An ICM poll for The Guardian finds that Brits prefer the idea of a President Obama to a President McCain by five-to-one. I readily concede that the election of Barack Obama would have an immediate electric effect on America's standing in the world but what would be the long-term effect of an American President that stays true to the USA's long-term commitment to Israel but fails to live up to expectations on the environment, prematurely quits Iraq and takes America in a protectionist direction? I've raised these questions in an article for Comment is free. Here's my concluding paragraph:
"Economic protectionism is just one manifestation of the drawbridge mentality popular among some Democrats and, in particular, among its netroots. Bush is hated by many around the world for intervening in Afghanistan and Iraq. But non-intervention may also bring opposition. Non-intervention in Rwanda was a stain, for example, on Bill Clinton's reputation. His administration's failure to constrain the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and other weakness in the face of attacks on America's interests, paved the way for 9/11. With the world entering dangerous new phases of the age of terror there is only really one nation that has the power to pre-empt threats. Bush is disliked for using that American power but any future decision not to exercise that power could also create serious tensions. Think, for example, of nations like Iran being allowed to become dangerous and untouchable powers; sponsoring global terrorism, destabilising world markets and bullying neighbours. Whatever path America chooses – interventionism or non-interventionism etc, some won't like it."
