International influence of the American president

[Peter B]

I do not envy the American voter; not only you have to vote for your own president in your own country; you will have to be aware how much of your vote will affect the rest of the world, as the the influence of the USA is truly worldwide.
What is determined in the White house, is felt across the world.

I have lived in New Zealand now for 45 years; immigrated to NZ from Holland

It is now a long time ago, at least 40 years. At that time, I shared a flat with a group of students, one of them I was very keen on.
Her name was Nadine.
I was told to back off in no uncertain terms as she was engaged to a NZ gunnery sergeant , who was doing a tour of duty in Vietnam, in an area which was subject to spraying with Agent Orange.

NZ, at that time, supported the USA by means of an artillery group.

When he returned, they were married.
After 6 years he died, leaving a widow and two children, crippled, due to very poor bone structure
As Agent Orange, in that time, was not recognised as a significant influence on health, she was not recompensed and had a very hard time for a very long time, having to face substantial medical bills for her children.

Eventually, she was compensated.

What sticks in my mind, if she had decided to write a Dear John letter, she would not have had to cope with widowhood and two crippled children.
We would have had a complete normal, suburban life.I wanted to marry her, if I could


So , on a personal level , I was affected by the voting pattern in the USA a long time ago
Right now, over there, you have to decide.
And what is the mind of your two candidates or how will they react to future events?

American presidents have a pattern to get involved in troubles; oil. commie threats, power in the wrong hands, send in the militairy advisors and from that it becomes a major problem

I can't help but think that you, the American voter, you are between a rock and a hard place

[Boreas]

Interesting post. As a Canadian, I have been told I have no business becoming involved or interested in American politics. I think that we do have an interest, even if we do not have a say. As you said, what happens in the US affects us all.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Obama is elected. Our PM, Stephen Harper, seems to adore GWB, and I suspect he would vote for McCain if given a chance. We have a minority government right now, and it looks like he wants to call an election before the American election. I understand that he knows that if Obama is elected, the tides will change for him. :rolleyes:

[nuovonudo]

As a Canadian, I have been told I have no business becoming involved or interested in American politics. I think that we do have an interest, even if we do not have a say.

good point. i hadn't thought of it that way. thanks.

Our PM, Stephen Harper, seems to adore GWB, and I suspect he would vote for McCain if given a chance.

forgive my ignorance about canadian politics, boreas. to what political party does harper belong? perhaps you could give us a brief explanation of the canadian system, parties, etc.?

regards,
--andy (nuovo)

[Boreas]

Yikes. Okay, here goes. I am happy to accept help and further clarification from Qikdraw, hm and others. :o

Stephen Harper, as you may have guessed (because he likes GWB) is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, which is quite right-winged. This is an almalgamation of the former Progressive Conservative Party, and the Reform Party. The Reform Party was alledgedly grassroots, (which I liked) and very right-wing (which I didn't). It was seen as a "western" party since it was started in Alberta. Preston Manning was the leader and I believe the person who formed this party. This party split the "right" for many years, so we saw the Liberal party in power for many years, from 1993 (or 92) It used to be "progressive convervative", so it was a different part than it is now. http://www.conservative.ca/

The other major party is the Liberal Party of Canada. It is supposed to be left of centre. I guess by American standards, it is quite left. By Canadian standards, that is debatable. Some would say that any reason it is left of centre is because the Conservatives are seen as extremely right-wing. Stephane Dion is the leader of the Liberal Party, the offical opposition party. http://www.liberal.ca/default_e.aspx

The third major party is the New Democratic Party. It is lead by Jack Layton. This is the left-wing party, and off the map as far as left is concerned in the US. You can't even imagine this one. Obama is very conservative compared to the NDP. http://www.ndp.ca/

We also have the Bloc Quebecois http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/ which is a Quebec party, and is quite left leaning.

The Green Party is also becoming more of a presence. http://www.greenparty.ca/ It is quite left leaning.

