Thursday, May 10, 2007

An American revolution

America is currently going through a painful process known as 'change'.

Once completed, this transformation can only be to the benefit of everyone around the world.

Of course, the main people to benefit will be the American people themselves. Not least because changing the attitude of the American people (and the people they elect to government) will fundamentally alter the way the rest of the world perceives them.

After all, the attacks of September 11th 2001 happened exactly because of the negative way America was seen in the eyes of those who killed all those innocent people that day.

By electing leaders who look out to the world and not away from it can America have any hope of becoming a credible world leader again.


So who, you might ask, are these 'new' leaders? And why are they any different from their predecessors?

Well, firstly, they won't be Republicans.

Last week, after watching the 10 candidates from each of the Republican and Democratic parties debate on live television, it became clear who was fighting for what and who was most likely to win.

On the Republican's side, the emphasis was on the "War on Terror" (WOT) and on "bringing terrorists to justice". Noble goals no doubt but, as the war in Iraq has proven so painfully, completely futile.

Terror cannot be defeated. It just keeps coming back. (The only way you could actually defeat terrorism would be to eliminate it from the dictionary!)

On the Democrat's side, there is no WOT, only HAM ("hearts and minds") that need to be won.

This line will play very well with an American public that is sick of hearing about fighting and war and terror.

That's why the US Congress is now controlled by the Democratic party and that's what will ultimately sway the American public towards a Democratic President of the United States.


So now we know which side is likely to win, who could be sitting in the Oval Office by January 20th 2009?

A few months ago my money could have been on Barack Obama.

The 46-year old from Illinois showed a lot of promise, offering soothing words of hope to the American people. And the fact he isn't white made him (literally) stand out from the crowd!

Maybe next time?

But the more I listen to his words, the less convinced I get.

His rhetoric has turned from solving problems to falsely naming causes.

For instance, he suggests that China is taking away American jobs. Not only would this be impossible to prove, it suggests a protectionist solution that can only damage relations with the most important country in the world other than the United States. This would make for a bad President.

The alternative combination is clearer to me now than ever: John Edwards for President and Hilary Clinton for Vice President.

A winning team

It is clear because it contains the two most important elements needed in a successful candidate: success and a mandate for change.

A few years ago I predicted that Hilary Clinton would run for President. Not many people believed me, but it proved correct.

Unfortunately, while she clearly has a mandate for change (again, she sticks out a mile), she isn't likely to win over enough of the public. Change comes in steps, not giant leaps.

One step towards a female President is a female Vice President.

The President who she is most likely to serve with is John Edwards.

Most people have fresh in their minds his close defeat as Vice President nominee to Bush in 2004 and this could provide enough momentum for Edwards to carry him all the way through to a successful nomination and victory.


If you've read any of my previous comments on politics you might think this post was something of a backtrack. As a politician might say, it is and it isn't.

I still strongly believe that electing an individual to run a country is based on the outdated notion that the voting public should only decide on a major issue affecting their lives once every four years simply because this is the most practical way of running a democracy.

This is clearly not the case, with almost 70% of the US population now connected to the internet and ready to vote on an issue that is important to them.

However, as previous elections in the US and around the world have shown, electronic voting is in its infancy and prone to error.

Of course, I remain wary of any 'efforts' made to rectify these problems since it is in the interests of those currently in government to prevent electronic voting from putting them out of jobs!

Still, given there remains a more pressing need for change in the United States, a new leadership will help take the country in the right direction.

It is better to have someone at the head of government whose goals are "eliminating poverty, fighting global warming, and providing universal healthcare" than someone hell-bent on fighting a war that only innocent people will lose.


Maggie said...

good work

Maggie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.