Here's a thought: Why is the race in the US to be the Democratic Party presidential candidate getting such blanket coverage in the British press? Considering the flak British Prime Ministers and governments have taken in the media for cosying up to America and playing the "special relationship" card, it seems a little crass that the British press should be so fixated with the exploits of Obama and Clinton, as BBC correspondents and broadsheet columnists cling to the Democratic Party bandwagon for dear life.
And, if we're honest, the campaign has not really been all that fixating. For a long time it was a very dull affair, because it was far too early to tell who was ahead. And then, after Super Tuesday, it swiftly became obvious that Obama was going to snowball to victory, and we just had to sit through several more months of the whole palava running on and on to its largely inevitable climax.
Apart from the odd vituperative pastor and sniper-related embellishment, the campaign has passed without much to write home about, by and large. There has been very little scandal, very little controversy and, to be frank, precious little news. The biggest debates have raged over the difference between "mis-speaking" and "barefaced lying" when Clinton claimed she had endured sniper fire. Critics have criticised Obama for being too candid when speaking to middle-America about its gun-toting, bible-bashing ways - and his fiery-tongued erstwhile pastor did little to help matters.
.
That aside, the British public have sat through wall-to-wall coverage of the race for months on end, but no-one seems quite sure why.
Two things spring to mind to answer the question. Firstly, one would have thought that the next president of the United States will be a Democrat, if only because George W Bush has so firmly nailed down the lid of the Republican coffin, that it will take a good eight years for the neo-cons to prize it open again. Secondly, the president of the United States remains, cringeworthy though it is to admit it, the most powerful person on the planet. This may well only be because America is usually the only country to go marauding into delicate areas armed to the teeth, because they have confused the word "recklessly" with "unilaterally", but it is an unavoidable truth. An inconvenient truth, if you will (Thank you, Mr Gore - who is himself another victim of the farce of the US political system).
These two factors make the race for US president a sadly important matter for the whole world, and it is incumbent upon all of us to keep a close eye on who exactly it is who will be dropping the bombs and ordering the invasions for the next eight years.
Despite the lid of the Republican coffin being firmly nailed shut, John McCain seems to be doing his ghoulish, undead best to throw a spanner in the works from within, and has been watching the Democratic in-fighting with a draculian grin. He has good old-fashioned prejudice on his side. The most newsworthy thing about the Democratic race has been the fact that middle-Americans are being given a choice between a black man and a woman for their candidate. It is truly remarkable that the deep south is not littered with the bodies of neo-conservatives who have blown their heads off of their own red necks.
You see, strip away the neon lights and camera-friendly grins, and American politics comes down to a series of platitudes. People will, on the generalising whole, vote for whoever hands out the most miniature American flags and whoever says "God Bless America" with the most honey-dripping conviction. When you listen to Clinton or Obama speak, they spout a bewilidering array of clichés and hackneyed apostrophes to the glory of America. They can talk for hours without actually saying anything. Their talks last for so long because every mention of "America", "the White House", "Washington" or "freedom" has to be followed by a cacophony of cat-calls and rapturuous applause, just in case the thought police are waiting beneath the podium to phantom you away to Guantánamo for crimes of anti-patriotism.
As Brits though, we are used to politicians speaking without saying anything. We have all seen Michael Howard fidgeting his way out of Jeremy Paxman's interrogations, and we all knew how expert Tony Blair was at avoiding the questions he didn't want to answer. But by God was Tony Blair a good speaker. When he wanted to turn it on he knew how to tell everyone exactly what they wanted to hear, he could sell almost any policy he wanted to pitch to the House, and he was gregarious and charming in doing so. Very little stumped him, and he managed to make his arguments sound convincing and, more importantly, substantial, even when it was clear he was trying to weasel out of a tight spot.
Look across the pond, however, and the US politicians seem like schoolboys in comparison. Obama is a very charismatic speaker, but he has one or two hobby horses, and once he has mentioned them in his speeches, he runs out of ideas. "We need change," he'll say. After pausing for a few minutes of near-hysterical applause, he'll add: "We will bring this change all the way to the White House." Cue more rapture. "You have spoken and we have heard your voice. You want change." At this point everyone in the room goes completely barmy, flags are waved, slogans are shouted, and no-one seems to have noticed that Mr Obama has not actually made it clear exactly what this change will consist of. But it does not seem to matter. Nor does it seem to matter that half of Americans still think Barack Obama is a Muslim, despite the fact that his Christian pastor has been dominating the news. They don't care. The very fact that his name rhymes with "Osama" may well be enough to keep him out of the White House. The mind boggles.
British politics has teeth, at least. A good friend of mine from the US came to Britian a couple of years ago and was mightily impressed. As a political-minded person, we pointed him to Prime Minister's Questions as a good starting point for getting into British politics. He was blown away. "This is democracy", he exclaimed. A country where the Prime Minister has to stand up in public (and on live television) and take abuse, insult and cross-examination from every MP in the land, relying on his wit and quick-thinking to explain his failures and trumpet his successes.
In truth, my friend was watching Tony Blair at the podium, and witnessed the spectacle of him tearing chunks out of a succession of ineffectual Tory leaders. It is not quite so fun now, as a super-slimy, utterly disingenous David Cameron takes on a dour and mumbling Gordon Brown, but the principle remains. The Prime Minister in Britain is not deified. He is not treated as an Olympian being who lives closeted away in a vast palace and must be deferred to on bended knee. Nor does the Prime Minister's election depend almost entirely on big-money backing, which (mostly) saves Britain from being run by the corporate power behind the throne as the big-bucks lenders call in their debts.
So the question remains: Why does the faintly farcical race to be US president fill so many column inches in the British press?
It is a combination of two things.
Firstly, of our acceptance of the fact that the winner of this particular race will doubtless be our Prime Minister's new bestest buddy, for good or ill, and will determine where British troops are sent and who the new "enemies of freedom" are.
But secondly, it is the Las Vegas effect - the bright lights, the shiny-happy banquets and deafening clamour of the race for the White House draws press attention like moths to a flame. Sod Nicolas Sarkozy and his Ray-Bans. Forget Boris Johnson and his small-town buffoonery. We've got Obama and Clinton fighting the heavyweight contest, under the spotlight, with the screaming crowds, in the main arena. And so it tops the bill.
0 comments:
Post a Comment