We have a parliamentary system. This comes from the British system. We have the Governor General as a representative of the Queen. http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E More information is on this link. This explains the system more than I could http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Aboutparl.asp?Language=E

We currently have a minority government which means that the ruling party has to have the "blessing" of the official opposition in order to pass bills and change things. Some bills have to pass a confidence motion. If one of these motions does not pass, then our government breaks down, and we have an election. Our leader of the official opposition, Mr. Dion could cause the break down of the government and that would trigger an election. No one in this current government wants to be seen as triggering an election. They seem to believe that the electorate would not see that favourably. Mr. Harper can call an election, and most people seem to think he will do so soon. This means we will likely have an election in the fall, if the pundits have it right. He is itching to have a majority government so he will have more power for four years. Many people are scared of this, and the actual possibility of any party having a majority government in the near future seems remote.

One thing I like about this system is that we are not locked into the government for four or eight years. We have more power to change the government, and they seem to be more accountable to the electorate.

Well, that is chapter one. If I think of anything more, I will post it. Feel free to as questions.

[Qikdraw]

good point. i hadn't thought of it that way. thanks.

I argee with Boreas, as a Canadian I have no vote, but policy does effect me, specially because I live in the US. :D Which is one reason why I have taken such an interest.

forgive my ignorance about canadian politics, boreas. to what political party does harper belong? perhaps you could give us a brief explanation of the canadian system, parties, etc.?

Here is a bit on Cdn politics...

Elections in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada)
Canadian Electoral System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_electoral_system)
Parliment of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Canada)

I had more links about election laws but I can't find em right now.

Basically what is happening right now is that Harper has a minority government, which means they have to work with the other parties to get the plans they want passed. This also means that if the leading party is doing a poor job the other parties can band together and have a vote of no confidence and take down the government. (force an election) This happened to the Liberal party a few years ago. A scandal called 'adscam' took them down.

A bit of a quick rundown on the main federal parties...

The Conservative Party (which is currently in power) is the right leaning party
The Liberal Party is the central party
The New Democratic Party is the party of the left

But really our Conservative Party would be considered 'lefty' in American politics.

There are many other parties in Canada including a Marijuana Party and a Sex Party :D The Marijuana Party had a meeting with a lot of people attending and they handed out joints. (I know I know, where do you sign up right? lol )

One thing I have noticed is that politicians and the government in Canada are held far more accountable than in the US. Billions of dollars missing in Iraq, the Pentagon saying they've 'lost' 2.3 TRILLION would be a huge outcry in Canada, yet its barely a blip here. Considering how close both countries are in culture I am really at a loss as to why this is. I see the American public as being mostly apathetic in politics. Which is really quite sad. To be fair when I was in Canada I was mostly apathetic about Cdn politics, but since being here I see how dangerous that is.

[Boreas]

Good job Qikdraw!

I think most Canadians are pretty apathetic about politics. The situation in the US may have shaken some of that apathy, since we get to see how politicians can affect many things. Who knows though. I live in an area of the country where it is said that the Conservative party could run a fence post and it would win the election. That sounds pretty apathetic to me. :rolleyes:

[usmc1]

I do not envy the American voter; not only you have to vote for your own president in your own country; you will have to be aware how much of your vote will affect the rest of the world, as the the influence of the USA is truly worldwide.
What is determined in the White house, is felt across the world...

...I can't help but think that you, the American voter, you are between a rock and a hard place

Peter, I think that too many of us in the United States do not clearly understand the impact we have on the world. It is an issue worthy of a book and can't be completely discussed in this venue, but, I have some quick thoughts.

The world is changing and the old bi-polar, cold war, two spheres of influence dichotomy is pretty much over. I mean, hell, you now have non-state entities operating as spheres of influence driving internal national policies and external alliances. The United States attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq based, in large part, on that new global reality and its potential affect on oil supplies---but, most of the world stood back and did not align with us. Our ability to control or demand things of other nations was already wanning.

Yet, our misguided and precipitous actions there have influenced the debate, policies, and actions of other nations throughout the world. What Americans have yet to grasp, is that we no longer can control other nations, we can merely influence. Even our cat's paw, Israel, once the point of our spear in the region, has, in its own self-interest, begun acting without cachet from Washington.

Your story about the girl you loved and the way her life was changed in New Zealand by US politics was poignant and the stuff of great literature. I think of it sometimes in simpler terms, when dinosaurs fight we little piss-ants get stomped on.

