Elections are a fraught business in many parts of the world. In many of those countries, the American way of choosing a president seems ideal, however imperfect. The electoral machine resembles a classic, Detroit-model limousine: large, showy and expensive, yet robust and broadly predictable.
This year’s race, at the outset, looked set to follow in that vein as a contest between the scions of two storied political dynasties, Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush. Then the upstart billionaire and reality TV star Donald J. Trump thrust himself into the fray, shredding the script, dismissing Mr. Bush and upending most notions of what is possible, or acceptable, in an American political contest.
I have come from my regular base in Cairo to the United States to help with The New York Times’s coverage of the 2016 campaign. You might wonder what I can add, given that I’m Irish and my American colleagues are already producing a stream of illuminating and incisive stories. I hope to supplement that coverage with reporting that responds to the queries of our international readers, and approaches the election — in all its drama, significance and absurdity — in much the same way as we would events abroad.
By submitting to us, you are promising that the content is original, does not plagiarize from anyone or infringe a copyright or trademark, does not violate anyone’s rights and is not libelous or otherwise unlawful or misleading. You are agreeing that we can use your submission in all manner and media of The New York Times and that we shall have the right to authorize third parties to do so. And you agree to our Terms of Service.
The series will be called Abroad in America. This feverish political season has transfixed the world outside America, too. The election’s first act — the primary contests, when the two main parties select their ultimate candidates — attracts an unusual degree of international scrutiny. Violence at rallies, incendiary speeches, race baiting, attacks on journalists and judges, proposals to bar Muslims or Mexicans — the primaries signaled a sudden sea change that left non-Americans watching with fascination, puzzlement and a profound sense of trepidation. For some countries, the changes resonate strongly at home.
Mr. Trump’s success chimes with nationalist surges across Europe and the “Brexit” vote. Disillusionment with traditional elites, hostility toward immigrants and anger among the losers from globalization — all resonate elsewhere. Yet it is odd and disturbing to hear terms like fascism and demagogy, most frequently associated with the European fringe or rickety third-world governments, being used in the context of an American campaign.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is haunted by the high levels of hostility even among many voters on the left. And so the election, which starts in earnest in the coming weeks, is shaping up as a close unpopularity contest: In the latest polls, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton both have 40 percent support. But it is not just about the winner in November.
The process has thrown up urgent new questions — about race, guns and the global economy, among others — as well as anguished soul searching about the very process of selecting a president. Where will the politics of resentment and anger ultimately lead? Does the United States suffer, as one writer suggested, from too much democracy? Could this be an “extinction-level event” for representative government?
My reporting will focus more at ground level. Some of my efforts will be explanatory — unraveling the intricacies and curiosities like the Electoral College, a source of befuddlement to many foreigners (and some Americans). More broadly, though, I hope to turn my focus as a foreign correspondent to deciphering the fears, hopes and motivations that are driving voters of every hue, and will determ ine the most powerful leader on the planet.
My journey will also be driven by you, the readers. I’ll be posting on Twitter and Instagram, and soliciting your questions and concerns. What infuriates, intrigues or mystifies you about the elections? I’ll be starting the journey on Monday at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Please join me on the way.
Mr Walsh dice nella sua lettera delle cose sensate. Il problema è che non è definito in modo chiaro il metodo da usare per valutare luna presidenza. Il giudizio dipende da una molteplicità di di elememti. JFK era un uomo tutt'altro che irreprensibile dal punto di vista morale. Ciò non ha scalfito però il suo mito. Johnson fece molto di altri presidenti per i poveri del suo paese. Il suo nome è legato però alla guerra in Vietnam, allo stesso modo che ìl nome di Nixon continua a essere legato al Watergate e non alla fine della guerra in Vietnam. Famosa è la distinzione weberiana tra etica della responsabilità ed etica della convinzione. Inoltre, non viviamo più nel mondo della guerra fredda dominato da due opposte ideologie.Viviamo nell'era del "pensiero unico" . A fronte della unicità del pensiero dominante. esiste una crescita allarmante del "great divide" esistente fra "haves and have nots". In questa prospettiva, una vittoria di Hillary sarebbe preferibile a una di Trump.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento