Rick Santorum says farewell – and the real battle for the presidency begins

Rick Santorum says farewell – and the real battle for the presidency begins | World news | guardian.co.uk

Rick Santorum bows to the inevitable and quits Republican presidential race

Rick Santorum bows to the inevitable and quits Republican presidential race | World news | guardian.co.uk
- Santorum declares at event in Gettysburg: 'Race is over for me'
- Vows to continue fight for social conservatives
- Romney to face Barack Obama for White House in November

Best joke so far ...

"A conservative, a liberal and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says, 'Hi, Mitt.'"

Ron Paul quietly amassing an army of delegates while GOP frontrunners spar

Paul's tightly-organised campaign is racking up delegates even in states where he did poorly in the popular vote. It's all part of a complex system that could make Paul the election kingmake
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/23/ron-paul-amasses-delegates-republican-election

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor

Given the recent (and ongoing) crisis of the western economic model, and the untold hardship for many, then I think wealth, and candidates attitudes to it, are an important topic for our times. It should be said that since Romney is under the spotlight at the moment, of course most articles will be about him, and I will try to seekout post and highlight any similar articles about the other candidates, and Obama.

It's not just that all politicians  are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).

And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor

On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.

Extracts : 

• According to the most recent figures available from the US Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1% of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty

•  We will hear from the Democrat[ic] party the plight of the poor, and there's no question, it's not good being poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that's not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

• Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said:

"This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success … We are one nation under God."

• The next morning, NBC's Matt Lauer challenged him, asking:

"Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?"

• Romney doubled down, claiming:

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99% versus 1% – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1% … [it's] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

Let's talk about tax

If there's one practical area in which I most disagree with the Republican candidates, it's when it comes to tax. While taxes need to be justified, and wasteful taxing is one of the worst things governments can do, since they impose pain on their citizens unnecessarily, being anti-taxes per se while not being an outright anarchist is as meaningless and nonsensical as being against money itself. Taxes are part of the system of having a government, and whatever romantic individualistic ideas one might have of having 'small government' not even the most extreme would take it so far as having no government, and the same applies to taxes : they should be used as needed, just as government should govern as needed, and at different times this might mean to a greater or lesser extent.

I've already written about this with respect to the Gorver Norquist pledge that all candidates have signed up to , but this article  , while being obviously pro-Obama, does make some extra interesting points on the current tax system in America, which makes a lot of the rhetoric from the Republican candidates even more meaningless. The article claims :

- only in last 30 years taxes have decreased nothing new to have high taxes, and indeed maybe some of America's best eras (for everyone) were high tax periods
- taxes are lower under Obama than in Bush years, tax revenue is lowest in 60 years (though this is of course partly due to the economy slowing), yet still Obama often seen as a tax raiser (maybe even if acknowledge this these people would say he might not have raised, but he wants to, which given he's been in power 4 years is pushing it)
- For all their obsession with fiscal responsibility the Repubicans finally torpedoed plan which could have balanced the budget (though I am assuming this article is correct about this since don't have the details myself)
- Romney's current tax plan (link here) would mean less for those making more than $1m a year and tax rises for those under $40,000. Apart from the unfairness of this, it also doesn't make economic sense. While tax cuts for job creation is a worthy reason, rich peoples spending on the sort of goods which get an economy moving is obviously much less influenced by minor fluctuations than the average earner. A $100,000 here are there is not going to stop a millionaire buying a car, or a TV, but a $1000 for the average worker might mean actual purchases skipped.

Benjamin Franklin was right when he said there was nothing certain in life but death and taxes. To live well we need society, and to have society we need government, and that government needs to be funding. Claiming that taxes should categorically never go up regardless of the circumstances is just utter nonsense, and highly iresonsible, and not just fiscally.

The point is tax needs to be discussed, reasonably. Maybe people pay too much, maybe they pay too little, but pay we must

Guide to the super PACs...

PAC men...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure:

Group	Supports/Opposes	Independent Expenditures	Viewpoint	Total Raised
Restore Our Future	supports Romney	$7,795,104	Conservative	$12,231,700
Winning Our Future	supports Gingrich	$4,204,685	Conservative	$0
Make Us Great Again	supports Perry	$3,793,524	Conservative	$0
Our Destiny PAC	supports Huntsman	$2,453,204	Conservative	$0
Endorse Liberty	supports Paul	$1,165,542	Conservative	$0
House Majority PAC		$1,105,843	Liberal	$2,110,000
American Crossroads		$1,064,223	Conservative	$6,679,887
Red, White and Blue	supports Santorum	$727,200	Conservative	$0

Things to remember when voting

While it is impossible to present guidelines for voting without one's own biases coming through, there are I think some recommendations that any rational , reasonable, person should take on board, no matter what their political persuasions. Behind the dogma, special interests, fundamentalists and reactionaries, all political parties derive some support from well meaning if disagreeing people, who one feels might vote differently, if only they knew, or thought, more.