America has changed. Too many of our schools warehouse rather than educate. Our churches revere prosperity and getting ahead rather than finding a path to a higher awareness. We have relinquished our humanity and disparage as weak those who fight to reclaim it. There is an ugliness in the midst of our beauty, there is a dysfunction undermining our order, there is a selfishness in our charity, and most of all there is hatred and vilification of those most urgently needing our care and concern. We are a nation which has lost its way and is in crises and grave danger of ceasing to measure up to our ideals and potential---we are on the verge of failure!

These things have become institutionalized in our media, in our politics, and our attitudes toward one another. And as they play themselves out in our domestic politics, they increase exponentially across the globe: with our over consumption, our flagrant disregard for the welfare of a shared planet, our arrogance toward the less developed, our belligerence toward those who choose different paths, our self-centered insistence on entitlement, our sneering superiority toward other cultures and beliefs, we have become very poor neighbors and world citizens.

Somehow we have allowed that element of our society to gain ascendancy, and it's affected us and the rest of the world. This election, thankfully, does not put us between a rock and a hard place as you wrote. It, for the first time in many decades, gives us a clear choice between what we are, what we have become, and of putting ourselves back on the path to what we might be, of reclaiming our humanity!

[NudeAl]

I agree with what USMC1 wrote.

I will also volunteer this. We have lost our senses of being a great nation, a leader. Since W.W.II we have lead most of what was then refereed to as the free world primarily that was due to our economic power and our military might. However even as late as the 1960s we still tilting at windmills ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country, the Berlin airlift, etc. Now we live in a society so enamored of itself the question has become what's in it for me. There is no sense of service a sense of trying to give back something to the society that enabled you to live so comfortably. This is largely a product of the me generation. We have perpetuated this by those we hold up as an example to be emulated. It is this attitude of me, me, me, my, my, my, that has lead us to this path. We used to try to lead from the perspective of the moral high ground now it is all about profits and exploiting others. Because of our own actions in the last 7 years or so we have used up what ever good will we had left from that earlier time.

The influence of America is waning Pax Americana ended on 9-11. Without the steady influence of the cold war it has been a wild and turbulent time. We appear to be a society in decline and Chinas' influence is rising. This doesn't bode well for most of the world. The Chinese already have far more influence in Africa than the US does. Their sphere of influence is increasing as our own is shrinking. China is changing dramatically but they have a long way to go before I would feel comfortable allowing them to control areas other than China.

I did not catch all of Obamas' speech last night however the parts I did hear were truly inspiring and reminded me of that earlier time in America when we had the moral high ground and we were respected for that. I would like to return to those policies that made that happen.

[ki4kxq]

You're kidding here, right? You are actually blaming the US for you not marrying Nadine, and not having a happy life in the suburbs. As a cold hearted conservative, well that's the label we get, your post brings up many questions that I see no one else has bothered to ask, so I will.

How in the world can you assume that had you been able to marry Nadine that life would have been sunshine and lollypops? People who have never been exposed to agent orange have handicapped children everyday. Had you been blessed with "normal" children, how do you know Nadine wouldn't have been a widow sooner than 6years? You could have been a widower.

It sounds like you kept in touch as you seem to know the particulars of her life. Did you marry someone else? Are you still married? If not, why didn't you marry Nadine and step up and help her to support her two children?

You were not affected by the voting patterns of the US. You were affected because you chose not to approach Nadine in the first place. You were affected because she chose to marry the gunnery sergeant instead of you.

Will everyone please stop blaming the US every time they stub their toe. It is getting quite tiresome. If everyone would live their life and quit being little victims, this would indeed be a better world.

[usmc1]

You're kidding here, right? You are actually blaming the US for you not marrying Nadine, and not having a happy life in the suburbs. As a cold hearted conservative, well that's the label we get, your post brings up many questions that I see no one else has bothered to ask, so I will.

How in the world can you assume that had you been able to marry Nadine that life would have been sunshine and lollypops? People who have never been exposed to agent orange have handicapped children everyday. Had you been blessed with "normal" children, how do you know Nadine wouldn't have been a widow sooner than 6years? You could have been a widower.

It sounds like you kept in touch as you seem to know the particulars of her life. Did you marry someone else? Are you still married? If not, why didn't you marry Nadine and step up and help her to support her two children?

