't attack the whole country for the writings of one journalist.

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by marichiko

Why do conservatives start waving the flag in every discussion with a liberal? ... If you want to call that anti-American, you're welcome to your opinion.

Mari, I'm not flag waving. I'm using the term in it's most technical, non-emotional meaning. Do you support the principle that decisions of political power should cross national lines and rest in the hands of the people affected by that power? If so, then support it both ways, and let the US determine the EU's agricultural and pharmaceutical policies. If not, and you only support the idea of other nations voting in the US election, then you're supporting an idea not because you agree with the principle of it, but solely because it is contra-american (there, see? I avoided the jingoistic language for you) self-determination. Which way is it?

And bluedave, i'm not worried about the aussies. From my time there, I can safely assume that any changes that might be imported could only be to the good.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Mari, I'm not flag waving. I'm using the term in it's most technical, non-emotional meaning. Do you support the principle that decisions of political power should cross national lines and rest in the hands of the people affected by that power? If so, then support it both ways, and let the US determine the EU's agricultural and pharmaceutical policies. If not, and you only support the idea of other nations voting in the US election, then you're supporting an idea not because you agree with the principle of it, but solely because it is contra-american (there, see? I avoided the jingoistic language for you) self-determination. Which way is it?

And bluedave, i'm not worried about the aussies. From my time there, I can safely assume that any changes that might be imported could only be to the good.

I'm an old fashioned isolationist. We stay out of their business; they stay out of ours. That way there is no question of voting in each other elections. I know this is unrealistic in today's world, but if it were somehow possible for everyone to stay out of each other business, the world would be a lot simpler. Not possible, I know.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

......Most Aussies do not like being told by the US, what we can or can't do,......

Most Americans do not like being told by the US, what we can or can't do.

Don't attack the whole country for the writings of one journalist.

No problem there, man. We've been the target of that, enough to know better. Aussies are cool.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Aussies are cool.

Thanks Bruce.

[kash]

    This is my first post, I hope to have some good conversations here Seeing this thread got me to thinking again about a topic I am interested in - the future of our world. When will the interconnectedness become so prevalent that the creation of a global government will be necessary for the survival of the human race? Right now we have us (America), the EU, the Middle Eastern nations, and Asia (specifically China) beefing up for the future. Now is the chance (I feel) to start talking about global cooperation. But of course, it will be a long time before such an idea would actually be put into practice... There will probably be a power struggle between those nations. And who knows if a global government is what people want, it could just be me :p If anyone has any thoughts, maybe we should start a new thread?

-kash

[404Error]

What, like NWO? You wouldn't be an Illuminati member, would you?