Toga!

Despite the miserable failure of the Guardian’s Clark County fiasco, this recent assault is evidence of a weird, current trend in the international community. Apparently many out there believe that, since America ‘dominates’ their lives, they should have a right to influence, even vote in our elections.

Jan Oberg, director of the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research says:

Could the US then do exactly like we suggest for Iraq: free, fair, open elections for a new president of the United States. If the American people wants George W. Bush that is their privilege, but given that the United States has a global reach, some new mechanisms should be provided that citizens around the world could also vote for him - or some other candidates.

World opinion has set up up a web site to influence our vote, called TheWorldVotes. This site is linked to from the Guardian’s US vote 2004 page.

The philosophy of the world vote idea is explained by Yoichi Funabashi, columnist and chief diplomatic correspondent for the Asahi Shimbu. Yoichi beleives that, since the world is affected by US actions, the world should be able to vote for ‘their’ leader. He says:

Charles Kupchan, professor at Georgetown University and author of The End of the American Era, believes that since September 11 the system of checks and balances has broken down in the US. Internally, opposition parties have almost disappeared, and those expressing a dissenting view are few. Bush critics are condemned as unpatriotic, and only in the past four to five months have opponents of Bush’s foreign policy begun to creep out from behind the rocks.

The problem exists internationally, too. No one wants to upset the US, which remains the biggest market for exports and largely controls multilateral financial institutions. Many foreign leaders feel obligated to measure their words when discussing US policy. Now, without even the United Nations to keep the US in check, the last hope is international public opinion.

If this is the case, why not give the citizens of the world a voice in the election of the next US president? The idea is to hold a mock election via the Internet at individual discretion, giving everyone around the world with access to the Internet the chance to cast a vote. Voters would be able to choose the candidate they think is best for the world, giving reasons for their choice. The results should then be published before the real election on November 2, allowing US citizens to take world opinion into account when making their own decisions.

There are a few voices of sanity out there, notably Josie Appleton of 'Spiked,' who says:

If only, these people seem to think, we could rein in America's power simply by gathering votes and letters from internet users worldwide and then demanding that US citizens pay attention to them. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for democracy, it's a bit more difficult than that - if you want to make a point, it's up to you to make it convincingly, not up to others to pay rapt attention.

I wish there were more independent, reasonable thinkers like her out there, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. If the international community shares her attitude, they have taken no action to prove it.

Most members of the ‘international community’ do not believe that they should pay for their own defense. They insist that American taxpayers and American lives should provide for their welfare.

Since they’re not willing to take responsibility for the protection of their own nations, since they have made no attempts to change the status quo, and since they are more than willing to accept the role of child in relationship to our ‘adult’, we seem to have conquered them by default. If the world is determined to welcome us as their New Roman overlords, veni vidi vici.

If ‘world opinion’ is determined to vote in our elections they have to accept both the rights and the responsibilities of citizenship. Old Rome extended the rights of citizenship to the people they conquered. That concept was eventually too difficult for them to manage, but as Mr. Funabashi points out, technology can be a big help for New Rome.

Historically, Americans have never wanted to take responsibility for the rest of the world. Unlike motivated empire-builders, we don’t need to travel to foreign lands for a tropical paradise or desert nights – we’ve got Florida and New Mexico. We don’t really need more stuff - as American comedian Stephen Wright says, "You can't have everything. Where would you put it?" We don’t want an empire, and this New Romans role will be uncomfortable to say the least. But if we try, maybe we can get used to it.

We’d have to learn something about geography and world languages, which is a drag, but on the positive side, New Rome means more wine, feasting and song. Toga!

To our new fellow countrymen (Guardian readers, theworldvote.com, et al:) we say: Gloria victis, international dudes and dudettes. Conquering you is, like, an honor we didn’t expect. Thanks and stuff.

[posted by Mary at exit zero]