Self interest is bigger than you. 

At the end of the day I think for any argument to gain traction with people in general then it has to appeal at some level to self-interest. True selfless altruists are rare, at least rare enough not to be a significant voting block anyway, and there is nothing unusual or wrong with admitting one cares most for oneself and the people close to you. The point however is there are ways of looking at the situation which doesn't mean this results in not caring at all about everyone else. The key is to recognize how wrong Thatcher was when she claimed there was no such thing as society, only individuals. Like it or not we are social creatures, and our natures require that very society which she so easily dismissed (and some would argue that she did her best to dismantle). 

While it is always tempting to vote for the best deal for you personally, there are two reasons to be careful. Firstly, in simple material terms, with an interconnected society and economy, except for the elite 1%, we rise and fall together, and no matter what tax breaks or benefits one section gets, unless the entire system is doing well it won't matter in the long run. A fully functioning society is always going to be more prosperous overall than one which has idle or rotten components, and one needs to be sure politicians have an overall coherent plan for all segments, and aren't just buying off enough of them to get elected. Secondly, and more intangible but still perhaps even more important, many studies show that above a certain level of development (such as those reached already by all western economies) it's not the absolute wealth of the country which matters most for the important indices of well being in society (from health to crime to teenage pregnancies) it's the distribution of wealth within it. There is a correlation between how unequal a society is and the problems it has. And this is not just about the benefits of living in a flourishing community, but actually applies to individual metrics such as life expectancy and rates of illness as well. This is extremely counter-intuitive, since one would assume individual absolute wealth is all that matters, but the facts clearly indicate that the relative wealth of others matters as well. It might be really be better personally (and even selfishly) to have a little bit less, in a society where everyone has a bit more.

Put yourself in other's shoes, and not only in case end up wearing them 

Apart from the fact that industries and areas rise and fall constantly, and what might work out well for you now might not in the future, even if you don't worry about your own social position, you should still have to try and identify with that of others. The worst horrors of humanity have always arisen from viewing some group as 'other', and thinking of people, whether it be due to their race, orientation, political views or even employment status, as somehow as a certain kind of people due to this, can set society on the slippery slope to brutal behaviour. Whether it's viewing 'most' muslims as radical, or 'most' benefit claimants as slackers, or 'most' poor as criminals, easy generalizations can turn minor prejudices into mass assumptions, and poison the issue irrevocably. Simplified, polarized political debate at the general level can set the tone on how individuals are treated by others at the particular level, and never for the better. It's worth remembering that our biological natures are wired for this kind of discrimination, and it is only with rational effort we overcome them. Studies have shown that regardless of how tolerant and broad minded people might consider themselves to be, if presented with a foreign face parts of their brain involved in hostility light up automatically. We are primed to suspect those we consider different to us, and this can be based on many things, not just race, but also cultrue driven stereotypes. There is hope however, since in those same studies, if peope were asked to consider the other individual as someone they could identify with, a father, a brother, even a postman, then the instinctive hostility was suppressed. How we view others matters, especially if we view them AS others.

Another reason to identify with other groups is whether we realise it or not, we might be part of them. This is particularly relevant economically to the US, where surveys have shown that 40% of people consider themselves either in the top 10% of earners, are due to enter that bracket within a decade. Similar to the statistical impossibility that everyone considers themselves to be above average, this is inevitably going to result in people voting for things which they assume benefit, or will someday benefit them, when in fact they are actually supporting some other bunch of people entirely. Perhaps this partly explains the incredulity Europeans (who have an almost inversely pessimistic view of their own relative standing in society) have with the lack of opposition to the tax cuts Bush brought in for the extremely rich; maybe a lot of people like the idea in the hope that one day they too will be that rich. While there is indeed a lot to be said for the uplifting optimism of 'the American Dream', to people outside the US looking in, it does smack a little of a nice story told by the rich to keep the proles deluded and happy, a kind of worldly 'opiate of the masses'. The irony is, given the lack of social mobility in the US relative to other countries, then it is in fact true to say that for the best chances of living the american dream and rising out of poverty, move to Denmark.

