The expression "leader of the free world" attracted my attention because it sounds outdated to me, it sounds like something from the 1950's.
I may be wrong, but it sounded like something that could only have been written in an American newspaper.
In France a newspaper might say "The USA, the first economic and military power worldwide...", something which would acknowledge supremacy in those two domains without implying that we might be led in any way or giving an opinion about whether they were happy about said supremacy-- that's if they were writing a strictly non-controversial article.


This does not mean that we are not grateful for US intervention in the two world wars-- it means that, when there is a world giant, the view from the land of the giants may be different from that from of the small countries, which will tend to be irreverent of greatness, suspicious of leadership... you get my drift.

Greg Neuman wrote:

Lets not forget that without France, we might not even be a nation.

I don't think anyone who has studied American history to any depth will forget this. However, the France of 1778 and the France of 2008 are very different countries. 18th Century France has my eternal, heartfelt gratitude. 20th and 21st Century France does not.

Well...the America of both periods differs as well...and not necessarily in the positive direction.

So where does that leave us? Why are the French so bad in your opinion. What have they done as a nation that other nations have not?

Dissident Heart wrote:Try as I might, I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that says our President is also "Leader of the Free World"...actually, if we pay closer attention to the framers, we see a prominent prohibition against any such notion. His job is President of the United States, not Leader of the Free World. Furthermore, I don't know when any sort of election was ever held for such a position...when did all the members of the so-called Free World vote for a leader? Was there a campaign? When did the candidates debate or engage the entire Free World in dialgoue or town hall assembly discussion? Frankly, this twisted notion of leadership rests upon a terrible value: might equals right..the strongest should rule...those who win the wars by default are the leaders. A moment's reflection should expose the complete antithesis that this creates for any system that rests upon rule of law or democratic elections or accountability to constituencies. Leader of the Free World is a perverse notion: better left to our baser fantasies of World Emperors and Ceasars...there is nothing free about it.

I have long had an ambivalent view on this American exceptionalist idea. It resonates with Truth Justice and The American Way. The Presidency increasingly represents symbolic values such as freedom, trying to look like Clark Kent while acting like Superman. To see why freedom is such a core story, you can't look much further than Solzhenitzyn, or any of the 'Captive Nations' liberals of the eastern bloc who viewed the US as like an icon. The story of Georgia, with its Western links going back to the story of Jason and the Argonauts travelling to Colchis (Georgia) from Greece to win the golden fleece from the dragon, is heartbreaking in that the tiger is finally swatting the fly. Georgia can see that its economic and social interests lie with the west. Western freedom enables entrepreneurial wealth creation and cultural autonomy while Russia remains a morass with gas. Western values need to be a whole lot more coherent before I imagine anyone will talk again about Georgia joining NATO.

My ambivalence is that American freedom has its roots in the frontier individualism of the rugged pioneer, but self made men do not listen well to others. Often, freedom has been a cover for oppression and exploitation. A mythic glow has been built around rather sordid military operations, letting the politicians feel so self-righteous that they could not enter dialogue with others.

Comparing the US to ancient Rome, I think the US is still in a 'late Republican' phase. The momentum of military might has not yet carried the US over into anything like the Roman Empire, where Caesar was an open autocrat.

Well, weather we are talking about the leader of the free world or just our own humble president I have some concerns about both candidates.

Neither seems like the type to reconstruct the wall between church and state that Bush so readily dismantled. McCain unfortunately seems like he might be the type to enforce the change. While Obama... well I really don't know what Obama's stance on that issue is, he is defiantly a churchgoer but his choice of churches is ghastly...

Obama's lack of experience is not a problem for me, many very experienced politicians have failed miserably in the Whitehouse mostly because they are only experienced at politics. They have no grounding in common sense or common America; in short they do not know or care what the common American wants or needs.

A modern politician's greatest goal is to appease the groups that put them in office, which far too often, are super rich corporations and religious fundamentalist groups.

It seems more important to these religious groups that a president be a god worshiper than almost any other characteristic, and since they claim to represent all Christians and because no moderate voices call out to confront this assertion, their voice seems very loud indeed.

So in this case I think a lack of exposure to such groups is a positive trait not a negative one.

