John Rentoul: Obama, the most dominant force in British politics
The Democratic presidential candidate is Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela rolled into one when it comes to sprinkling stardust. And now that he has ditched his left-wing baggage, Brown and Cameron are hoping that some of the magic will rub off on them
Sunday, 20 July 2008
Who is the dominant figure in British politics today? His name was invoked by the Prime Minister in his news conference on Monday. "I agree with him entirely," said Gordon Brown. He was praised as "brave" and "right" by David Cameron on Wednesday. Both hope to be photographed with him in London this week.
I speak of Barack Obama, a phenomenon of politics not just in America but across the English-speaking world and beyond. Plainly, he is an exceptional candidate, although, like the prophets, he is even more exceptional outside his own land. Opinion polls in the US have him only four percentage points ahead of John McCain. Over here, on the other hand, a poll last week among people who can't vote for either man found Obama trouncing McCain by a five-to-one margin.
No wonder Brown and Cameron hope that some of that magic can be transmitted simply by shaking hands in front of a camera. When it comes to celebrity endorsements in politics, Obama is Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela rolled into one. With a cherry on top.
Not that Obama would be partisan in British politics. That is why Cameron can be confident of his own meeting with the miracle worker, even if the Tories won't risk making the mistake Brown's office made in February, when it announced a meeting with McCain just before McCain cancelled.
Nor are British politicians supposed to take sides in the democratic business of another country, although such was Brown's eagerness to make common cause with Obama that he came close to breaking that convention last week. He nearly claimed that Obama's platform for the presidency was copied from New Labour policies on health, education and employment. "I know that the Democratic Party have looked at the successes that we have had in these areas as they formulated their policies," he said.
To be fair, Brown did not bring up the subject of Obama at his news conference: he was asked repeated questions by journalists. Nor did Cameron have any intention of setting off a media fuss last week by endorsing Obama's view that there was a racial dimension to feckless fatherhood. In giving an interview to The Guardian, Cameron wanted to add to the pressure on Labour MPs, in their newspaper of choice, on the issue of parliamentary expenses. But he was also asked about Obama.
So Cameron said he agreed with him, just as Brown had done. This was riskier for Cameron than for Brown, because of the Tory party's recent history with issues of race. But it "worked out very well", said a Tory spin-doctor, happily. Cameron received favourable notices for saying, through the proxy of Obama, that too many young black men run away from responsibility for their children.
Obama holds sway over British politics in much more than the breezy rhetoric of hope, change and responsibility, however. His progress over the next 107 days and – if he wins – beyond will define how Britain deals with the legacy of Iraq, the most divisive foreign policy issue for a generation. That may seem a little parochial, because the choice between President Obama and President McCain will also define the legacy of the Iraq war (and the longer shadow of 9/11) for the whole world.
The key point here is that, as our ComRes poll confirms today, most people wish that Britain had never got involved in Iraq in the first place. Most people here, as in the US, believe that the invasion was a terrible mistake. But it is a logical error to say that, because the invasion was wrong, US and British troops should leave at once. That error has been built into Obama's campaign for the presidency.
If Obama is elected, it will mark the long-delayed unwinding of the Iraq decision, which both George Bush and Tony Blair survived in elections in 2004 and 2005. Yet many of those who admire Obama for his opposition to the war are likely to be disappointed.
Until he won the Democratic nomination, most criticism of Obama came from the right. They are still at it. Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post last week mocked his thin record as a legislator and a law academic: "His most memorable work is a biography of his favourite subject: himself."
Since he clinched the nomination, however, he has ditched left-wing baggage like a balloonist desperately trying to gain altitude. He came out against gun control and in favour of the death penalty for child rape; became pro-Israel and a hawk on Iran. Now that, as several commentators have observed, is "change you can believe in".
His policy on Iraq is more difficult to drop over the side. He is standing by his plan to withdraw US troops in 16 months. Whatever you thought about the decision to invade, that makes no sense. As Dick Morris, my favourite analyst of US politics, put it: "Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al-Qa'ida will move in."
There was a moment last month – it was when Susan Sarandon, the actress, said she might emigrate to Italy or Canada if McCain won – when it seemed essential to the sanity of America that Obama should lose.
But, no, it is more important that the daydream should be broken. The idea that there is some kind of clean, different, painless, perfect alternative to politics as usual is a distraction from taking difficult, compromised decisions in an imperfect world. If Obama lost, too many people around the world could continue to believe that if only America got out of whatever it is in, everything would be better.
I think McCain is right about Iraq – that the surge has been a success, and that eventual troop withdrawal should depend on that success continuing. But I think it is more important, for America and the world, that Obama should be the one who learns the truth of this the hard way.
In office, he would be forced to use his eloquence and his global popularity to make the case for what is left of the coalition to see its responsibilities to the Iraqis through. Many of his supporters, especially outside the US, would see it as a betrayal. I think it would be a necessary one, by which he could at last heal the suspicion of American power that provides so many around the world with easy excuses.