I'm skilled, you're lucky 

What I personally feel is trait most lacking in the well-off in societies (and I consider myself one of them) is a realisation of one's own luck, and the role of external factors in one's prosperity. Interestingly this is again an area in which the US diverges significantly to Europe, with 36% of Americans believing success in life is due to forces outside of one's control, compared to 72% of Germans. The fact that Germany has one of the strongest economies currently, and a very high general standard of living shows this is not just the pessimistic fatalism of the downtrodden, but how differently success can be viewed in similarly wealthy countries (incidentally Japan seems to be closer to Europe in this area as well). The point is not that hard work and skill is not necessary for success, except for winning a lottery it of course is. The point is that it is not sufficient. Apart from genetic and upbringing factors, behind every successful industry or service there is a submerged supporting structure, often provided by the state. Whether it is the indirect funding of colleges and research, the investment in the infrastructure which enables the service, or enables people to avail of it, there is always something which makes success possible, generally for the few and often paid for by the many. The guy cleaning toilets gets little benefit from the roads and airports that his taxes help build, but the chief executive of a corporation which uses these services does. Further more apart from the enabling factors, there is the disproportionate reward for certain kinds of labour;I refuse to accept any argument that claims that that chief executive works 1000 times harder and hence his/her 1000 time salary is somehow 'worth it'. The system is setup to benefit the people who are in a position to use it, and it's important that they realise it. This is not to criticize the system, that's just the way it is, but to warn against self-serving arrogance. In light of this, calls to avoid using the verb 'earns' for someone's income make a lot of sense. The stockholder who reaps massive rewards on investment, or the CEO who receives a massive bonus relative to the average worker does not 'earn' the money in the moral sense, he or she simply 'receives' it.

And of course, a realisation of the role of luck in our fortunes inevitably leads to an awareness of it's role in misfortune. No matter how well things are going, knowing how they can fall apart might mean voting for the general interest above one's own makes a lot of sense. Consider the unfortunates, in case some day you're one of them.

Think, don't just feel 

Again especially relevant to the US given the massive sums involved in the campaigns anyway, and even more so in this election with the unleashing of unaccountable super PACs, the average voter needs to be prepared to handle the media onslaught headed their way. Ever since JFK, the image often trumps the individual in politics, with spin and smear being deployed in ever more sophisticated ways. Even more so than with normal advertising, voters need to be aware that they will be targetted with emotional hooks that are incredibly insidious and effective. In particular one needs to wary of adverts and messages that tap into both positive (e.g. national pride) as well as negative feeling (fear, racial/religious prejudice etc), and tie it together with a compelling 'story'. Such approaches need to be treated with suspicion and scepticism since things are never as black and white as these persuasive narratives claim, but unfortunately we are suckers for this line (e.g. see this TED lecture).

It's complicated, always

Beyond the array of different areas which a president will have to deal with, making it unlikely one party or candidate will have the best policies for all of them, there are also many sides to even just the one kind of policy. An example would be the notion of non-interventionism which in light of certain foreign fiascos, often makes sense. But the same principles would also prevent intervening to stop genocide, or contain aggressive countries, and this is an abbrogation of responsibility. While not ever using military force means one might not actively 'do evil' , it also means one wouldn't stop it either. To be morally neutral is to be morally bankrupt.

Acknowledge biases 

Politics inevitably brings out the worst bias mechanisms in people, since it is both a social and an emotional topic. But a rational self examination can help one stop oneself from being at their mercy. There are many prejudices and dispositions which we might spot in ourselves with rational consideration, but two of the most important biases to watch out for are tribalism (the unquestioning allegience to one party due to having voted for it before, and the dismissing of the others as impossible to ever support) and confirmation bias (seizing on negative news for the opponent while ignoring similar problems for one's own side, an example of which might be corporate funding, which benefits all parties), Of course easier to try to be unbiased than actually achieving it, but in this domain forewarned often really is forearmed.

And above all: listen to all the arguments, think about all the implications, and choose for all of your society, not just yourself.

Why vote? Do good, is good, feels good...

Why vote?
While I will try to give my comments and opinions on the actual candidates and policies in this election, now that it is only starting to get underway is probably a good time to discuss voting in general, before things get clouded in the conflict of campaigning. While I hope to remain impartial, realistically this is probably going to be the
only completely (or at least the most) unbiased article I write.


Why bother voting?
For all the media reports of fired up conservatives, the Tea Party, and even the Occupy movement, probably the most serious political issue the US (and every other country) faces is voter apathy.  For the US, the stats seem to be (source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html) about 37% turnout in congressional elections and 50-55% in presidential elections. While a lot was made about George Bush not winning the 'popular' vote in 2000, more relevant is that even if a candidate does gain the magic 50% of votes cast, it still means more than 70% of eligible voters did not choose them. A political system where 30% decide the government sounds terrible, but this is par for the course in Western countries, and actually on the high side (even with his 'landslide' 2001 victory in the UK, Tony Blair only received endorsement from 25% of the voting population). There are probably many complicated reasons for this, but without trying to explain why people don't vote, here I would like to make some comments on why they should -  practically, morally, and psychologically.


Practical reasons
One common pseudo-philosophical reason for not voting is that in a population of millions, the individual's vote makes no tangible difference, so why bother. Apart from the rare, but real, cases of elections coming down to small numbers of votes (think Florida 2000) this is still philosophically bogus. There is a difference between something making an imperceptible difference, and making no difference, and we accept this in many areas,daily, in our life. Not brushing my teeth today is not going to give me cavities, but I still do it because I know that every little action adds up, and, since tomorrow I will face the same choice, there is no rational way to not do it now and yet still do it enough times that it matters. Admittedly an election is slightly different in that it's a 'one-shot' event, but logically the position is the same. Or perhaps the example of littering illustrates it better: we (hopefully) don't litter not because we worry that our particular sweet wrapper will ruin the landscape but because we know what would happen if everyone did it. It's a valid rule of action, and of course isn't overpoweringly persuasive, but then nothing is,(except perhaps pulling a lever rigged directly to our brain's pleasure circuits). Furthermore there is also our influence on others, and on popular mood. Not voting itself, and even more so arguing that it doesn't matter anyway, has an affect on others, until eventually it actually does have a directly perceptible effect. Kicking one stone down a mountain can start a landslide, and the same dynamics can apply to people as well.
Though in my view, for all the claims to rational reasoning, people actually resort to this line to justify the fact that they couldn't be bothered voting anyway. It's an excuse, not an argument, and should be discounted as such.


Moral Reasons
Another familiar excuse is that the polticians are 'all the same' and 'each as bad as the other', and while someone would like to vote, there is no one worth voting for. This often seems like a fair point, but what Churchill said about democracy in general (that it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried) applies to particular elections as well: we might just end up with a bad candidate, but the point is that they are better than all the others. And anyway, in most modern elections, this 'best of a bad lot' logic doesn't really apply, since there are plenty of radical and outright 'nasty' individuals running for office, which makes lumping all politicians together willfully unfair. There might indeed be widespread cronyism, self-aggrandisement and even corruption, but there is also racism, xenophobia and many other hateful attitudes eager to take power, and one less vote for anyone works out as one less vote that these elements need to have influence. If you can't be motivated to vote for someone, then view it at least as voting against something, since as has been often said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. As an extreme example of this one can look at the 1933 German elections; although Hitler never achieved a majority, his 44% of the vote allowed him to begin to consolidate power, and yet was derived from only 31% of eligible voters. One third of the German electorate was all that it was needed to set the world on a course for horrific war, and although the Nazis used many tricks to bypass the democratic system (the vote was just one part of it), it still shows how low support is no barrier to power.
Not voting at all is not doing nothing, it's approving all parties equally, and it's important to recognize this; like the 'landslide' example effect, just as we have to take responsibility for the small actions that can have large effects, so we are responsible for small non-actions.


An unfortunate corrolary to this is that it is the people who are most fired up about issues that vote most, and sadly it is the issues which affect others, the 'moral' issues, which get people most fired up. The ultra conservatives in America presumably aren't vociferious on the issue of gay rights or abortion because they want to be prevented from gay marriages or having an abortion themselves, but because they don't want others to. And so (whether you agree or disagree with them) standing by and washing one's hands of the electoral process one is yielding the power to these people to disproportionately influence the state and impose their views perhaps unfairly on others, normally a minority, and that is an abrogation of moral responsibility.


Similarly people are less motivated to vote when things are going well, but it should always be remembered (and not so hard to do so currently at least) how even in the developed West it's not always plain sailing, and if we're asleep at the wheel, things can easily change, for the worse. There are numerous examples of relative success being derailed in a short term by incompetent government, with Zimbabwe being a classic, if extreme, example. Nor do we need to look at developing countries to see how policies have long lasting effects; for example my interpretation of the ongoing relatively dismal state of the UK transport and health services is in large part due to the anti-state service ideology of Margret Thatcher. Never underestimate the power of a government to set a country on a road to ruin.


Psychological Reasons
Finally there are I believe important psychological benefits to voting, which may seem surpising to some people. The most fundamental of these is it is active participation in one's society, fostering a sense of belonging in a community, which many studies have shown to be an integral part of our well being. Helping to choose how society is run reinforces the idea that there is indeed (contra Thatcher) a society at all, and feeling part of it is beneficial.


Furthermore, by contemplating and reacting to the political issues, one is involving oneself in the current status of the state, and this will influence and inform one's day to day actions. It gives you the bigger picture, which can often help understand the particular problems in everyday life. One example might be the various side effects of the economic crisis, which are often not as black and white as one might expect.For instance, seeing one's mortgage go up on it's own is always going to be annoying, but if one understands it as part of a bigger picture (cooling an economy and hence a sign of underlying and continuing prosperity) then one may be able to appreciate the reasons, and if not be happy about it at least be able to view it more sanguinely as part of an overall good thing.
And of course by participating in an election one hopefully educates oneself in matters that penetrate the prime facie hype, and this can also be beneficial. So for example, If one doesn't look into the issue, then one might assume (as most people do) that crime is on the rise, when in fact statistics often show it is falling, and only perception is rising, and this should help prevent against irrational fear and worry.


Finally, these points apply whether one's favourite candidate wins or loses, since it is participation that matters most, and as long as no ultra-extreme candidate takes power (and by voting you help prevent that) then following the election process should (hopefully) give a more balanced and informed view about the opposition as well, and hence if they do win, then you might realise they are not as bad as you once thought.


Join society, join the vote. 

Why we can't help but watch the US elections

Just like Christmas, and with similar levels of marketing, the US electoral cycle seems to pervade the media earlier and earlier each time round. Not just the election, but even now the primaries are everyday news even in Europe. The best illustraton of this that I can think of is a conversation overheard in a country pub in Ireland in 2008 between two old men at the bar where one turns to the other and says "so, who are you going for? Obama or Clinton?". While such characters probably spend so much time in the pub that they end up discussing pretty much anything, it still says a lot about how American domestic politics permeates world discourse that two old duffers in Cork were discussing the internal candidates of the Democrats.

Why do we care so much, and is it any of our business anyway?

There is of course a one word answer to both these questions which immediately comes to mind : namely, "Bush". There is I think much more to it than that, but nonetheless the combination of his personality and his presidency seemed to be a perfect storm of events and attitudes, drawing us into the drama of the US administration both on a moral level (what we thought of him and his neo-con cohorts) and on many, many practical ones (from the ongoing militry conflicts to the obstructionist behaviour on climate change). Maybe people have a psychological need to blame persons rather than institutions (and presidents rather than presidencies) for world affairs, but after him it seemed that what kind of person had his (and it's always a 'his' so far) finger on the button of American military and economic might mattered as much as the reality of that might itself. The 9/11 attacks would have probably meant that might would be exercised abroad anyway no matter who was president, and inevitably have provoked some criticism no matter what was done, but the incompetent (the post invasion Iraq fiasco), simplistic ('with us or against us' posturing) and outright beligerent ('bring it on' rhetoric) handling by Bush made it particularly passionately controversial. His God-invoking Texan swagger seemed to be a stereotypical anti-thesis of the kind of informed and rational enlightenment values people in for example Europe thought was required to lead the world's remaining superpower.

Leaving aside whether Europe itself ever manages to live up to its own lofty ideals (rarely), why do we care so much that America does? A valid practical, but still I think partial, answer is that, as the remaining superpower, American decisions affect us all, perhaps more than those of our own national governments. From armed conflicts to climate change to the global economy, what Uncle Sam does has major impact on our day to day lives, and it is reasonable to expect, and check, that with such power comes reasoned responsibility. So for example it is right that there is analysis and debate on American foreign policy; while America might not want to be the world's policeman, and it is a shameful state of affairs that it is often relied upon to be so unaided, it has to accept that role when it carries (and has long waved) around the biggest gun.

However, while the most discussed area, American military action is perhaps the one that affects us in Europe and other developed countries least for the moment (a showdown with China could change that) and in other areas there plenty of large powers who have comparable weight to the US. For example when it comes to global warming, while America is currently one of the worst culprits per capita, even it pales in comparison to the future impact of countries such as China and India, and yet there is rarely such an emotional reaction to their governments by the average man-in-the-european-street. Similarly, errant Chinese economic policies could easily derail the European businesses relying on them in one direction for cheap manufacturing and in the other as a growing market for exports, but a lot of people would probably be more likely to say Who Jintau, rather than Hu. Of course military actions provoke more moral reactions, but while far from excusing America's behaviour in Iraq or things like extra-judicial renditon, many other states engage in much much worse and more consistent human rights abuses with little everyday response.

For some reason we take America more personally than other countries, and I think one explanation for this is we treat it like a family member we care about but whose differences to us grate all the more due to our closeness. I think a similar reason explains why people get so upset about Israel's actions, which while often deplorable, are nothing compared to some of its neighbours. In my view the problem is we consider Israel as 'one of us' , a developed western country which should know better, and hence we feel it more deeply when it violates our values. In contrast, I think, while not excusing we at least partly write off the behaviour of for example dictatorial states, almost as we would that of unruly or wild children, wrong and to be dealt with of course, but somehow less morally inflaming because we hardly expected anything else.
America seems to matter to us more than it rationally should. Even in the interconnected global economy, why should we even have an opinion on matters such as US healthcare or its social system, when we hardly ever discuss similar issues relating to other countries? The reason is because the American system is in many ways the leading example of OUR system, that of advanced western democracy, and hence we feel personally connected to how it is developing. We recognize and understand its debates and thus can't help but be fascinated by and drawn into them. Just as sports fans can't watch teams playing without judging and advising from the sidelines, we can't stay aloof from the mega-example of western civilization working itself out. And it is this cultural aspect which perhaps makes American elections most enthralling. How America develops socially sets the model for the rest of the west, and debates played out there have resonance at home, if not now then in the future. America is the silver screen where some of the deep cultural issues of our time are played out in larger than life drama, so it is inevitable we take an interest.

The irrationality in this can be seen in the elements of the race that are most highlighted, especially the more conservative Republican views on things like gay rights and abortion. Such issues garner the most headlines, but are the least relevant to the future lives of most of us, those of most Americans, and even probably most of the policies those elected will enact. We (and they) should be focusing on the economic and related social ideologies of the candidates, not the 'moral' ones, and the fact that we (as represented by the media) don't shows how politics is more about emotion than reason. Candidates are viewed in light of a narrow set of values that provoke the most intense reaction, even though it is their opinion on many more pragmatic issues that will really matter.
At the moment, it really is 'the economy, stupid' (and with the long term view then even things like climate change are a part of this), but I am always reminded of the story of a candidate (Adlai Stevenson) in the 50s who on being told he would have the vote of every thinking person responded 'that's not enough, madam, we need a majority'. While on the one hand being crassly elitist, there is a deep truth to it, in that electorates often vote with the gut and not the head, and this is ever more an issue in the days of mega-advertising campaigns which raise mood above message. This is of course nothing particular to the US, every country has the same problem, but in the US it seems to be particularly extreme because of both the massive amounts of money involved, and the bigger, or at least more manifest, role that religion still seems to play in the 'hot' topics. Being a more religious country (as indicated by many surveys) it is inevitable values are linked to beliefs, and play a role, but secular Europeans are still horrified by the notion of ,for example ,George Bush 'consulting God' . Similarly it is hard not to take a worried interest when someone like Rick Perry holds mass prayer meetings. Given that the president of the US has the nuclear arsenal at his disposal to destory this world then there is justifiable unease regarding candidates who turn to another one for guidance and help. It is worth remembering of course that while some Republican candidates are the most brash examples of 'Christianism', profession of faith is almost mandatory for US politicians from all parties, and even Obama is no exception.

The bottom line I think is that these are all elements that add up to a great and familliar story, with clashing values, vivid characters, and a plot that twists and turns; the election is like one more great TV drama (or at times sit-com, or tragi-com) from America, and as always, the rest of the world can't help but tune in. Maybe people are drawn in for the wrong reasons, but at the end of the day the more interest in politics the better, even if it is not our own. And being removed from the race does not make our opinions irrelevant, since the result will affect us as well, and maybe we can even provide occasional clarity with the view from outside.
The greatest soap opera on earth has just begun another season...stay tuned!

It's economic policies, stupid

It's a valid point that for all the fascination with the 'cultural' views in the GOP race, on religion, rights (and maybe even slightly race) too little attention is being paid to the implications of candidates' economic 'ideologies'. While the republican party makes headlines with stances on abortion and gay rights, what is more relevant to the vast majority of people are the economic dogmas.

Mitt Romney, candidate of the 1% :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/09/mitt-romney-candidate-of-the-1-per-cent

Test

test post