Ireland Waits As You Vote

By John Spain  

LAST week it was the half-term break in schools in Ireland, and myself and my young scholars were grabbing some winter sun on the island of Lanzarote, about 70 miles off the west coast of Africa. Around the pool each day, there was only one topic of conversation between the mums and dads, almost all of whom were Irish or British — the American election. 

Back home this past weekend it was the same. The level of interest here in this U.S. presidential election is extraordinary, greater than when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon had their famous TV debate, greater than when Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton were running, greater than in any presidential race in the past. 

And, just as in America, opinion here is so sharply divided between the two camps that TV discussions become so heated they degenerate into shouting matches. It’s been the same in university debates and even in ordinary conversations in pubs. If points were awarded for polarizing people, then George W. Bush would win this contest hands down. 

What you are reading now is being written on Tuesday morning, a few hours before America will wake up and start going out to vote. The polls are so close that even former Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Garret FitzGerald wouldn’t try to predict the outcome. 

A few weeks ago I was saying that George Bush would canter back into the White House. Now I’m not so sure. 

There has been a growing realization here — and I presume also in America — that a change of president is not going to mean a big change in U.S. involvement in Iraq any time soon. Nor is it going to mean a big change in homeland security and how safe Americans feel. 

Which weakens the appeal of Bush, who is very much running on that single issue. And strengthens the case for John Kerry, who has a much more attractive and inclusive platform on many other issues. 

If Kerry can be trusted on Iraq and on security as much as Bush, why not vote for him on the basis of his wider and more sensible platform on all kinds of issues, from taxation to health care to abortion to stem cell research? 

That is why I think that this election became too close to call, particularly in the past two weeks when the gap narrowed towards a dead heat. In spite of all Kerry’s rhetoric, there is actually very little difference between him and Bush on what to do about Iraq. 

Both want to involve the UN and other countries, both want to stabilize the situation to allow elections and establish democracy in the region and both want to get U.S. troops out of there as fast as possible. 

Of course there are differences in the detail, but on the main aims there is little to separate them. And as that realization grew, the gap in support between them narrowed. 

Like many people here I used to think the similarities between the two big parties in America were much more important than their differences. Viewed from this side of the Atlantic, they both seemed close to the center, with one slightly to the left and the other slightly to the right. 

In recent years that has changed. In European terms, both parties are now to the right of center, with the Republicans a little further out than the Democrats. Although even that can be confusing. 

You will remember, for example, that Bill Clinton, for all his folksy charm, ran a careful fiscal regime, keeping a rein on spending and leaving a healthy budgetary situation behind him. 

George W. Bush has cut taxes on the rich, spent money like there’s no tomorrow and now presides over a budget deficit big enough to beggar even somewhere as wealthy as America. Although to be fair, a lot of this money has gone on the war. 

If anything, this election and George W. Bush’s beliefs and policies have widened the gap between the parties as they have divided America. There is now a genuine substantive difference between the two parties, especially on many ethical issues relating to domestic policy. A woman’s right to an abortion is just one example (if Bush is returned and packs his Supreme Court with conservative judges that right could be lost). 

On this and other domestic policy issues, Kerry seems to us on this side of the Atlantic to be a voice for moderation, tolerance and common sense, in comparison with Bush, who frequently comes across as an intolerant fundamentalist with lots of very rich friends. 

Many people here despise Bush and ridicule his incoherence and simplicity. He appears to be a step backwards into a time warp. 

But even those of us who find his domestic policies hard to stomach can still admire the stance he has taken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes the simple approach can be the best. 

There are many people here who applaud the leadership that Bush has shown in the wake of the attack on America, who share his belief that a proactive approach to foreign policy is the only way to confront the threat now facing not just America but all western democracies. 

Whether you were an office worker in the Twin Towers, a commuter on a train in Madrid or a child at a school in Beslan (and there are many other places I could mention), the only question that mattered is the same — who can protect us from the savagery of the fanatics? 

It is also hard not to admire Bush’s willingness to take huge risks to further his vision. Here in Ireland there were those who said that the idea of trying to introduce democracy to Afghanistan was foolish, that the Americans had no appreciation of how the country needed to evolve after the Taliban regime, that the place was a few generations of tribalism away from democratic structures. 

There was not a sound out of these people a couple of weeks back when our TV screens filled with the sight of millions of happy Afghans lining up for hours in the blazing sun to cast their votes. And in spite of the present appalling situation in Iraq, it is possible that the same thing will happen there next year. 

The daily TV diet of carnage from Iraq leaves many people with a sense of hopelessness, both here and in America. But it was not so long ago that the same thing was happening in Northern Ireland, when the mess there seemed incapable of a solution and there was the same sense of despair. 

It is important to remember that the car bombs and ambushes and kidnaps in Iraq are the work of a minority, a significant number of them foreign. The next few months will be extremely difficult for the Americans. But the prize is worth fighting for. 

It is still possible that the people of Iraq, like the people of Afghanistan, will seize the opportunity when they get it and that, in spite of all the doubters and the cynics, democracy will flower there. 

Whatever happens in this week’s U.S. election, Bush can take credit for having the vision to see this possibility before the rest of us. Kerry is unlikely to turn his back on the opportunity, and he is likely to be just as resolute as Bush on home security. 

On balance, although I recognize Bush’s courage and conviction on foreign policy, I would support Kerry for domestic policy reasons. And because he does not come across like a born again revivalist. 

But I don’t have a vote. If you do, hopefully you’ve used it because Ireland, like the rest of the world, is watching.