You were not affected by the voting patterns of the US. You were affected because you chose not to approach Nadine in the first place. You were affected because she chose to marry the gunnery sergeant instead of you.

Will everyone please stop blaming the US every time they stub their toe. It is getting quite tiresome. If everyone would live their life and quit being little victims, this would indeed be a better world.

A man posts a poignant story about how super-power politics affect the lives of ordinary people and you launch a disparaging personal attack filled with self-rightious virtriol.

This is what it boils down to everytime with conservatives; no introspection, no self-appraisal, no acceptance that something bigger than their paultry ideology of hate and selfishness exists.

A human being comes before us, and opens his heart revealing an event that touched him long ago and the life-long lingering effects of that event and you attack him?

I am so damned sick of this. You illustrate and demonstrate the ugliness, the meanness, and the paucity of human decency which pervades your segment of our society and of which I wrote earlier. You dare to grill him as though you were a self-annointed prosecuting attorney.

Just another attention-starved, Ann Coulter wannabe, breaking bad, and geeking for the notice of the moment.

[Skinview]

So , on a personal level , I was affected by the voting pattern in the USA a long time agoYes and no. Of course the Vietnam War would have been a lot shorter without the US, but we didn't make New Zealand go to Vietnam.

American presidents have a pattern to get involved in troubles; oil. commie threats, power in the wrong hands, send in the militairy advisors and from that it becomes a major problemYeah, but when a ruthless dictator tries to take over half the worlds oil supply, or a fleet of Japanese warships comes over your horizon, who are ya gonna call?

I can't help but think that you, the American voter, you are between a rock and a hard place ?? Its pretty soft where I am standing. Although when the world goes to hell, its more likely to be my son than yours that has to go fix things. Georgia had more troops in Iraq than New Zealand does.

[usmc1]

It still isn't, at least not here in the US. In fact, if I remember right, after a lot of study, it is thought that it is very unlikely that it is any health threat.

Yes and no. Of course the Vietnam War would have been a lot shorter without the US, but we didn't make New Zealand go to Vietnam.

Yeah, but when a ruthless dictator tries to take over half the worlds oil supply, or a fleet of Japanese warships comes over your horizon, who are ya gonna call?

?? Its pretty soft where I am standing. Although when the world goes to hell, its more likely to be my son than yours that has to go fix things. Georgia had more troops in Iraq than New Zealand does.

Which makes New Zealand ever so much less a lackey than it does Georgia. Brighter leadership too.

[Skinview]

A man posts a poignant story about how super-power politics affect the lives of ordinary people and you launch a disparaging personal attack filled with self-rightious virtriol.
And who leaps to the opportunity to launch another America bashing session on an international forum?

[usmc1]

And who leaps to the opportunity to launch another America bashing session on an international forum?

And who immediately enters the fray to prove my point that conservatives lack the ability for introspection and self assesment.?

Acknowledging the need for change, and improvement and identification of faults and failings and problems is not "bashing". It is what intelligent people do in their personal and spiritual lives and professional affairs and what nations need to do.

International forum? Hah, do you really believe that our strengths and shortcomings are not already known to the rest of the world?

Catch a clue willya?

[Redtan]

HOLD ON KIDS! Yeah, the original post was weird. Kind of a "if a butterfly flaps its wings in China how will it change my life" story. But the point the poster is trying to make - that the US plays a major role in the world that affects a vast number of people who don't get to vote - is self evident. All you have to do is ask an Iraqi!

As for Canada's interest in this election, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Harper as a Bush supporter. After the toxic relationship between the US and Canada under Cretien (liberal) he merely tried to normalize the relationship between the two countries. I'm sure his political philosophy is somewhat closer to McCain than Obama; but I am equally sure he will try to work with whoever is elected. As for stated policies to date, it is clear that McCain would be far more likely to continue a favourable trade relatioinship with Canada than Obama. We Canucks may like Obama's flair (we elected Trudeau, after all!) but I doubt that the sentiment will be reciprocated.

[Qikdraw]

Yeah, but when a ruthless dictator tries to take over half the worlds oil supply,

Well considering we propped up said dictator, gave him the WMDs he used to gas his own people, then the Reagan administration stopped congress from imposing sanctions on him after he did so...