However like most democrats Obama and especially his wife, don't seem to love (or even like) America. They readily tout their party line that America sucks and that does not seem credible coming from one of the "aristocracy" of our country.

Obama also seems far too pacifistic to me which I see as an immoral stance to take in a world filled with violent people. Pacifism can seem noble when the stakes are low but Pacifism is really nothing more than a willingness to die and let others die at the pleasure of the world's thugs, and I cannot see condoning such a person as our country's leader.

So I am like Chris "still on the fence" unfortunately it seems like two bad choices once again...

Later

Frank 013 wrote:So I am like Chris "still on the fence" unfortunately it seems like two bad choices once again...

Quite honestly, this surprises the hell out of me, Frank. What is it exactly that makes you hesitant to support Senator McCain?

My nervousness about McCain stems from his statements about Russia and his apparent willingness to use military intervention. Even though he appears to be correct in that Russia, under Putin, is probably trying to restore the old Soviet empire, we should probably not verbally assault them publically at this early in the game. I really worry about how we label nations as "evil" or refuse to talk to them. I understand both perspectives on this issue, but I don't think I agree with the Republicans.

Chris OConnor wrote:My nervousness about McCain stems from his statements about Russia and his apparent willingness to use military intervention. Even though he appears to be correct in that Russia, under Putin, is probably trying to restore the old Soviet empire, we should probably not verbally assault them publically at this early in the game. I really worry about how we label nations as "evil" or refuse to talk to them. I understand both perspectives on this issue, but I don't think I agree with the Republicans.

There are more than two perspectives on the issue of possible Russian expansionism, and "Republicans" do not all share the same approach to it in any case. Among the GOP you will find true right-wing hawks who want to roll American tanks into Georgia right now, Libertarian-style isolationists who demand complete non-involvement, and everything in between. Neither the Democrats not the Republicans have an established "party line" on this issue. At least not yet.

Senator McCain as president would likely adopt a Reaganesque position on Russia; prepare to fight and win a war against them while vowing not to strike first. Georgia is a friendly nation, but they are not in NATO or the EU. It is therefore extremely unlikely that any of the western powers are going to go to war on Georgia's behalf, regardless of who the sitting president is. I believe McCain would do pretty much what the Bush administration is doing right now: Condemnations, negotiating the removal Russian troops, and vauge threats about diplomatic and economic repurcussions if they don't comply.

The real difference between McCain and Senator Obama here is that McCain probably would use military force if Russia were to try something similar with a member of NATO (say Poland or Lithuania). Obama would be far more likely to try negotiating while the Russians shelled Warsaw. In such a circumstance, I would support the hypothetical McCain position over the hypothetical Obama position without any hesitation whatsoever. A hard line against Russian expansionism is the best stance we can adopt; Medvedev and Putin are exceedingly unlikely to provoke NATO if they know it means they're going to have a real war on their hands.

And just for the record, I don't believe that the Russians are "trying to restore the old Soviet empire". The invasion of Georgia was one part legitimate concern for ethnic Russians (South Ossetians) living in the breakaway region, and two parts aggressive posturing in response to increasing NATO influence throughout Eastern Europe. They don't like the idea of the Ukraine joining NATO and they really don't like that Poland and the Czech Republic have signed onto the US missile shield. Invading Georgia was a way for Medvedev and Putin to flex some muscle without risking a large-scale confrontation. It seems like that might have backfired on them.

Finally, it was really Frank's position that surprised me, not your's Chris. While I would never accuse you of being a pacifist, you've never been quite the hawk that Frank and I are. Knowing you as I do, I would fully expect this to be an election in which you'd have some trouble deciding who to vote for. On the other hand, this one seems like a no-brainer for Frank. It certainly is for me.

My issues with McCain...

He is old... At his age his head could fall off at any time during his administration and I don't yet know who would be taking his place... this issue could be dissipated for me once I know who he chooses as his running mate, if it is someone like Rice that's fine but if his running mate turns out to be someone like Huckabee he just lost my vote...

McCain seems to willing to appease the religious right. I understand that presidents will do this from time to time but we need to break it up for the sake of equilibrium. Three administrations in a row that cater to that group seems dangerous to my personal freedoms.

