Commentary about the upcoming US presidential election is doubtlessly getting media coverage outside America, but the consensus seems to be that, certainly in Europe, this election hasn't garnered the same interest as in the past.
"At the same time, this election has received less serious coverage abroad than any I can ever remember. Foreigners were intrigued by Bill Clinton, and indulgent of his peccadilloes. Every word that George W. Bush uttered on the campaign trail was repeated with fascinated horror. Barack Obama’s biography was discussed in lavish detail all through 2008, along with the inevitable question, “Will Americans vote for a black man?” (I told them we would; they didn’t believe me.)
This time around things are different. Until recently, Romney largely functioned in the British media as the punch line for jokes, thanks to his ill-favored visit during last summer’s Olympics. Only lately has anyone begun to grapple with the amazing fact that he might become president—though the possibility that Obama might lose isn’t causing a lot of heartbreak. Although he remains the favored candidate in most of the world—Europeans prefer the current president in ranges of 60 to 70 percent—no one lost a lot of sleep over his poor performance in the first debate.
There are multiple reasons for this indifference, starting with the fact that no one believes, as many once did, that an American president can solve all of their problems. Neither Obama nor Romney would be in a position to do much about the euro crisis. Neither could create effective governments in Egypt or Libya. Neither can render Russia less corrupt or China less nepotistic. The myth of America as an all-seeing, all-knowing superpower does persist in a few places—ironically, one hears it most often in the Arab world—but most everywhere else it’s long gone.
Perhaps outsiders have also begun to understand something that not all Americans yet realize: The American president is also limited in his ability to shape events in his own country. One wouldn’t know that from listening to the campaigns: It’s always in the incumbent’s interest to take credit for everything good in the world—and in the challenger’s interest to blame him for everything bad. As a result of this kind of talk, the American president—any American president—is nowadays held personally responsible for everything from oil spills to the security of consulates. Though they like to think otherwise, many Americans have lately come to expect far more of their government than they once did, and some of those expectations now rest on the White House."
"At the same time, this election has received less serious coverage abroad than any I can ever remember. Foreigners were intrigued by Bill Clinton, and indulgent of his peccadilloes. Every word that George W. Bush uttered on the campaign trail was repeated with fascinated horror. Barack Obama’s biography was discussed in lavish detail all through 2008, along with the inevitable question, “Will Americans vote for a black man?” (I told them we would; they didn’t believe me.)
This time around things are different. Until recently, Romney largely functioned in the British media as the punch line for jokes, thanks to his ill-favored visit during last summer’s Olympics. Only lately has anyone begun to grapple with the amazing fact that he might become president—though the possibility that Obama might lose isn’t causing a lot of heartbreak. Although he remains the favored candidate in most of the world—Europeans prefer the current president in ranges of 60 to 70 percent—no one lost a lot of sleep over his poor performance in the first debate.
There are multiple reasons for this indifference, starting with the fact that no one believes, as many once did, that an American president can solve all of their problems. Neither Obama nor Romney would be in a position to do much about the euro crisis. Neither could create effective governments in Egypt or Libya. Neither can render Russia less corrupt or China less nepotistic. The myth of America as an all-seeing, all-knowing superpower does persist in a few places—ironically, one hears it most often in the Arab world—but most everywhere else it’s long gone.
Perhaps outsiders have also begun to understand something that not all Americans yet realize: The American president is also limited in his ability to shape events in his own country. One wouldn’t know that from listening to the campaigns: It’s always in the incumbent’s interest to take credit for everything good in the world—and in the challenger’s interest to blame him for everything bad. As a result of this kind of talk, the American president—any American president—is nowadays held personally responsible for everything from oil spills to the security of consulates. Though they like to think otherwise, many Americans have lately come to expect far more of their government than they once did, and some of those expectations now rest on the White House."
Comments