Who but Americans care about American politics? Like the ABC, Phil Senior thinks that because he is interested, Austalians are interested.

Leave foreign politics to foreigners. We have enough to worry about with the rubes we have here without troubling ourselves with how Americans voted.

While there is some connection via the Iraq war, Australia's commitment is chicken feed, and it's up to Australian voters, not American, to decide what we do, just as it is with Americans.

While overseas politics are obviously of interest to an apprentice political scientist (do we really need any more of them?), it is of no interest to most Australians.

No one pounces faster than Leigh -

so often the first post -

like a seagull on a hot chip.

Though I think he sells short the impact of changes to the American political landscape - sure it does not always effect us but when it does it usually does in rather significant ways - does any one really think without the rather over the top US response to a few deaths in New York - we would have over committed ourselves militarily on a wild goose chase? hoew much money has that fiasco cost us -

think of all the extra freebies we could have showered single mothers with if we had not frittered cash away on arms - artists could have had heaps more grants - refugees and our indigenous brothers could have had more and more subsidised loans - free dental care - free abortions - hair plugs - breat augmenations - all manner of good stuff now impossible because we went to a false war - on the back of American Foriegn Policy

While the Freed Trade Agreement betwen us and them was a joint initiative the internal lobbying of sugar farmers and pharmcuetical companies ( political activity if ever there was any ) will impact on us for years to come.

Internal US politics and farm subsidies have been hurting us for years. I could go on

Leigh is being uncharacterisitcally naive to Poo Poo the author in this regard -

All international policy decision should be of concern to us - US - British or any where else for that matter.

Glad i'm not an American who has to wear egg on my face about that Iraq war debacle.

Oh wait a second, i'm Australian, better go wash my face.

Phil Senior's article is wide ranging and timely. Only an ostrich (emu?) would dismiss it easily.

US politics are of concern to anyone interested in the Australian economy (particularly agriculture and defence purchases).

Negotiations involving the US Democrats will also determine the fate of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Democrats can engineer a withdrawal strategy our troops should at last receive their marching orders home - via our "decision makers".

If John Howard has an independent stance or attitude regarding Iraq and Afghanistan he should show his hand - it would be beneficial electorally.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Sneeky,

Sorry. Would you like me to wait until evening to give you time to think of something?

Leigh... I find it somewhat strange that you lampoon this article as irrelevant or uninteresting to Australians... plenty of articles appear on OLO regarding overseas politics... recently I've read about Burma, Thailand, Europe... Are these countries more relevant than the US? You can speak for yourself Leigh, but not for everyone... I for one, am very interested in US politics. Anyhow...

Interesting the author brings up DINO's as a moderating factor. The far more obvious moderating influence has been Schwarzenegger's RINO effect. Quite strange really, but a good indication that the US is returning to centrist policy. I think more than a few Americans are probably getting nostalgic for the Clinton era.

It's going to be an interesting election... on the one hand, we have names like McCain, Giuliani and even Condalezza Rice being mooted for the republicans, while the Democrats have Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and even Al Gore being suggested.

Whatever way you look at it, there is going to be a stronger sense of moderation in the next administration... even the more aggressive players here will be operating in a political environment which encourages centrist policies.

I think Australia is much more entwined in US political developments than you admit, Leigh. More than a few political decisions in this country are heavily influenced by what happens there. It would be a mistake to believe John Howard makes up his mind without looking abroad first. Take the following:

Kyoto agreement - whatever your thoughts, it is inconceivable Australia would go it alone in ignoring it.

Iraq - enough said on this one.

Election campaign - negative advertising, push polling, divide & conquer strategies, dog-whistling. All nasty little tricks developed in the US and refined by the Republicans. The UK also used them in their last election.

Environmental health - maybe, just maybe, some sanity may now prevail, where the energy companies no longer dominate governmental oversight of the environment.

Mixing politics and religion - lots of other threads on OLO about this, and a growing concern that it's beginning to polute the Australian political landscape. I've yet to see anyone claim it's a good thing.

The world still has two more years to tolerate the Bush presidency. It recognises though that the worst is probably over, and the next generation of political leaders are left to pick up the pieces.

p.s.

The ABC and SBS are the only broadcasters not following the government line on Iraq. You go watch idol, while I watch what's happening overseas.

btw, leigh, australian voters dont decide what we do- john howard does.

when/if you grow up, you'll understand the difference.

