D6

By Kathleen O'Hara
The Issues Network

Stumble Upon

del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Print

Email

2 Comment(s)

LONDON, UK - The election in Canada, a loyal Commonwealth country, inspired hardly a squeak of interest here in the UK, but the political manoeuvrings of America -- that distant, often-unruly, runaway child -- have been an obsession for months.

The ups and downs of the long, drawn-out U.S. campaign -- so different from the style Britons and Canadians are used to -- fostered a kind of media sub-industry.

Popular British TV stars crossed the ocean to provide weekly opinions on U.S. history, geography, and personalities, as polite BBC radio reporters roamed the country, conducting often-bizarre interviews -- with hockey moms in noisy arenas, for example.

When Election Day finally arrived, the only newspaper that dared to resist a headline like "America Decides" was a free tabloid which put Madonna's husband, Guy Ritchie, on the cover, noting he planned to fight the singer to keep their children in England.

Indeed, with all the interest and build-up, we in the UK were relieved to learn that the U.S. polling stations would close early enough in decisive eastern states that we might have some inkling of the outcome by midnight our time -- although I know I wasn't the only one who stayed up until five in the morning to make sure Obama had won and no skulduggery was possible.

(The film "Recount" about the 2004 electoral and legal machinations in Florida was shown on television a few days before the election just to refresh our memories of what could happen.)

As The Day After front page of the Guardian newspaper stated, some of this intense interest stemmed from the similarities between the 2008 U.S. election and that in the UK in 1997. During the latter, the British people were as tired of Thatcherism as Americans were of Bushism.

Unfortunately, however, the British soon learned a nasty lesson. "When Tony Blair was elected, we thought he would rise above the sleaze of the conservative era," a friend told me a few days ago. "But within a year he was involved in the Formula One cigarette advertising scandal, changing policy after a party donation."

My friend seemed almost apologetic, not wanting to destroy the Obama moment.

Perhaps that is why Guardian foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele advised an audience to be sceptical about politics, but not cynical. Obama, he said, had some good ideas -- talking to Iran -- and some bad -- accelerating the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Another reason for the great interest in the U.S. is what Winston Churchill described after the Second World War as the "special relationship" between the Mother Country and her former child. Of course, that relationship has been much derided ever since Blair was considered "Bush's poodle" over the Iraq war and more.

The respected former Labour MP and Cabinet Minister Tony Benn put it this way on Election Eve: "Given that Blair did everything Bush told him to do, will Brown follow Obama?"

With Prime Minister Gordon Brown and New Labour's overall right-wing tilt, I'm willing to bet that many Brits would like their prime minister to follow Obama -- based on what they know of the president-elect so far. Because of his opposition to the war, Obama wouldn't have lied to them about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as New Labour did.

Rather ridiculously, the leaders of both the opposition Tories and the government almost immediately tried to claim ownership of Obama's win. Conservative leader David Cameron announced that Americans had shown they wanted a change in government; Brown said it was obvious that they wanted more progressive, New Labour-style policies.

A radio program hosted by Andrew Marr helped me realize what was partly behind the obsession the UK has for America. One of Marr's guests noted that during the American Revolution 40 per cent of Britons supported the rebels against their own King. These apparently-treasonous citizens then tried to follow and support the "fragile" American experiment with its grand ideals and constitution. (The UK still has no such constitution.)

On the other hand, the Marr discussion also dealt with the tragic dumbing down of American society. This reminded me of an incident I found indicative of the almost unrequited love between mother and rebellious child. When the British writer Alan Bennett's play "The Madness of George III" -- the monarch who "lost" the New World colonies -- was made into a film, it had to be renamed "The Madness of King George." Otherwise, it was feared that Americans, knowing so little about British history, would assume the movie was a sequel.

Let's hope Obama can see beyond his borders and across the Atlantic better than most -- and the UK's American obsession is requited in a positive, non-demeaning way.

* Kathleen O'Hara is a writer with The Issues Network, a collective of Canadian freelance writers.