Salocin

Election Over. Now What?

Ok, so here it is in black and white: I wanted John Kerry to win. I was not fanatical about it, but I was surprised at the strength of my disappointment when I heard that George Bush had almost certainly clinched it. I saw Kerry's concession speech as I wandered through Heathrow airport towards my gate, and sat in the plane trying to figure out why this bothered me so much. What expectations had been overturned that affected me so deeply?

It's only after the storm is over (and all the pundits have stopped the ridiculous pejorative and exaggerated verbal crossfire that clouds elections so much) that we have a little calm in which to reflect, and thinking on the election after the fact, I came to the conclusion that my disappointment really wasn't about any of the issues that had been so hotly debated for the past few months.

Had Kerry won, I would have expected four years of reconciliation between Europe and the US. It wouldn't have mattered that the policies didn't change that much, the tone of much of what has happened, and the fallout from it, is such that parties in Europe would have made the effort at reconciliation with Kerry almost regardless of his actions, provided his words were soothing. It is much harder to envisage reconciliation with Bush as a consequence of the fact that, at least from my point of view, there is an overwhelming disdain for many European countries from the point of view of the Bush administration and it's supporters. It is this sense of being looked-down-upon by the other side of the Atlantic that so piques French, German, Spanish (e.t.c.) pride - and this, on a gut level, is understandable.

Even if Bush wants to build bridges at this point, it is very hard for those bridges to be accepted on this side of the Atlantic because they are being built by the same administration that (from their point of view) marginalised them in the UN by over-ruling the desires of the majority of the votes in that house. On this side of the Atlantic, many people blame the US for the weakness of the UN, because the US is perceived to have undermined it by working around it and by so visibly disdaining it. This same administration referred to certain countries as "Old Europe", taking the historical origins that these countries are rightly proud of, and ridiculing them. It's not just Bush, it's Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney too.

If the next four years are characterised by the same approach from the US, then the wounds caused in the transatlatic relationship may end up being so deep that the scars will be felt for ever more.

Bush has won. Both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Putting aside the division in the US that split the country deeply along partisan lines (for that is a uniquely US problem that isn't relevant to this argument), I can only wish them the wisdom, strength, honour, generosity, kindness, moderation and depth that will make their administration great. A great US administration, and the things it can achieve, can be transformational in a wonderful way for the world as a whole. But sometimes, a President who is great for the US, is not necessarily great for the world, and as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, he has he has power over us all, and a duty to us all.