|
For the rest of the world, US presidential elections command
attention—simply because American leadership has the capacity to
change the lives of peoples for better or for worse or bring
benefits to or wreak havoc on other nations.
We have witnessed the end of an historic race
for the Democratic presidential nomination, and people who have said
that the US is not ready for an African-American president may have
to swallow their words come November.
Barack Obama, son of a Kenyan father and a white
American woman, is now the Democratic candidate, and will run
against Republican candidate John McCain for US president. From all
indications, energetic Obama with the banner of “change we can
believe in” has the edge over the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero
McCain who carries the albatross of a Bush legacy—a disastrous war
in Iraq that has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and American
lives, drained the resources of a superpower, and disaffected allies
around the world.
Obama who has all along (since he was Illinois
state senator) been against the war in Iraq will have his hands full
when he takes over as US president—ending the war and getting the
troops home. His domestic program for change is an innovative one
covering early childhood and higher education, affordable health
insurance, voting rights, clean energy, urban policy, foreign
policy, homeland security, immigration, technology and the role of
faith in American life.
While McCain exudes an air of “more of the
same” Republican and conservative policies, Obama is able to
articulate the imperatives for change in American society. He has
been criticized by McCain for his willingness to talk directly with
the enemy like the leaders in Iran and Cuba. And why should he not?
In short, he is open to leader-to-leader discussion in the conduct
of foreign policy.
At the same time, he is not averse to using
American power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In a
recent speech before the Jewish lobby group, he has reiterated the
pronouncements of previous American leaders regarding a secure
Israel state, a viable Palestinian state, eliminating terrorism and
promoting peace in the region. He seems to have said the “right
things” before the strongest lobby group in Washington.
As he enters the campaign for the presidency,
Obama may be inclined to pander to groups to win votes. And we may
see a dilution of what he originally projected—which has captured
the imagination of his supporters. If that happens this will be his
recognition of necessity, of the realities of American politics.
Pragmatism then sets in.
Still, the entry of Obama in the presidential
race is a refreshing wind in the dreary and stifling rule of an
unwitting president seen by many as a dangerous specie.
Hillary Clinton, who lost the nomination and is
a probable running mate of Obama, has also overcome long-standing
sexist attitudes regarding having a woman president in the US by
running a very strong campaign.
Like Obama she has affirmed the desire of every
American to “restore the credibility” of the US in the world.
Her speech, however, before the Jewish lobby group sounded like
Bush’s and will be seen as one-sided by Palestinians and Arabs who
have been the victims of Israeli and US aggression.
For now I see hope for the Americans in crashing
the racial and sexist barriers for the presidency, and in Obama and
Clinton’s common struggle for quality education, social security,
health care, civil rights, clean energy and environment, among other
domestic issues.
In foreign policy the new Democratic president
may have to do better than repeat the rhetoric of the Cold War in
the gesture of fighting terror. He will need to develop more
creative approaches to bring peace and social justice to end
genocides around the world.
eaordonez2000@yahoo.com
|
