A poll released yesterday by the German Marshall Fund basically echos one released the previous day, and, for that matter, echoes most other polls conducted on the subject of world views on the Presidential candidates. From the press release:
“A survey released today shows that nearly half of Europeans (47%) believe that relations between the United States and Europe will improve if Senator Barack Obama is elected the next U.S. president, compared with 29% who believe relations will stay the same, and 5% who believe relations will worsen. If Senator John McCain is elected, only 11% believe that transatlantic relations will improve, compared to 49% who believe relations will stay the same, and 13% who believe that relations will worsen.”
But as the polls continue to verify the same result, that people around the world prefer Barack Obama to be the next President of the US, the “so what?” question gets raised more and more vociferously. (My critics will be elated to see that I am finally raising this issue on the blog). That is, why does it matter that people abroad prefer one candidate over the other?
Take this example. The BBC 22-country poll released this week, which found (surprise, surprise) that the respondents for the most part prefer Obama, was the subject of harsh criticism from the Daily Mail newspaper in London for wasting lots of money on a “meaningless poll.”
The Mail explains “the move has created anger from critics who claim the entire project is a massive waste of time as it is only the views of Americans that matter. They also point out that the US presidential elections are already the subject of endless polls in the US, which provide much more useful information.”
I would have to say that this Daily Mail article, rather than the poll, was a waste of time. I could launch into a long diatribe about why world public opinion is extremely important to take into account. For now, here's my short answer.
First, it should be noted that most international respondents in each international survey about the US elections did choose to express a preferred candidate, as opposed to choosing neither or either candidate (as if to say, it doesn't matter because the two candidates do not differ significantly). While the American political system is known for its narrow political spectrum, these results show that in this election, there is a palpable difference–even to foreigners (and I mean that in the best way)–between the two candidates.
Second, not only did the BBC poll ask which candidate people preferred, they also asked whether the respondent feels an Obama or a McCain presidency would improve US relations with the world, worsen US relations with the world, or have no effect. This is where the survey connected the respondent's electoral preferences to the election's impact on the rest of the world.
Now that is useful because this election serves as a much needed turning point in the US’ relationship with the rest of the world. That people abroad think an Obama presidency would improve US relations with the world will have no effect on American voting patterns in the least, but it will serve as an important indicator of how we can expect the world to sit with our decision, or what foot Obama or McCain will start off with–whichever candidate we choose.
What do you all think? Please chime in with your views; give me some better reasons why world opinion of the US presidential candidates matters, or why you think it doesn't matter all. Here's someone who agrees with me; here's someone who disagrees.
5 Comments So Far»
John: You will not be surprised to know that I agree that the opinion of people abroad matters. Those who believe otherwise perhaps have not heard about globalization nor do they realize that the world's only super power is not all powerful. The gravest problems we face are ones that ignore national boundaries. To address them we have to work with other countries. The degree to which those countries are willing to cooperate and accept American leadership (when there is some) is directly related to how people in those countries view our government and the man (or potentially woman in the case of Ms. Palin) that is running it.
I would offer one more consideration or way of interpreting these international polls. I realized this in the last election, where world opinion polls were at 3% for GW Bush, but 53% of Americans voted for him. I think this is direct evidence of what I have called in other articles (and a book chapter) “The Electronic Curtain”. I think the polls indicate a marked difference between U.S. media and media beyond U.S. borders. Why would there be a 50% difference of opinion between the American public and the European public? The same applies to this poll that you are blogging about; I believe the U.S. media isolates Americans from journalism outside the borders, and the U.S. mainstream mass media shapes American public opinion into something quite divergent from world opinion. I saw the same phenomenon leading up to the Iraq war. The U.S. media was very suspiciously dominated by damning CIA stories (”spun” by the White House), and when I observed the European media, they were reporting ABOUT the U.S. media stories with an inherent subtext that the White House seemed determined on justifying a pre-emptive war. Inside America, the media was missing that European angle. From Europe, we could see the agenda being set, but Americans could not see that obvious agenda by watching news from behind the electronic curtain. The same thing is probably happening right now. It is not that Europeans are less informed, rather they are not exposed to the very Americanized version of evening news.
One last note to support my thoughts on this. I had not been behind the electronic curtain for some years and went to America a year after the war started, and I was absolutely shocked at the obvious propaganda that my fellow Americans absolutely did not notice. The waving electronic flag of patriotism behind the news anchor, the noble marching band music as the bold title “Operation Iraqi Freedom” came onto the screen, the coverage of the war that had what was very much like a weather map, except iconic tank formations with intrusion arrows and slick military language indicating clear skies (a sun icon at the top of the map) for the Air Force to carry out some seemingly bloodless “operation”. All this taken together was shocking for me to see, and nobody questioned the message or the war with its slick commercial packaging. I teach journalism at a university, and I must say my view of journalism calls into question what U.S. journalism has mutated into.
In short, I propose the argument that those polls indicate there is a different media going on behind an electronic curtain, and that seems in some ways worse than an iron curtain because at least you could see that iron curtain, but this new curtain encloses people's minds, and it is insidiously invisible.
Sinclair,
You voice my own concerns regarding media coverage in America. I try to research alternative news sources and perspectives but know, for many, most coverage is gathered from one's favorite evening program or paper. I remember when the war first began and I listened to our news coverage declare that Iraq's political leaders were lying to their people through media, leading them to believe they were winning the war. All I could think of at that moment was how do I know that I am not being lied to? There are many people I know who feel this way, investigate, and try to keep themselves informed. I value the opinions of the world abroad and believe they are important. We do live in a time of globalization, where our markets, communications, and foreign policies affect more than the citizens at home but the relationships of nations. In regards to this elections, I have never seen so many every day citizens actively motivate others to vote. I know this is a sign of unrest and a desire among people to know the truth and make changes. I hope, I hope, I hope.
The 2008 election effects everyone. I am trying to collect data on what those who cannot vote in the 2008 election would do if the decision were in there hands. The results will be posted late October and we will submit a press release. Please vote at http://www.iwishicouldvote.com and tell anyone else who would be interested.
The Daily Mail is an extremely embittered, angry and frequently irrational publication that preys on people's worst emotions and fears. If it was knocking the BBC it was for the purposes of petty political point scoring (which sells well), although such ignorance of the importance of global public opinion is typical of their ideology and indeed that of their demographic.
I agree with Sinclair's point about the fall of journalism. As with my above point, terrible journalism can be seen the world over but at least in most places there is an alternative.
2 Pingback & Trackback
Leave Comments Below»