REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

How would you explain to an angry, disillusioned foreigner why Barack Obama lost the election?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

By speaking slowly, using only small words and making many hand gestures.

Andy B.
NYC

Finally, a question that I can address from first hand experience.  I spent a large part of my adult life flying large airplanes into exotic places around the world.  In every case, the reason we were there had a lot to do with angry, disillusioned people.  Of course, they weren't foreigners, we were.  So, one more adjective should be added to the sequence above, "hostile" comes to mind.  As a uniformed representative of the United States Government in a foreign country, we were expected to keep our mouth shut and leave the explanations for our presence to the morning coat and top-hat crowd.  This never worked because those folks were usually locked up in the Embassy and the people we were meeting out in the real world would never be able to get within a couple of city blocks of the Embassy in any event.

With that as a backdrop to my remarks, a couple of assumptions are necessary.  First, Obama losing the election is an assumption of significant importance.  Secondly, that this hostile, angry, disillusioned foreigner is hostile, angry and disillusioned because Obama lost the election; and not because that is his normal condition.  This would imply that he is in that small minority of foreigner's who aren't so busy trying to subsist that he can waste time thinking about American politics.  Finally, we must assume that from that small minority thinking about American politics, he cares enough to be invested emotionally in the outcome of our election.  In other words, we have assumed away the problem.  The only person who fits our assumptions is Al Franken.  When I last checked he claims to be a citizen and not a foreigner though the jury is out.  To explain anything to him is impossible.  He already knows it all.

On a serious note.  Speaking to foreigners about American politics is generally pretty easy.  Explaining Democracy as a concept is easy, it's the practice that is difficult.  Simply stating that Obama lost the election because he didn't get the most votes would suffice for most, even the hostile, angry, disillusioned foreigners.  Why he didn't get the most votes would be a little more difficult to explain in any non-Democratic foreign country.  Chicago comes to mind as an example of that phenomena.  Another would be the State of Washington where we proved in the last election that we keep recounting the votes until we get it to come out right. i.e., The Democrat wins, and then stop.  Well, maybe it wasn't a serious note, after all.

Don Newell

That's easy! I would simply explain to our guest that the dominant
media doesn't count the votes.

Francis Drouillard
Novato, CA

"Angry, disillusioned, foreigner".  Is there any other kind?  Actually, the same answer would apply to an American liberal and it would be a waste of time as BDS will now be replaced with PDS. But, if there were a rational foreigner/liberal one can make several points:

1.  Despite what the media and the Democrats cry, the election had nothing to do with racism.  Elaboration on this point could fill pages.  Suffice it to say had Colin Powell chosen to run in 2000 he probably would have won 49 of 50 states (Massachusetts is always the spoiler).

2.  The American public is rightfully concerned with its well being in the world, as is all other nations, and votes for the candidate who is perceived to best represent the US in her relations with the rest of the world.  For the most part Americans recognize that the world is a dangerous place.  It's a Hobbesian world of power relationships not a university debating society.  It is the job of the POTUS to first and foremost protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign.  Clearly, the American public perceive McCain/Palin better prepared than Obama/Biden.

3.  We are a center-right nation.  That is, we don't like extremists.  Despite the rhetoric, Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. He has no record of moderation or of crossing party lines in order to achieve political comity.  On the other hand, McCain has a proven record as a man of moderation and principle.  The fact that the idealogical purists of his party were, at the time, not particularly happy with his nomination prove he is a centrist who does what he thinks is the right thing regardless of party.

4. Character is king.  Once the American people were able to assess the characters of each candidate without the media hype, they concluded that McCain had the stronger one.  The American people are sophisticated enough to know that the personal traits of the POTUS are of supreme importance when faced with a foreign policy crisis, despite what the MSM thinks.  They know that the fecklessness of Bill Clinton had a lot to do with the unpreparedness of the country to the attacks of 9/11.  They don't need to repeat the experiment with an obvious weakling like Barack Obama.

5.  While it is unfortunate that Americans are more and more coming over to the idea that the government should be doing all it can to innoculate us from the vicissitudes of life (thank you public education), there is still a majority that know that it is individual responsibility and character that determine one's position in the world and that any government that can guarentee an outcome also dictates the outcome.  Obama represents those who would use the government to further curb our liberties to achieve predetermined outcomes.

6.  There is a God and He has a fondness for the USA.

Alan Weick

I'd quote Ring Lardner:

"'Shut up,' he explained."

That question is relatively easy. Before the war in Afghanistan and
Iraq, America was hated and despised. After the wars America was hated
and feared, which is an improvement. No matter what, America will be
hated; it will stop being so only when it will not be number 1.

America is an empire. A very much toned down version compared to
previous ones in history and a relatively enlightened one, but it
is still an empire. Which means that every time it does not fulfill
its obligations, civil war occur (Yougoslavia 90s, Afghanistan 90s,
Iraq if America were to withdraw now). America profits from it by
having talented people coming to it (and incidentally pushing down
American schools, a known effect of empire politics) by having the
world sending its money (thereby trashing American frugality values,
again known effect). The entanglement is too tight to be broken in
a simple way, and while everyone complains about the situation
everyone wants it to remain as it is, a well known situation in
politics.

So America will continue for some time to be an empire. The countries
around might cry like kids when they do not get their way. But then
after a night of sleep, they would realize the wisdom of not having
Barack Obama around.

Zagreb Croatia
Mathieu Dutour Sikiric

Dear Sir:  Americans do not elect as their president - who gets to sit at General Washington's desk - a pinko loony lawyer who couldn't fight his way into a cathouse without a teleprompter, a Code Pink escort and three choruses of Kumbaya, and who trys to relax on weekends by walking on Lake Michigan.

Anonymous Mayflower descendant -
and unlike The One, I am not making that up.

1.  I believe he lost far fewer votes because of his race, especially compared to the votes he gained because of his race.  Race was less a factor than many seem to think.
 
2.  The majority of votes McCain won were from voters who would have voted for any conservative (Republican) nominee.  This is the party system that exists not only in America but in any country with free elections and two or more major political parties.  Where is the surprise?
 
3.  The 'swing voters' who took McCain over the top were compelled by the belief that he was a better candidate for one or more of several concerns: national security, economic security, trustworthiness, and especially a greater sense of who he is and what he stands.  This last is opposed to Obama's promises of change and a better life for everyone without furnishing the details of exactly what it will cost, who will pay, and how he guarantees the outcome.
 
4.  When another country chooses a leader that I feel is the lesser choice I am concerned, but I also know that it is not for me to say.  You are a citizen of another country.  I can understand your concern, but I do not really care what you think about it.
 
G. Gay

Remind the foreigner that he is just that, a foreigner. He can no
more understand the results of an American election than an American can understand
the result of a foreign election. If, after the debate tonight, McCain somehow
pulls it out, it will be because he latches onto and sticks with hammering the winning issue. I think it is energy independence, energy independence,
energy independence. Energy prices will determine whether Americans
can afford everything. They are critical to our security.
Any effect these prices and measures to control them have on the
environment is pure gravy.

John: repeat after me, "Energy, Energy,Energy!"

Scott Robinson

Remind the foreigner that he is just that, a foreigner. He can no
more understand
the results of an American election than an American can understand
the result of
a foreign election. If, after the debate tonight, McCain somehow
pulls it out, it will be because he
latches onto and sticks with hammering the winning issue. I think it
is energy independence, energy independence,
energy independence. Energy prices will determine whether Americans
can afford everything. They are critical to our security.
Any effect these prices and measures to control them have on the
environment is pure gravy.

John: repeat after me, "Energy, Energy,Energy!"

Scott Robinson