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!