After a couple of years of political transition that have seen Europe's own warmongers/Bush poodles (Tony Blair, Silvio Berlusconi) and corrupt leaders (Jacques Chirac) retiring or kicked out of office, there is eager anticipation for the departure of George W. Bush. That he may be replaced by a Clinton (and a woman and that), or an African-American, or the former mayor of New York adds to the curiosity.
Then he goes on to write that the Europeans are somewhat astonished that in the 21st century America seems to be adopting a medieval European line of succession in nominating our presidents:
The affection many Europeans still hold for Bill Clinton doesn't precisely translate to Hillary, although it doesn't appear to be anything personal: it's more astonishment that the 21st Century United States may be in the process of adopting a medieval European line of succession. This is understandably strange to a people who managed about a century ago to root out all political power from their own royal families, and to generally pick leaders with working or middle-class backgrounds. In the meanwhile, Americans' recent nominations for president have included the son of a former president (Bush), the son of a former senator (Al Gore) and a descendant of one of the country's wealthiest families, married to a billionaire (John Kerry).
Based on what goes on in Europe with their own Ethnic minority communities being completely shut out from the political process and America's own history of racism, it's hard for him to imagine America will pick an African American. Sad but true:
Conversely, after decades of being taught from the youngest age about American racism, many Europeans find it hard to believe that an African-American candidate has a good shot at the Democratic nomination and the presidency. This may, in fact, have more to do with what they see in their own backyards: countries with sizable ethnic minorities of African or Asian descent nearly completely shut out of the political and electoral process. The prospect of an ethnically Arab French president or of a German foreign minister of Turkish descent would currently be laughable, in a sad kind of way. And so the fact that a man named Obama is a contender in America is still hard for many in Europe to fathom.
And about Rudy Giuliani and religion in American politics he writes:
For all his international fame, Giuliani is the subject of a refreshingly accurate assessment by a number of Europeans: while in the US outside of New York, he is credited with having saved the city from its criminal underclass and 9/11 terrorists, in Europe he is as likely to be seen as the petty, brutal dictator that he was (in one not particularly liberal Brit's words: "he's the guy who hated black people, right?"). Why this would qualify him for the presidency is as much a question mark for Europeans as it is for New Yorkers.
An anecdotal survey on the ground in Europe reveals other aspects of the US presidential campaign that are more baffling than the selection process itself. The focus on religion in US elections is always intriguing to European voters, but this round has included debates about whether Mormons are devil-worshippers, the Bible should be taken literally and evolution is a fact. These are not normally topics that, say, Germans expect their potential chancellors to address. That said, religion has not been completely excluded from European campaigns: a debate about Muslim girls' and women's wearing of headscarves has featured in elections in France and the UK, among others
There you have it, a European view of our celebrity candidates and our political process. You can read the rest of the article he goes on to comment about other issues we seem to be focused on here in the US. He basically ends by hoping we put some thought into electing our next president, basically we need to look past the entertainment value and pick someone that's competent and capable of dealing with issues the world faces.