The point Peter makes is that the US gets involved in places, and then those places can become larger problems later on, usually because the US has propped up dictators. Iraq is a great example of that. The hypocracy of the Bush administration's outcry over Saddam's gassing was insane. People in the Bush administration were involved in propping up Saddam, even after he gassed those people, and providing him with that gas. Remember the picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand, which was taken after the gassing?

While the US has done a lot of good around the world, it has also helped a lot of bad to further its own foriegn policy goals, which may just include forcing American companies into a foriegn county. History shows us the facts of this happening, so there is no point in denying it. But what Americans need to acknowlege is that America has done it, and not just simply label it as America Bashing.

American politics do have wide ranging effects. Should Americans vote based on what will happen to Liechtenstein? Not really. Americans need to vote based on their own country, and the direction they want it to go. Just as other countries need to vote the way they want their country to go and not worry what America will think of it.

[Peter B]

I have stirred up quite something.
To balance it all , here is a positive "American influence " story.

During the Cuban missile crisis I was a soldier on an airbase near The Hague, the administrative capital of Holland

If there would have been a shooting war, if Kennedy had not been as desicive, I would have been dead for sure, and with me thousands of others,

It was a scary week

The next encounter with international politics was an obscure period of history, a very short war in New Guinea.in the same time frame as the Cuban crisis, the cold war period
This was the last remnant of the Dutch colonial empire of Indonesia.
The prime minister of Indonesia, Soekarno, was in trouble and in order to divert attention to his own shoretcomings, he invaded New Guinea.

In order to make it easier for him, he announced that Russia would be interested in the outcome too.
This galvanised the USA and an envoy, named Ellsworth Bunker, was send to Holland to tell us to back off and let Soekarno have his way.

It was done, the Dutch troops, who were there, were send back.
It affected me personally, as I had volunteered to go there and drive a bowser on the one and only airfield.
It would have liberated me from washing dishes and frying eggs by the thousands for the non com mess where i worked.

So, before I would become another hero or fool or casualty, I was saved by the intervention of American diplomacy

[Qikdraw]

As for Canada's interest in this election, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Harper as a Bush supporter. After the toxic relationship between the US and Canada under Cretien (liberal) he merely tried to normalize the relationship between the two countries. I'm sure his political philosophy is somewhat closer to McCain than Obama; but I am equally sure he will try to work with whoever is elected. As for stated policies to date, it is clear that McCain would be far more likely to continue a favourable trade relatioinship with Canada than Obama. We Canucks may like Obama's flair (we elected Trudeau, after all!) but I doubt that the sentiment will be reciprocated.

I do have a concern over Obama's policy of 'fairer' trade policies. I know he is looking at 'fairer' in the eyes of America, which could mean harsh tarriffs on Canadian goods. I don't want another softwood lumber crisis to start up again. However thats aside I think he would be better for Canada than McCain. McCains economic policies will just continue the US's economic slide and since Canada's economy is closely linked to the US's, this is a problem. Canada has been lucky in that wise leadership in the last 8 years has allowed the Canadian economy to continue to grow even under the strain of being linked to the US economy.

I do think that Harper got too cozy with Bush though. Remember when he disallowed photographs of returning caskets, oddly enough right after a meeting with a Bush official? Outcry in Canada made him reverse that pretty quick, which brings up the point of how in Canada we do hold our politicians more accountable, and we actually can have a direct impact on how the government is run. While I am not a Harper fan I do think he has done a decent job. Being in the US I haven't followed Cdn policies as much as I should have, but so far he hasn't messed up too bad I don't think. But then, as I have mentioned, Harper would be seen as a far lefty in American politics. So possibly the contrast is so sharp I am not seeing the bad in what he has done. :)

[Qikdraw]

perhaps you could give us a brief explanation of the canadian system, parties, etc.?

Andy

I don't know if you'd be interested in this, but I thought I would give you the link anyway.

