Turning the tables

Gordon Brown - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2008
Cargado originalmente por World Economic Forum
(Gordon Brown sporting Mr. Bean's haircut at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2008 Copyright World Economic Forum Photo by Remy Steinegger)

It appears that Mexican president Felipe Calderon is not alone amongst foreign leaders who declare their support for one of the U.S.presidential candidates. Just last week British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made headlines with his endorsement of Barack Obama. Praising the advance of progressive leadership around the world, Brown described Obama's campaign as the one "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times". Brown made no mention in his article of what John McCain and the Republicans are contributing to the race. He has subsequently been criticized for this endorsement which has been qualified as a diplomatic blunder, with the British press arguing that leaders should maintain neutrality at all times regarding the elections in another country.

When I blogged about Calderon's wink at the McCain campaign Nonna rightly asked if this was a common practice, for a Mexican president to meddle into another country's election by announcing who his preferred winner was. My answer was no, it was not common. I also added that Calderon's words would have no impact on the Mexican- American vote. Yet I contended Calderon had good reasons to hope for a McCain win: his party has always maintained a good relation with the Republicans, the United States is Mexico's neighbour and largest economic partner and the Mexican government shares the Republican view on trade. Plus McCain's immigration stand is in tune with what the Mexican government advocates for those who cross the border in pursuit of the American dream.

The United States has traditionally and unapologetically made its preferences be known when other countries elect their leaders. With all the debate on what the "Bush doctrine" entails, one foreign policy doctrine that is well understood in the hemisphere is the Monroe doctrine with its Roosevelt Corollary. In Latin America, the United States has tried historically to exercise a veto power over the electoral choices people make when they are not in accordance with United States interests. Sometimes the United States has even recurred to military intervention or supported internal military coups in order to exercise this veto.

With the end of the Cold War, tipping electoral preferences abroad to favor American interests has required a more sophisticated approach. Declarations of United States ambassadors, American newspaper editorials, announcements made by State Department officials, all have the intention of letting Latin Americans know if a candidate would be welcomed by the United States as someone they can work with. A number of times, a United States endorsement has had the opposite intended effect as Latin American voters have chosen to reject American electoral advice (the elections and re-elections through referenda of both Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are examples of this trend).

The Bush administration's current unpopularity in and outside of the United States and the Iraqi disaster have paved the way for the tables turning. Call it the globalization of electoral meddling. The United States meddles with elections in other countries and other countries are now meddling with the elections in the United States. In a world where United States foreign policy decisions have such a big impact on the well being of all peoples it is plain common sense for foreign leaders to have a position on the outcome of the U.S. presidential elections. Is it undiplomatic to make their preferences publicly known? Yes. Relevant to voters’ preferences in the U.S.? No. Reason enough to back a complaint from within the United States? Certainly not, as the United States would thus be forced to acknowledge and decry its current and past interventionist actions in foreign elections, many of them much more condemnable than Calderon's support for John McCain or the enthusiastic praise that Brown had for Barack Obama.

Tasteless cake

(Joe Germushka/Flickr)

Forget the joint and unnecessary appearance at ground zero by John McCain and Barack Obama. This cake, spotted at a Swedish bakery in Chicago, is one of the more bizarre examples of yesterday’s 9/11 commemorations. Thanks to my colleague Maxine Springer for telling me about the Cake Wrecks blog, home of numerous sugary monstrosities/reminders of why some of us just shouldn’t bake.

Beauty and the vote

Sarah Palin's nomination to be the Vice President of the United States as part of the Republican ticket has encountered severe criticism from both the mainstream media and the liberal blogosphere.

The Governor of Alaska's alleged lack of qualifications and experience has been cited by pro-Obama commentators as reason enough to condemn John McCain's pick. However, many of the attacks against Palin have not been solely directed at her conservative stands or her policy choices.

