The Election of Barack Obama:
One Canadian's (Probably Impolite) View
by Patricia BeurteauxDuring the final weeks of the American election process, Canada also had a federal election — an election of dubious legality in the minds of some; an election considered a waste of money in the minds of most.
It was called by the Prime Minister while Parliament was not in session, and in contravention of legislation the current Prime Minister himself had introduced that called for mandatory federal elections to be held every four years except under very unusual conditions. At the time, the only unusual condition was, and is, the prevailing dislike of the man in question. To ensure his unpopularity, his transparent motive for the election was his desire to possibly squeeze out the votes needed to give his party a majority government.
It didn't happen and we all said 'Tsk' in a disgusted fashion and moved on. Sort of. As I write, the markets are collapsing all around us, emphasising the prodigious waste.
In contrast to the American federal election process that seems to me to go on and on, the Canadian process is relatively rapid, although no less torturous. Our candidates are subject to less personal scrutiny — for example, I have no idea what religion candidates adhere to, if any, and I know nothing about their families — and are not generally particularly colourful, which is as it should be in a country whose ideal is `Peace, Order, and Good Government'. The media up here have a hard time coming up with anything as entertaining as the American media have handed to them. I mean, there must have been a wholesale conversion to a belief in God with the appearance of Sarah Palin. (Probably wrong there since apparently all Americans must be religious — it's always an issue).
I confess that the title of this piece is misleading. I have more than one view about the whole thing. I always have about everything. I lack discipline.
So what are the things that struck me and stayed in my mind throughout the campaigning? And still?
First of all, the choice of candidates was interesting. There were no `establishment figures' — people you would expect to run. Was it because they knew the chalice is poisoned? Are conditions in the US even worse than presented at the time? Looks like it.
And then there wasn't Hillary Clinton. She didn't even get to run for Vice-President. The message I got was `Anyone but a strong woman'. Not a good message and one that lingers. It could be a curse for Obama. If he really wanted to avoid the race card, it would have made a lot of sense to deflect that notion by having a female running mate — two issues dealt with at once, and one who could talk about Issues.
I would have loved to have seen Senator Clinton become the first female President of the US. I think the world would have even more respect for the country if that had happened. She is seen by the rest of us as an experienced, intelligent and resilient politician who has paid her dues. Overlooking her as a candidate and thus depriving the country of her talents in a position of real power was a mistake.
However, since the Republican's message apparently was `any female — who cares', what can I say? No winners on that one.
Not a lot has really changed for women in politics here, either. The three major parties are still boys' clubs, by and large, despite the presence of women in Cabinet and caucuses. You don't see them getting the juicy portfolios.
Moving on, I guess the big issue for Americans is the election of the first African-American President — just as much African as American, in fact. Despite insistence from Barack Obama and others that the issues were what the election was about, the voters weren't listening. In many ways, that's understandable. Issues were pretty well overshadowed by the slogans. `Change We Can Believe In' is something that can mean whatever one needs it to mean.