A Canadian history page (http://www.histori.ca/default.do?page=.index)

History by the minute (http://www.histori.ca/minutes/default.do;jsessionid=89F8054E5FEE8D5D3A187346F0EB DBC9.tomcat1?page=.index). Which is minute long history lessons that air on TV. From James Naismith who invented basketball, to Agnes Macphail the first female MP who reformed the Canadian penal system. (go to 'browse' minutes, then Select in 'type' historica minutes for the ones put on TV) There are deeper explanations below the video as well.

As I said I donno if you're interested, but I remember watching these mini history lessons growing up in Canada and always liked them. They are still making more today as well. (In finding this site I found a lot of ones I had never seen before) I asked my wife if there was anything comparible in the US, and she couldn't think of anything really close, other than School House Rock, which isn't that close. :)

[Peter B]

In reply to K1 4KXG: Before I came to NZ at the age of 26, I had quite a few encounters with girls and women, my first"girlfriend" was at the age of 12, all in Holland
Nadine was just one in a series of attempts to sort out my emotional life, the USA had only a peripheral influence, much alike the other circumstances that derail an ordered progress of a relation ship.

It was just another failure, made different due to the fact that she was a serious attempt to settle down in my new country; a worthy partner for a different future as compared to Holland.

So, like thousands of others, I moved on.

The point is that we now live in a global village, the circumstances of our lives are determined by people, which we know from TV and newsppers only.

During the cold war, all Dutch 18 year olds were required to serve. I and all my age mates served in either the Navy or the Infantery or the Airforce.
NATO, with America being the most powerful member, needed and wanted European support

So we did serve, as the Cold War sucked up millions of young men

[usmc1]

The point is that we now live in a global village, the circumstances of our lives are determined by people, which we know from TV and newsppers only.


You are right, but, I think it goes deeper than that. I think that, in some way that is beyond our ability to understand, and that we are barely able to imagine, we (humanity/nature/life) are all connected to one another in a single organism.

We know that the universe was once in a state of singularity, where everything that is was compressed into a dimensionless something millions of times smaller even than a photon. As it expanded, that which we call life, became. Hence we are all really one, separate and apart, the way the single molecules of our bodies are separate and apart, but still part of a whole, interdependent and needful of all the rest for survival.

I think the implications of this places a tremendous responsibility on each of us as regards all the "others".

[Boreas]

HOLD ON KIDS! Yeah, the original post was weird. Kind of a "if a butterfly flaps its wings in China how will it change my life" story. But the point the poster is trying to make - that the US plays a major role in the world that affects a vast number of people who don't get to vote - is self evident. All you have to do is ask an Iraqi!

As for Canada's interest in this election, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Harper as a Bush supporter. After the toxic relationship between the US and Canada under Cretien (liberal) he merely tried to normalize the relationship between the two countries. I'm sure his political philosophy is somewhat closer to McCain than Obama; but I am equally sure he will try to work with whoever is elected. As for stated policies to date, it is clear that McCain would be far more likely to continue a favourable trade relatioinship with Canada than Obama. We Canucks may like Obama's flair (we elected Trudeau, after all!) but I doubt that the sentiment will be reciprocated.

I agree that the Canadian PM (most likely Harper again) will want to work with the US president. The Canadian PM really is in a damned if they do and damned if they don't position. If they are too friendly, they are seen as pandering, if they stand up for Canadian interests, they are seen as anti-American.

What makes you say that Obama would not want a relationship with Canada?

[Boreas]

You are right, but, I think it goes deeper than that. I think that, in some way that is beyond our ability to understand, and that we are barely able to imagine, we (humanity/nature/life) are all connected to one another in a single organism.

We know that the universe was once in a state of singularity, where everything that is was compressed into a dimensionless something millions of times smaller even than a photon. As it expanded, that which we call life, became. Hence we are all really one, separate and apart, the way the single molecules of our bodies are separate and apart, but still part of a whole, interdependent and needful of all the rest for survival.

I think the implications of this places a tremendous responsibility on each of us as regards all the "others".

How new age of you! ;)

I agree with you. It is now becoming more apparent that we are interconnected on so many levels.

We cannot live in our own little insular worlds and expect others to just pull themselves up by their boot straps. That is a very selfish view of the world. Our choices do affect others and we have to accept that.

