In less than a week the still mightiest nation of the world, elects it´s president. Since almost
a century there is no election that seems more important to the international community.
So again this year: The Americans have to decide between the current President, and
former political-messiahs Barak Obama and his challanger, multi-millionaire and former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
For the majority of the europeans the choice would
be clear. Although Barak Obama failed in archiving the aims and Goals, he had proclaimed
in his 2008 “hope“ campaign, for most europeans the choice would be clear: A recently
published BBC survey shows that at least in Europe 77% would vote for Barak Obama.
At first sight this seems very obvious, especially when you consider yourself as a left-
liberterian social democrat: His commitment to homosexual marriage, new approaches on
the environmental issue or the attempts to raise taxes in order to finance the few public
social security spendings there are. When there is a man in contrast, that earned hundrets
of millions with his hedge found „bain capital“, one of these that undisputedly caused the
current dept crisis. Romny´s positions, even though partly consisted too liberal within
his Republican Party, concerning gay-marriage or lowering taxing for high incomes, are
a step in the wrong direction. But still one can easily say, that Obama at least represents
the „correct“ values, but it just might be impossible to force his ideas against the Republican
majority in Congress. In fact the case of the still open torture camp „guantanamo bay“, is
only one of many examples that show how Obama failed to keep promise that were made.
This leads to the current situation of something I would call „fading hope“ in America,
which stands in contrast to the still prevailing „American Dream.
Interesting in fact, is the international policy field: In times of euro crisis, the threat of an
israeli-iranian war, tensions in the pacific areas and a further „war on terror“. Above all, the
last mentioned point is crucial: With a remarkable media attention Obama retrieved the US
troops from Iraq, and it seemed that there might be a chance to end the killing, first in Iraq
and maybe later in Afganistan.
In fact only the strategie changed: Now the President, has to judge death every morning on
his desk: US Hellfire unmaned, heavy armed drones, kill suspectet terrorists in Pakistan,
Afganistan or Jemen. Without any form of lawsuit, these drones attack villages, farmes ,ect
in independent countries often only because of unprooven suspicions. Another example of
these methods is the secondment of a neavy seals killer squadron, to kill Osama Bin Laden.
Funnywise this is precived as Obamas greatest foreign policy success. Certainly a President
Mitt Romny would not change this policy, but it outlines that Obama is not the President of
peace! To sum it all up, why I, with my western-european and social demoratic thinking still
would vote for Obama: The U.S. is in a precarious state: There are 23 million people unemployed, 19 trillion
dollar sovereign debt, and no real of improvement. But still his personal services to the US, surpasses its predecessor.
Not only the texan cowboy Gerorge W. Bush, who led america to the edge to a huge social and economic crisis, but also democratic veteran Bill Clinton, who made use of the unique western victory over the communism. Still he is an unconventional president, with visions and ideas that might need another term. This opinion might also be the rest of that naive euphoria Obama caused in 2008.
Fedo Hagge-Kubat, member of Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands(SPD)