McCain won't talk to our potential enemies... this seems like a bad idea to me, it is true that we could get to the point where the only thing left to say is "Prepare to get hit hard and where it hurts" but I think an open dialog should be maintained with all other nations both friendly and hostile.

Frank 013 wrote:He is old... At his age his head could fall off at any time during his administration and I don't yet know who would be taking his place... this issue could be dissipated for me once I know who he chooses as his running mate, if it is someone like Rice that's fine but if his running mate turns out to be someone like Huckabee he just lost my vote.

Senator McCain is in excellent general health, and he has the vigor of someone 10 or 15 years younger. 71 (72 at the time he would assume office) is not exceptionaly old these days, anyway. With the right medical care, a healthy guy like McCain could live well into his 90s.

But if you're really that concerned about it, I'm confident that McCain is not going to pick Huckabee or any other hard-core social conservative. McCain himself has always been a social moderate; he believes in evolution, opposes the National Marriage Protection Amendment, and favors a much greener enviornmental policy than the Bush Administration. Secretary Rice would be his ideal choice IMO, but since she doesn't seem to want the job my money is on Governor Pawlenty, Governor Crist, or Mitt Romney (I'd be happy with either of the first two, but I don't like Romney).

McCain seems to willing to appease the religious right. I understand that presidents will do this from time to time but we need to break it up for the sake of equilibrium. Three administrations in a row that cater to that group seems dangerous to my personal freedoms.

Exactly in what way do you believe your personal freedoms are threatened? Please be specific.

I don't agree with the religious right any more than you do, but, on the other hand, I do not feel threatened by them either. America is more libertarian and more secular now then it ever has been. In my experience, most secularists who rant about how the religious right is taking away their personal freedoms are full of shit. It's much more about heaping scorn on those they disagree with than about any real threat to their liberties.

Evangelicals, bible belt Christians, and other social conservatives are always going to be a significant political force; they vote in large numbers, and do so consistently. They are only exercising their right to participatory government, albeit in a highly effective and visible way. Even though you and I might disagree with them on a wide range of issues, we have no right to silence or marginalize them. To do so would be about as unamerican as you can get.

McCain won't talk to our potential enemies... this seems like a bad idea to me, it is true that we could get to the point where the only thing left to say is "Prepare to get hit hard and where it hurts" but I think an open dialog should be maintained with all other nations both friendly and hostile.

An open dialog at what level? We're talking to even our worst enemies all the time, it's just not done with ambassadors and official state visits. If an important message needs to get from, say, Tehran to Washington (or vice-versa) it gets there. Trust me.

But high-level diplomacy with a beligerant and tyrannical enemy isn't usually a good idea, especially for a superpower. It legitimizes that enemy, and allows them to stall progress under the guise of "negotiations". Some of the world's most repressive regimes - places like Iran, Myanmar, and Sudan - have become experts in using exactly this tactic to paralyze UN action against them. Diplomacy is only valuable if both sides are actually looking for a resolution; when the US refuses high-level diplomatic contact, it's not because we're trying to be cruel or insulting. It's because we know the country in question doesn't really want to solve anything, and meeting with them as equals will only legitimize their charade.

Anyway, who you decide to vote for is of course up to you. It just surprises me that you even have to think about this one, given that Senator Obama is the most liberal and pacifist presidential candidate we've had since the mid-70s.

Greg,

McCain may be in great shape for someone his age but he looks so infirm compared to the man I was hoping to get the republican nomination in 2000.

As far as religion goes... it is well known that the religious right opposes stem cell research, abortion rights, the right for gays to marry, they now want to change the definition of science so that creationism can be taught in public schools.

While most of their agenda does not immediately affect me, the more power they attain the more restrictive their rules will become... bans on strip clubs and alcohol have been seen in this country already where the religious have their say. Anal sex is a crime in many states, especially in the case of two men. Many actively seek to destroy the separation between church and state and create a Christian theocracy; the list goes on and on...

Thomas Jefferson said it best...

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

The simple fact is that religious dogma stunts freedom and candidates that accommodate those people worry me.

Later