American Regression

When we’re not accusing Americans of trying to regiment the entire planet, we’re resenting their disinterest with countries other than their own. It’s inevitable that the biggest economic and military power will exert considerable influence outside their borders, but it’s becoming clear that our neighbors south of the border seem to be less and less interested in carrying the problems of the world on their shoulders.

This jumped right out during the presidential debate — or non-debate — that took place last Monday. Mitt Romney congratulated his opponent several times. It makes sense. When he listened to Obama speak, we often got the impression that he agreed with what the president was accusing him of and that Romney’s responding accusations about Obama’s timing — he should have done this earlier, he should have said that louder — sounded insincere. His tone was a little surprising.

In fact, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama’s thoughts were probably elsewhere. Their speeches were mainly for the potential voters in Ohio and the dozen other states that will determine the election’s outcome on Nov. 6: in other words, those who are worrying about their jobs or purchasing power. The candidates never missed an opportunity to bring the debate back to unemployment and fiscal matters, which prevented the American viewers from getting an actual idea of the United States’ current place in the world. We expected the debate to circle back to those topics, but perhaps not to the extent that it did.

It was made clear that the two candidates have two very different worldviews, especially when it comes to fundamental issues. Moreover, several important points of conflict were not even mentioned in the Monday debate. Some were barely touched upon, such as the Eurozone crisis, climate change and the future of the “petro-monarchies” that will be faced with an imposed democratic order one day.

Despite everything, we are thankful that Barack Obama modestly reappropriated the notion that one must renounce “nation-building” on the other side of the world and, instead, rebuild the American nation, whose foundations are starting to crack.

Previously, Mitt Romney had spoken of helping Arab countries restart their economies. While his intention was noble, the actual current state of public American finances makes it hard to imagine an actual follow through of his updated version of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East and southern Mediterranean.

The polls say it all: Foreign policy remains a serious priority for a mere five percent of voters. Now more than ever, Americans are worried about one thing above all: the economy, the economy and the economy.

The battle for the White House is a close one. The results depend on a dozen swing states, particularly the more populated ones: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia and North Carolina.

More often than not, it is internal politics that dominate electoral campaigns in America. Once elected, the president is usually then forced — due to circumstance — to make external political moves and justify them to the American people. In 2008, we witnessed an inverse of this process: John McCain and Barack Obama focused mainly on foreign policy in their campaigns. Once he was declared the winner, Barack Obama was obligated by the financial crisis to invest his energy into bread and butter issues. This year, Americans are still preoccupied by these kinds of domestic issues, and the Arab Spring or the Iranian centrifuges will not change their minds.