Picking A President
By Alan Stoga*

What is remarkable about the upcoming U.S. election is that most people in most places overwhelmingly want Senator Kerry to win. They think President Bush’s foreign policy is wrong, that U.S. arrogance has made the world more dangerous, and that the Iraqi war has emboldened and mobilized terrorists rather than defeated them. They think that the United States has squandered its global leadership role, undermining the multilateral institutions — economic and political — that produced decades of political stability and economic growth. And they think that four more years of a Bush Administration will be a disaster.

Of course, most of those people are not American voters, but live in Mexico, Germany, China, Ghana or almost anywhere in the world except the United States. Recent polling in 35 countries showed an almost 2 to 1 preference for Kerry in 30 countries; only Poland, Nigeria, and the Philippines backed Bush, with Thailand and India deadlocked. In this hemisphere, voters in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Mexico all favored Kerry by substantial margins; the outcome was a bit closer in the Dominican Republic and Peru, but Kerry still won.

Reality in the United States is different. If the election were held today, President Bush would probably be re-elected. He has recently opened up a small lead over Senator Kerry among likely U.S. voters, his campaign is clearly more effective and dynamic than Kerry’s, and the American economy — which usually defines electoral outcomes — is moving up, not down. On the big issues of war and peace, Senator Kerry has failed to articulate a convincing alternative to the Bush strategy against what Americans overwhelmingly see as a continuing terrorist threat. While there are many Americans who distrust Bush and dislike his policies, there seem to be more that think Bush will continue to be the kind of decisive leader they need in turbulent times.

That is a problem for everybody, since it means that the widespread international angst about Bush is really angst about the United States, which would not be quickly or easily cured if Bush were to be defeated in November.

Certainly, the tone and many of the specific policies of a Kerry government would differ from those of a re-elected President Bush, but perhaps not as radically as suggested by the super-heated election rhetoric. Even a Kerry presidency would have to deal with the sense in the United States that the country is under assault from Islamic fundamentalists, with the growing globalization of mass terrorism, and with the erosion of alliances and institutions that were forged in and for the Cold War. And, even a Kerry presidency would have to deal with the reality that many Americans are becoming more nativist, more religious, less tolerant, more assertive, less generous, and less inclined toward multilateral solutions than the America that seems to exist in global imaginations.

This means that the immediate consequence of the election may be ugly.

If Bush wins, he will face a world where almost all of the country’s friends and allies have made it clear they preferred his opponent. Poland, Nigeria, and the Philippines are no substitutes for Britain, France, and Germany when it comes to confronting international political crises or managing the global economy, which will make the international system more crisis prone. Closer to home, hemispheric leaders — certainly Presidents Lula, Kirchner, Lagos, Chavez, and probably others — clearly share the view of their constituents that Bush is simply wrong about most things. Since they need Bush more than he needs them, which is another way of saying that there is no realistic alternative to U.S. leadership, the regional agenda is likely to continue to stagnate.

If Kerry wins, he is likely to end up frustrating international expectations for a radical change in the direction of the United States, because there is no national consensus (or the votes in Congress) for such a shift. All of those people around the world who so enthusiastically want to see Kerry win would suddenly realize that Bush is more of a symptom, than the disease.

The bottom line is that the election is not going to give the world what it seems to want: a United States that is willing to underwrite global prosperity without expecting to be exempted from the rules that all other countries must observe, or a United States that does not feel obligated to act in its national interests. The United States is simply too rich, too powerful, too uniquely global in its reach and interests, and — in the post Cold War world — too unencumbered to be anything but envied or hated.

That may be a tragedy, but it is not a tragedy that will be resolved when the votes are counted on November 2.

*Alan Stoga is president of Zemi Communications