[hm0504]

I would agree that Canada-U.S. relations went downhill once Bush Jr. became President but before that Clinton and Chrétien had, and continue to still have, a very close personal relationship. The damage to U.S.-Canadian relations came largely because Chrétien would not support the Iraq war (which the Harper Conservatives were all for).

HOLD ON KIDS! Yeah, the original post was weird. Kind of a "if a butterfly flaps its wings in China how will it change my life" story. But the point the poster is trying to make - that the US plays a major role in the world that affects a vast number of people who don't get to vote - is self evident. All you have to do is ask an Iraqi!

As for Canada's interest in this election, I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Harper as a Bush supporter. After the toxic relationship between the US and Canada under Cretien (liberal) he merely tried to normalize the relationship between the two countries. I'm sure his political philosophy is somewhat closer to McCain than Obama; but I am equally sure he will try to work with whoever is elected. As for stated policies to date, it is clear that McCain would be far more likely to continue a favourable trade relatioinship with Canada than Obama. We Canucks may like Obama's flair (we elected Trudeau, after all!) but I doubt that the sentiment will be reciprocated.

[Redtan]

What makes you say that Obama would not want a relationship with Canada?

I'm sure he'll want/need a relationship with Canada (after all, we are their biggest trading partner). However, you may recall that Obama was falling all over himself promising protectionist measures to the trade unions earlier in the campaign. Now, in the meantime, he was apparently telling Ottawa not to be concerned because he really didn't mean it. But the Democrats have traditionally been protectionist, he is relying heavily on unions and 'the working man' and he has promised to tighten up trade with Canada and re-open NAFTA. Meanwhile, McCain has re-affirmed his commitment to fair trade with Canada.

That's why I say that, based on stated policies to date, McCain is a better bet for Canada.

[Qikdraw]

I'm sure he'll want/need a relationship with Canada (after all, we are their biggest trading partner). However, you may recall that Obama was falling all over himself promising protectionist measures to the trade unions earlier in the campaign.

Yes that is a worry for me too.

Now, in the meantime, he was apparently telling Ottawa not to be concerned because he really didn't mean it.

Actually it was the Clinton campaign that was saying that, and was wrongly attributed to Obama.

But the Democrats have traditionally been protectionist, he is relying heavily on unions and 'the working man' and he has promised to tighten up trade with Canada and re-open NAFTA. Meanwhile, McCain has re-affirmed his commitment to fair trade with Canada.

That's why I say that, based on stated policies to date, McCain is a better bet for Canada.

My view is Obama is still better based on his economic poicies. A US economy that is strong is better for Canada than an economy that is weak. McCain's policies follow Bush's and then some, which has been bad for the US economy. While Obama is an unknown here, I'd rather go with that than where I know it will go.

[hm0504]

I'm sure he'll want/need a relationship with Canada (after all, we are their biggest trading partner). However, you may recall that Obama was falling all over himself promising protectionist measures to the trade unions earlier in the campaign. Now, in the meantime, he was apparently telling Ottawa not to be concerned because he really didn't mean it. But the Democrats have traditionally been protectionist, he is relying heavily on unions and 'the working man' and he has promised to tighten up trade with Canada and re-open NAFTA. Meanwhile, McCain has re-affirmed his commitment to fair trade with Canada.

That's why I say that, based on stated policies to date, McCain is a better bet for Canada.

Of course, in recent years, Clinton was far better for Canada and the world than Bush. Of Obama and McCain, I would doubt that either would have seriously different policies wrt U.S.-Canada relations. Given that Obama might bring the U.S. closer to public health care, be better on the world stage, etc., I'd guess he would be a better bet.

Economically, the U.S. has been driven into the cr*pp*r by the Republicans and unless there is a return to sensible economic policies ASAP, that is going to have far more effect on Canada than fidgeting around NAFTA.

[Naturist Mark]

News and Views for British Columbia:
Is Obama Good for Canada? (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/07/25/ObamaCan/)
http://thetyee.ca/images/tyee_toplogo.gif (http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/07/25/ObamaCan/)
How the US choice for president really affects us up here.
By Michael Fellman
Published: July 25, 2008
TheTyee.ca

The old Jewish joke about an earthquake in China goes, "terrible news, but is it bad for the Jews?" Among my people this is called the elephant question.