"Caribou barbie," "beauty queen" and "trophy Vice" have been regularly used as supporting elements to discredit Palin as a viable candidate. The fact that she competed in the Miss Alaska 1984 beauty pageant where she won second place and a college scholarship is given as sufficient evidence that she cannot be taken seriously as a politician the underlying argument being that an attractive woman must be a bimbo, and a bimbo must not be in a position of power.

Most disturbingly, many of those willing to fire the thinly veiled misogynistic bullets are self proclaimed liberal women. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd writes:

The guilty pleasure I miss most when I’m out slogging on the campaign trail is the chance to sprawl on the chaise and watch a vacuously spunky and generically sassy chick flick. So imagine my delight, my absolute astonishment, when the hockey chick flick came out on the trail, a Cinderella story so preposterous it’s hard to believe it’s not premiering on Lifetime. Instead of going home and watching “Miss Congeniality” with Sandra Bullock, I get to stay here and watch “Miss Congeniality” with Sarah Palin.

The reality is that the world of politics is still dominated by men and this has not changed with the current surge of Dowd-approved, non-sassy, serious, intense and highly educated women involved in politics around the world.

Many women who have advanced in politics until now have done so aided by a family name made trustworthy by the actions of a male. Without questioning their remarkable careers and credentials, Michele Bachelet, Cristina Kirchner, Benazir Bhutto, Indira Gandhi and Hillary Clinton may fall into this category.

Other female leaders have succeeded by projecting a character that is not by-and-large associated with what are generally acknowledged as feminine traits. Examples of these so-called iron ladies are Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel.

Although Palin does not fall into any of the described categories her story is hardly unique. Her political career is reminiscent to that of Venezuelan Irene Saez. Saez competed and won in the 1981 Miss Universe pageant. Like Palin, she subsequently earned a B.A. and later on decided to run for office in a small municipality. As Mayor of Chacao, Saez enjoyed high approval ratings. She was re-elected and then decided to run for president on an anti-corruption platform that echoed Venezuelans rejection of the traditional political parties. After losing to Hugo Chavez in the 1998 elections, Saez decided to run for the governorship of Nueva Esparta. She won handily with 70% of the vote.

A woman politician who fulfills all of Maureen Dowd's feminist requirements might take a while to come by. That is remembering that Ms. Dowd was also hostile towards Hillary Clinton, a non-Sarah Palin like female politician if there ever was one.

Women still have a hard enough time to reach the upper levels of decision making positions for Palin's physique to be enlisted as one of her disqualifications to run for office. In an equal opportunity world a woman should at least have the right to be attractive and succeed in politics without having to apologise for it to the self appointed defenders of feminism, regardless of her platform and views.

Mexican president endorses McCain

Does it even matter? Hispanic network Univision announces Mexican president Felipe Calderon has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain. This should not come as any surprise. Calderon's party, the PAN (National Action Party- conservative) has for long held close relations with the Republican party.

According to the AP article, Calderon believes that McCain "knows the Mexican reality better" even though he acknowledges that Obama is being supported by many Mexican-Americans. Calderon said Obama's plans regarding NAFTA could entail a "return to protectionism" which would be damaging to the bilateral relationship. He added that McCain has supported "the most advanced immigration proposal."

Calderon's public endorsement is logical. He does not want NAFTA to be unilateraly renegotiated and demanding a humane and fair treatment of Mexican immigrants abroad is part of the mandate of any Mexican president. But does it matter whom he endorses? Will his declarations have any impact on the electoral preferences of Mexican-Americans?

The answer is... hardly. Most immigrants crossed the border to escape from a vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Some risked their lives in the process. Many have encountered racism and denigrating treatment in their search for better opportunities. Not one of them is under any obligation to heed Calderon's opinion on how to cast their vote.

Calderon might have some influence if his own record as Mexican president was different. A reform minded Mexican Executive, willing and able to address effectively Mexico's problems of inequality, corruption and violence could expect the sympathies of those who were forced to flee from the status-quo. Such a president Calderon is not and his opinions regarding the candidates are not only uncalled for but also irrelevant.