A shift in American foreign policy?

As the United States turns it's attention to the Democratic and Republican conventions and the upcoming presidential election, political analysts are evaluating the Bush era and paying close attention to the country's foreign policy. For better or worse, the United States is the dominant player on the world stage. It's influence is global.

What foreign policy goals should the next American president set?

In an engaging essay in American Interest magazine, a quarterly magazine whose tone is largely bi-partisan, historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that George W. Bush may have already subtly shifted the United States' focus. He quotes Bush's second inaugural speech in 2005 when the president said, "it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Gaddis argues that "ending tyranny" is an old idea in American politics - it permeates the Declaration of Independence and was an important policy of many early presidents, from Jefferson to Adams to Lincoln . It's an important concept because it recognizes that before democracies can take root, people must have security and safety first; the "freedom from fear" that Franklin D. Roosevelt talked about.

This may be a hard lesson re-learned, as the world and the White House study what's gone wrong in Iraq and in other countries where the United States has tried unsuccessfully to push, prod and promote democracy.

Gaddis is a renowned Yale professor, best known for his studies of the Cold War. He surprises us with the revelation that, contrary to public perception, George W. Bush is an avid reader and a serious student of history. Hard to believe, isn't it? Gaddis is impressed with the president's first-hand knowledge of this subject and his association with historians.

Anyway, the essay will be an interesting read for both the Obama and McCain camp, as they look ahead to the election later this year.

I enjoyed it.

See Ending Tyranny - The past and future of an idea in American Interest.

Thanks to Arts and Letters Daily for highlighting it.

Also, Independence Day in this blog has more on the ideas of Thomas Jefferson.

Photo of the Capitol Building in Washington courtesy of Michael Slonecker.
-------------
> To send this to a friend, click on the envelope icon.
> To bookmark or share on social networking sites, click the icon in the top right corner of the page.

The American presidential election -- a complex machine, running since 1789 (...without an oil change).

The winds of change are beginning to sweep across the American political landscape. For those of us living outside the United States, the 2008 election is an interesting opportunity to observe the American electoral system and compare it to that of other democracies (like the French republican or the British parliamentary system, for example).

All of the attention being given to state caucuses or primaries was never something I clearly understood until I realized the importance of what Americans call "electors." At first I didn't comprehend the difference between "electors" and typical "voters". In Canada, we tend to use the term interchangeably. However, the difference in the U.S. is crucial. That's because the president and the vice-president are the only elected federal officials that are not elected by direct popular vote. Instead, they are put into office by the Electoral College, which is made up of citizens and party representatives -- "electors" -- chosen state-by-state during the long and arduous campaign.

History.com, in remembrance of the first American presidential election that brought George Washington to power, today posted a good summary (Jan. 7) of how the system works.

At the end of the campaign "marathon," after the big national election day in November and the results of the popular vote have been recorded, then the official electors meet in each state and cast their votes in representation of the voting public in their state.

History.com writes,"Although electors aren't constitutionally mandated to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state, it is demanded by tradition and required by law in 26 states and the District of Columbia (in some states, violating this rule is punishable by a $1,000 fine). Historically, over 99 per cent of all electors have cast their ballots in line with the voters."

The American system has been followed faithfully since 1789, as set out in the U.S. Constitution. Many debate the merits or weaknesses of this system. Is it antiquated? Is it fair? You can decide for yourself. As for me, I find it interesting to follow.

The Boston Globe recently published a handy guide to the caucuses and primaries, including comments on what is happening in each state and a draft schedule. Did you know that Republicans in Hawaii hold neither a primary nor a caucus? The Globe's special section is available here.

My thanks to Steve Woods in the U.K. for his photograph of the voting boxes with pencil and to Mike Thorn in the U.S. for his photograph of the White House.

Related political post....
Would you vote for a World President?