A Vote for Clinton-Obama
The Presidency of the United States of America is probably the most powerful secular office in the world. In a post-cold war era when free enterprise democracy has by and large triumphed over competing models of economic and political ordering of modern society, the president of the world’s most powerful nation is the most influential office holder in the world. I do not subscribe to the notion that after the cold war, all human controversy has been resolved as Francis Fukuyama is believed to have implied in “The End of History”. As Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist soldiers demonstrated on September 11, 2001, there will always be alternative views about human civilisation, but it will take some time before a mainstream competitor to free enterprise democracies emerges.
Iran, North Korea, Cuba and perhaps Venezuela under Hugo Chavez may question that unanimity, but as one can clearly discern, none of these countries is an attractive option for most nations of the world. China though it is likely to emerge as a rival to the US for global influence as time unfolds, is actually a free enterprise economy and has merely deferred rather than defied the global march of democracy. My view is that democracy in China is merely a question of when, not if. But I suspect that the Chinese will adopt a peculiarly Chinese model of democracy, on their own terms and in their own time. Russia will also be resurgent, but it will actually resemble a modern European democracy (such as Germany or France) rather than the old Soviet Union. And perhaps as Europe integrates more and more, and becomes a nation rather than a continent or economic grouping, rivalries with the US may increase.
The implication of all this is that the world will continue to monitor very carefully who occupies the Presidency of the United States. Unfortunately in the last seven years or so, George Bush the second has degraded rather than enhanced the power and influence of that office. The neo-conservative idea that the US can use its power to impose democracy on nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, (the ‘neo-con’ wish list may have initially extended to nations like Syria, Iran, and perhaps other Arab nations) has actually made America more enemies all over the world, and bred terrorists at a rate never seen in more sensible times. A more rational, pragmatic and effective administration is required in Washington. Fortunately George Bush’s two terms are up, and America and the world cannot wait for him to go, in order that perhaps the Iraq quagmire, and the domestic economic challenges the US faces (in particular the threat of recession) can be addressed by a new and hopefully more competent person.
The field of course offers a rich array of possibilities. In my view any of the four likely occupants of the office on both the Republican and Democratic sides will be a more fitting US President than George Bush Jnr. With the exit of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney or John McCain will be the Republican nominee as the two labour to inherit the conservative mantle. Both are charismatic and intelligent and have the experience to rule the US capably. Senator McCain in particular is very experienced and hugely popular with American voters and will be a more formidable opponent for any Democratic nominee than Romney, the wealthy, former Massachusetts Governor who has to convince American voters that his Mormon religion will not interfere with his performance as President over a majority who do not share his particular brand of Christianity.
It is however the Democratic primary that has generated greater excitement, what with the historical dimensions the primary battle has assumed. With John Edward’s withdrawal, the democratic primary will now be won by either former First Lady and New York Senator Hillary Clinton or the freshman Senator from Chicago, Barack Obama. If Hillary becomes president, she will be the first woman (and former first lady) to become President of the United States. Her spouse, ex-President Bill Clinton will return to the White House, not in his own right, but by virtue of conjugal rights with Hillary. If Kenyan-born Obama wins, he will be the first (real) black president of the US-Bill Clinton used to be referred to affectionately by African-Americans as the first black President for his cosy relationship and overwhelming support he enjoyed from African-Americans.
So if either democratic front-runner becomes President, he or she will be setting a major record in American politics and will be redefining assumptions about US political practices and culture-either way a minority president, whether female or African-American. Now can’t we have two for the price of one? Can’t we have a President Hillary Clinton and Vice-President Barack Obama and make it an event of multiple historical proportions-a first female president, who will also be a first former first lady to be elected Senator and then President, and who will be elected on a ticket that produces the first African-American Vice-President who can then go ahead to become President subsequently! The icing on the cake will of course be that we then have Bill Clinton back in the driving seat of American politics with the panache and excitement that goes with it!
For me, this would be a dream scenario. The Democratic Party big-wigs must keep the door open to this possibility. The combination of the experience and policy know-how that Hillary commands, and her strong ties with the democratic establishment through her husband, and Obama’s message of change and bi-partisanship which has resonated loudly with Americans of all races, classes and ages will be a formidable ticket and is more likely to defeat McCain or Romney (or McCain AND Romney if the Republicans too adopt the tag-team approach). This development if it happens will not be new in American politics. George Bush Snr ran against Reonald Reagan for the Republican ticket before becoming running-mate and Vice-President to Reagan. Ditto Al Gore and Bill Clinton as well as the unsuccessful Gore-Edwards democratic pair.
A Clinton-Obama ticket may of course be more plausible than the reverse (Obama as candidate and Hillary as running mate) and if Hillary sweeps the votes on Super Tuesday, February 5, then the case for a Clinton-Obama pair-up should become more compelling. If the Democrats can unite behind such a team, perhaps we will be in for twelve or sixteen years of democratic occupation of the White House. Why not, after the mess George Bush has made of running America?
