By Matthew Smolak


Car crashes are interesting things. Generally, you just can’t help but gawk, with wide-eyed anticipation, awe and simultaneous disgust. Likewise with the 2004 Presidential race. Even Canadians*, express interest in the race, and why not?

Firstly, it is mildly amusing. It may be clichéd to make comparisons to car wrecks, but it is like watching Tweedledee darting around in one car and Tweedledum ambling about in another (you decide which is who). On a more important, realist note, the leader of the free world is about to be determined. From a more sarcastic perspective, as a Canadian, living in a country that is slowly losing and giving up its sovereignty to the US, I have an increasing stake or at least concern in who runs the country that bosses my country around.

Soon Canadians will sort of be like Puerto Ricans: honorary citizens who can’t vote for president. Lastly, as a connoisseur of politics, it is reassuring to watch American elections because just when I think our own (Canadian) elections have hit the bottom of the pool, I can look south of the border and be amazed that there is still a ways sink.

For examples one can look at the odd inconsistencies in voting methods and procedures, the room for influence and intimidation in the process and even the campaigning itself. In fact, we have a phrase in Canada to describe distasteful and nasty electioneering: we call it “American-style” campaigning.

So, despite all the chafe cluttering the mill of public discourse, many Canadians, including myself, take an interest in the presidential election. Once again, as I survey the spectacle, I find myself swelling with pity for American voters. The choice is split, as always, between the two major players. On one hand there is the gun-toting, prophecy-spouting incumbent. On the other is the head-in-the-clouds fancy-pants challenger.

George “Dubya” Bush is scary, in part because he is in power and in part because he is not. The people that surround him and “advise” him and the social circles that he turns in have an influence on power that is not in the public interest, as I see it. From allegations of the bin Laden/Bush family connections to the buddy-buddy nature of Bush’s relations with energy companies, these folks must certainly influence his decisions.

So, when it comes to getting justice after corporations breach public trust a public scapegoat is whipped up. Rather than a very public thrashing of, say, folks associated with Enron, who are also associated with Bush and company, the government beat on Martha Stewart, who is not associated with Bush and company. To make matters worse, Stewart is an uppity, independent woman, who was bashed for a relatively minor crime, compared to what Enron got away with.

While he has managed to spawn a new hobby among collectors (the collection of Bush-isms), I doubt Dubya has developed a keen grasp of the complex web of issues facing the US or the world. Hell, does he even have a dull grasp? When he first ran for office and for the year after he won, any time it came to Canadian relations, Bush would refer to “the Canadians”, but never to “Canada.” I think it was because in his rehearsals, he would screw up and say “Canadia”, a country sitting in between Canada and utopia.

I still don’t think he really knows what country lies north of him and his handlers decided it was better that until he figured it out, it was better that he always refer to “the Canadians” than embarrass himself by referring to the non-existent “Canadia,” but maybe it doesn’t matter anyway.

Thinking back to Bush’s performance in the previous election, I still can’t believe the guy was elected (though in our office pool at the time, I came closest to predicting the Bush victory, coming within one electoral vote. Unfortunately we were playing by Price Is Right rules. I was one vote over and lost the pool.).

Now what about the well-coifed white knight, John Kerry? He is much better in many ways. He is sophisticated and seems to understand that answers are not black and white and can’t be answered by deferring to the Good Book or directly to Him. He has compassion. He has shown honour by serving his country admirably, but he has shown that he hasn’t been willing to accept, hook line and sinker all the decisions of the military and the government.

But he has also shown that he is willing to say and do almost anything and, more importantly, not say and do anything, to remain attractive to as many voters as possible. While Bush may scare a lot of people and stand for things they do not support, at least you know that. The problem with Kerry is that, like a coin, you don’t know which side is going to flip up on any particular issue. He is adept at the new school of politics that subscribes wholly to pragmatism and opportunism.

An idealist who is not attracted to either candidate for the two traditional parties might hope that a solution can be found in Ralph Nader. Like Kerry, Nader inhabits a different end of the political spectrum than Bush. Unlike Kerry, Nader is relatively clear where he stands on issues. Unfortunately, Nader may be too far left for many. Worse yet, Nader’s inclusion in the race, and Ross Perot before him, leads to the phenomena of vote splitting and strategic voting (previously discussed more specifically here at Inversion).

Someone might like Nader, but really hates Bush and therefore they vote for Kerry because Kerry has the best chance of winning, denying themselves and Nader of the indulgence of their true voting desire. At the same time, someone else who also does not want Bush for President and likes Nader, and votes for Nader, takes enough votes away from Kerry that Bush still wins.

Confusing, eh? It’s like a high stakes Survivor or Big Brother, except it really matters. In the end, though, the traditional two-party system reasserts its dominance in the US. Here in Canada, vote splitting and strategic voting have been a common feature of national and provincial politics for several decades and is something we’ve gotten used to.

Despite the quashing of any divergent voices, the two-party system has its benefits. Namely, it provides a clear and easy choice. Freedom really can be slavery and people can be overwhelmed by a multiplicity of options. If Nader weren’t around, the choice would be pretty easy for left/centre voters.

With more than two choices, after much angst and strategizing, a person finally casts a ballot, placing hope on all kinds of factors beyond their control. With two choices, its either Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Maybe if you’re lucky, it’s Tweedledee and Tweedle-not-so-dum. Maybe. I don’t want to pass judgment, though, on whether it is better to have only two major candidates or whether it is worthwhile to have other strong candidates for president, too.

The importance of the election of the President cannot be understated. The President can set the tone for the nation and can even set the agenda for everything from social and economic policy to military involvement – and not just for the US, but for nations around the world. US foreign policy, whether related to trade or war (often the same thing), is highly relevant for other nations, particularly if you are part of the axis of evil or a runner up somewhere on the “To Smite” list.

But US action affects other nations in other ways. US economic policy has a profound effect, for example, on Canadian economics. Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau characterized Canada’s relationship with the US as being a mouse in bed with an elephant and suggested that when the elephant sneezes, the mouse gets a cold. Or, keeping in touch with the car crash metaphor, when the US swerves, other countries can get side-swiped, rear-ended or t-boned—especially Canada, which just cruises along beside the US.

So, should Americans care that others care about their choice for president this fall? Well, maybe a little, only in as much as a person should try to be aware of what others think. Ultimately, individuals have to decide for themselves how much they want to hear from others and upon what criteria they will make their choice. However, be aware that it is the importance of the president and the strength of the US that explains why other countries are often keenly watching the spectacle unfold and are so ready to offer opinions on the president.

God save America (and Canada, too!), and may the best Tweedle win.

* Definition (just in case President George Bush is reading): Canadian – a resident of Canada, the country north of the US.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------