For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
25 Comments
"clean, different, painless, perfect alternative to politics as usual" This has never been what Obama is about. He was a community organizer; he knows about power, coalitions, compromise, pressure, etc etc. You may be right that many of his supporters are dreamers and maybe there's an echo of GB Shaw about being a socialist at 20 and 40. But Obama is a realist and I really doubt that he ever really had a position on gun control or death penalty -- other than what people assumed because he was a, what's the word? Liberal, leftist?
The core of Obama's view is this: We are one people and must work things out together. This means compromise, citizen involvement, combining things that at first seem un-combinable. His 2004 speech to the Democratic convention, that section on "red state, blue state, United States" says it cleanly. Of course there will be the sense of betrayal -- purists always feel betrayed.
Posted by Jason_M | 23.07.08, 07:33 GMT
NRyPKb gfb07yvt9d6t94wbtx63bgq7d
Posted by krissy | 23.07.08, 00:17 GMT
I cannot get over the fact that in American politics it is rarely about real issues and mainly about stardom. Bush won two elections, this obvious moron won because people voted him as "The most likely to share a beer with". Obama will crush McCain just as Bill Clinton won before Bush due to their exceptional charisma.
Obama does not have substance you say? Why is it the Fed's current platform for dealing with Iran exactly what Obama proposed months ago? Why is it his Senate votes made months and years ago are now exactly what the American people finally realize they wanted so many years later?
I am sorry Vera if you are a Hillary lover. She had a great chance to win but she blew it. She lost a no-name nobody who crushed your champion. Charlatan I believe he is not as the vast majority of people following him are the significantly more intelligent Americans. Get over your bitterness and do the right thing.
Posted by Tim LaBorn | 22.07.08, 21:17 GMT
I find it frightening that 1 in 5 people in Britain would vote for McCain, it's quite depressing to know that one fifth of the population of the UK could be so dumb.
Posted by Chris | 22.07.08, 01:12 GMT
zlato, you spew this BS without a clue, "So far, if you remove all of the wonderful adjectives of Obama, he spells out BIGGER government, socialism, weakness, flipflopping and NOs to any solutions. He just talks change, but the change will be the downfall of America. No wonder the rest of the world likes Obama."
zlato, the BIGGEST government in US history was created by GW himself.
During the GWB admin the US Government has borrowed more money from foreign governments than all previous administrations combined.
Record annual government budget deficits and record National Debt took place under Republican admins - the admins of GW Bush, GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan. By the time Bush leaves office the National Debt will be doubled from what it when he was first elected.
Bush has lead the country in to a more fascist style government.
The cowards of the Bush admin don't dare to face any oversight and hide behind a vague cover of "Executive Privilege" to cover their butts.
Posted by BobM | 21.07.08, 15:31 GMT
Unbelievably, Rentoul continues his absurd analysis of Iraq.
It was an integrated society before the invasion - it's a myth that the Sunnis held all the reins of power. On the Pentagon's pack of cards list there were far more Shia than Sunni leaders. It's a struggle between the separatist executive and the nationalist parliament. Nationalism is the only way to unite the people, but the Americans have been trying to destroy it for the last five years. A strong, independent Iraq is a neocon nightmare. Their troops would have to leave the "permanent" bases still being built out in the desert to protect their oil interests.
Sectarianism isn't ingrained, it has only existed for five years, and would disappear along with al-Qaeda when the US and British troops leave. It is not a religious war that will intensify after Iraqis are left to themselves.
Posted by Bill Dixon | 21.07.08, 07:59 GMT
The most dominant force in british politics Why? surely you jest. The leftist press will never let you know that the race in the US is pretty much even. It so nauseating to see them so in the tank for Obama, that they have succeeded in turning many of us off. NOBAMA for us.
Posted by Beatrix | 21.07.08, 01:27 GMT
To zerce marquise: can't you proof read what you write? It is really a disgrace and discredit to any school you may have attended. Sounds like you spend your life texting and I don't think english is your first language. Please do not post any comment un til you learn to write.
Posted by Beatrix | 21.07.08, 01:07 GMT
There are many here in the US who would like to see the Bush administration impeached for their war crimes. This however is not likely to happen. To elect McCain would be to continue the corporate takeover of America. That is why you cannot believe anything you read or watch on our News Networks. They have an agenda to continue to profit. Barack Obama has raised the hopes of many including the young voters. People of all ages are voting this election for the first time. If Barack is elected, it will take a long time to correct the damage this last administration has done. We must give Barack a chance to stop this insanity.
Posted by BP | 20.07.08, 18:33 GMT
Richard, I also live in the United States. I've lived here all my life except for the four years I spent oversea in Southeast Asia, the Philippines and Japan during my time in the US Army Security Agency.
The majority of Americans do not (as you have said) despise Barack Obama.
What the majority of American's do not like is what two terms of the Bush admin has done to America.
Posted by BobM | 20.07.08, 16:29 GMT
25 Comments