Every time I am asked to comment on the American presidential campaign on the radio, the host invariably asks me what the outcome will mean for Canada. I call this the moose question.

Usually the question is framed very specifically -- what will the choice mean for NAFTA? Will the new American administration turn protectionist?

Issues, bigger and smaller

A few months ago, at the height of the Democratic primary battle, both candidates made protectionist noises, as Democrats are wont to do during election cycles despite the fact Bill Clinton negotiated NAFTA in the first place. As most readers will recall, this became an issue in the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries when someone in the Harper high command slipped the news to American news sources that although Barack Obama might talk tough on trade, it would only be campaign chatter and shouldn't be taken seriously in the Great White North. It is possible that this report hurt Obama among working class voters who believe that NAFTA has done them in. Heads rolled in the Obama advisory hierarchy.

But the truth of the matter is that that report was almost certainly accurate.

It is highly unlikely that Obama would reopen NAFTA. He has many more far pressing matters at hand -- Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, restoring good relations with Europe abroad; tax raises, bank bailouts (yes, this crisis will continue), and the deep recession at home. Trade issues fall below the radar of great big and immediate concerns, the only concerns that matter in American governance, or for that matter our own.

Besides, a re-opened trade treaty would mean that Canada would bring the oil card to the table -- on balance, the Americans would have as much if not more to lose than Canada in a fundamental revision of NAFTA.

Sleeping dogs will stay asleep.

Is the neighbour healthy?

But the trade issue is far from the most important consideration for Canadians when they consider the American election in November.

Most significant for us is how the Americans manage their economy. A deep depression down south will spill over to us. A fiscal crisis down there would tear at our financial structures as well. An invasion of Iran or another new military adventure, or conversely, an early exit from Iraq would have major implications for the world balance of power, not just the health of the American armed forces.

More important than strategic or even economic considerations, however, is a seemingly more intangible factor -- the moral quality of American international hegemony. As Barack Obama demonstrated to 200,000 cheering Berliners yesterday, Europeans, Canadians and for that matter people all over the globe are deeply responsive to the tone of the American president, whoever he or she might be. George W. Bush has infuriated most of the world by his belligerent and ignorant approach to a wider world about which he has shown no desire to learn or to negotiate with as equal partners.

Of course wider forces govern American foreign policy; corporate and governmental greed for power and wealth do not change all that much no matter who is in the White House.

And yet presidential tone is terribly important, both because all people want to be understood and respected, and because most people understand intuitively that a healthy American government that is engaged in a positive way with the American people is a better ally than an internally divided and demoralized administration.

Roosevelt's reach

Over the decades, I was taught to consider this core factor of American foreign relations by older generations of Canadians. As do most professors, I get many requests for community speaking, all pro bono of course. Usually I try to wriggle out of such engagements, but I have always loved talking with seniors' groups. Typically I lecture very briefly on a subject through which they have lived and then get out of the way while they inform me how events felt to them back in the day. In the '70s and '80s, I usually put the Depression or the Second World War on the table. If the '30s was being discussed, several of the seniors would make the point that Franklin D. Roosevelt had been their beacon of hope in that dreary and frightening time. By contrast, R.B. Bennett, and W.L. McKenzie King gave them the feeling that the Canadian government was essentially indifferent to their suffering. But FDR's famously optimistic and stirring radio fireside chats reached them and gave them inspiration and hope for their future. If he could right the leaking ship of the United States, surely Canada would follow along the road back to confidence and prosperity.

The first time I heard this analysis I was surprised, but as it came up over and over again I truly learned what ordinary Canadians believed was most important about American electoral politics and governmental policies. What matters most to us is the social, political and moral health of our neighbors.

Obama, the Canadians' choice

Something like 80 per cent of Canadians prefer Obama this time around, and hope that he will set the tone for a future that is bound to spill over to us. Most Americans also believe that their country is headed in the wrong direction. Whether that will lead to an Obama election remains to be seen. Surely John McCain also will try to run as the candidate of change, but whether he can free himself from the Bush shipwreck remains to be seen.

Yes, it matters who gets elected down there; no, it is not all or even all that much about free trade. That is what I try to tell radio hosts if I am given the time before they pass on to the traffic report or the weather or other matters of more pressing concern.