Our very rhetorical right-wing members have been suddenly silent about what is happening in the Middle East.

From the latest Guardian, AMERICA’S DECLINE AND FALL By Martin Jacques, accompanied by his italics - Bush’s failure to grasp the limits of global power will force his successors to pay a heavy price.

1. Seemingly only yesterday we were all in thrall to American power - not only infusing the outlook of the White House, but dominating the debate about the future of international relations

2. Now with the failure in Iraq, the neo-conservative pompish US Project for the 21st Century, including regime change for Iraq and Iran, appear to be now so much bin-waste.

Even in our usually right-wing West' contain a middle headline - MIDDLE EAST REALITY BITES FOR BUSH.

As regards Kissinger’s suggestion that the situation is so bad in Iraq, US may be forced to make parley with Syria and Iran.

To use Syria to try and pacify the Sunni’s, trouble is the Sunnis now engaged in the Iraqi terrorism, are not only from Syria and Saudi-Arabia, but also the major portion of Saddam’s former 300,000 so-called topline military, whom America foolishly neglected to round-up after the so-called Iraq victory.

About Iran, in the West' from Rosemary Hollis - “.....the US and UK seem to have no idea that asking for help from Iran is like shiftng the boot to the other foot - yet they still expect Iran to make concessions.” - Hollis concludes how an agreement with Iran would not be much fun for the Israelies, the power balance shifting between Israel and Iran, rather than between Israel and the poorly armed Arabs.

With America temporarily neutered, Iran might be now free to go atomic, the hope that Iran might use wisdom and understanding enough to use her new power not to openly challenge Israel, but become a patron for Middle East peace.

Most Iranians may even desire such a step, rather than stoop to the American Democratic Way

Not at all Leigh - your timeliness does you credit - you are just quick out of the blocks - nothing wrong with that.

I concur with most others that US politics does affect us.

IMHO the biggest risk to the democrats is that the republicans can blame them for whatever happens next. eg If only we "stayed the course", "went in deep", "went in long" etc none of this would have happened.

After the Vietnam war the world did not stop spinning, the US economy did not collapse, neither did the Russians attack. The yanks did loose a lot of credibility though.

Similarly here. The world won't stop if we pull out of Iraq. It is quite likely that all Arab energy is spend fighting each other instead of westerners. You have to sell oil before you can spend it's wealth so chances are it will find it's way to the market. No doubt there will be plenty of human misery.

I don't think there is anyway we can stop nukes from getting into Iran. Possibly a complete embargo but Iran is too strategic to get all players (including Russia, China and Pakistan) on board.

Perhaps Leigh lives on the East Coast. That would give him a few hours lead over the rest of us. Occasionally I get to check OLO at 3 or 4 am which is 6 or 7 am Sydney time but there are no new articles at that time.

What the recent US mid-term elections show is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq, together with the growing social and economic polarization in their own country.

They have voted against Bush, not for the Democrats. I’m sure some of them even think that the Democrats will get them out of Iraq, however, in the not to distant future they are going to realise the futility of such hopes.

The Democrats are not opposed to the war in Iraq, they simply disagree with Bush tactically. Hence the calls for 'changing direction' rather than 'getting out'. Within the first few weeks of the elections the discussion has been about increasing, not decreasing troops in Iraq. In fact the Democrats have been saying all along that there should have been more troops. Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel has even called for reinstating the draft – a call which is receiving media attention and discussion among the ruling classes.

So we have a situation where the majority of the population wants out of the war, while both parties are intent on prosecuting the war to secure the region’s oil. The population is destined to come into conflict with the Government, and in particular, the Democratic Party.

What is the solution?

These are interesting times.

Fully agree with you, Tao. We could wonder whether the main things the Age of Reason and the following Age of enlightenment gave us was freedom for Western piracy against weaker nations. No wonder global historians use the term contrabandits. Didn't put Western always behind it though. No wonder the Arabs despise us so much, we have beaten them at their own game, and cleverly used our laws and literature to make it legit'.

George C - WA

What at the end of the day does substantiate political victory in democratic elections?

To my very understanding a quality of a personal existence voters enjoy under particular political rule.

Therefore, local visual achievements rather than overseas deeds vogue to The Averages rule.

That at least is what is in common between the US, Australia and other less prominent democratic countries where politicians’ dependence on their voters exists.