|
|
|
Scott Moore In our last issue, I wrote about how the upcoming Presidential election might be viewed from an international perspective. As a follow-up to this, we here at The Soap Box thought it might be valuable, just for kicks and giggles, to conduct our own little unscientific poll of the international community here on campus. So we basically held a mock election, in which emails were sent out to the ISAP mailing list and people were asked to “vote” for one of the following candidates: George W. Bush, John Forbes Kerry, or Ralph Nader. Below are the results (in terms of percentage of votes) of the 2004 Soap Box International Fake Presidential Poll, as well as the most recent (October 17) Gallup poll of American voters:
Our poll numbers seem to corroborate public opinion surveys conducted in Europe, which suggest that, were Europeans able to vote in the Presidential election, about 80% of them would elect John Kerry. Notably, however, several respondents to our poll noted that they would choose Nader over Kerry if he were a more viable candidate. The phrase “American exceptionalism,” though often bandied about these days, seems especially appropriate in terms of describing the results. Several commentators have asserted that foreign disapproval of an American president has not been so high since Reagan’s “Evil Empire” approach to relations with the Soviet Union ruffled more moderate feathers abroad. A note of caution must be sounded to such statements: first, there are still some governments, most notably in Great Britain, Mexico, and Eastern Europe, that admire at least some Bush policies. Second, exceptionalism in American politics has a long and distinguished history going back to the foundation of the American republic, and to the chagrin of Europe’s monarchies. From Monroe to the present day, America’s political leaders have often acted in contrast to the will of much of the rest of the world, yet they still managed to form great coalitions with other nations when it mattered most. Yet these are qualifications, not rebuttals, to the concern that a second Bush administration may endanger America’s future security. The vast “opinion gap” with regards to the Presidential election is a precarious situation for America in an age where its security depends so much on cooperation with foreign governments and winning the hearts and minds of the world. Though its military and economic might is predominant, America now fights wars that are won and lost not on open battlefields from ten thousand feet but in madrasas and the Hamburg apartments of al-Qaeda operatives. Conservatives love to deride Kerry’s “global test,” but the fact of the matter is that if America’s political leaders do not meet it in their actions, America faces a significantly higher risk of suicide attacks in San Francisco and radiological bombs in New York. I am not arguing that America should let the rest of the world decide its elections. What I do advocate is that America’s leaders need to do a far better job of acknowledging the international dimension of their policies, actions, and statements. I believe America would be far safer under a Kerry Administration than a second Bush one, but not because Kerry has better credentials or more experience. Rather, in contrast to the President, he has a nuanced understanding of the importance of multilateral action and diplomacy. Threats to our present security simply cannot be solved by brash projections of American power. It seems to me only intuitive that American tanks standing guard outside Iraqi oil fields do nothing to dissuade terrorists or make Arabs more receptive to America’s message of democracy and human rights. Even if they are not there to wage a crusade on Muslims or secure oil for a greedy America, that is exactly the picture that comes across, and the Bush Administration has done next to nothing to correct it. This is precisely why he received a staggering no percentage of the vote in our poll, and why, if he does not begin selling America to the people world instead of shoving it down their throats, we can look forward to a far more dangerous future. Scott Moore is a sophomore and the International Affairs Editor of The Soap Box. |
| Or comment via email. |
|
[1] 30 responses [2] The remaining 3% of voters in the Gallup poll had “No opinion,” an option not given in our poll. |
|
|