---

The most fascinating aspect of the US Presidential electing process is that the U.S. President - even in this twenty-first century - operates with many of the same powers once held by King George lll two hundred and forty years ago in 1768.

     Back then, King George lll could interfere directly in the actions of Britain's elected House of Commons. Today's U.S. President, quite unlike Britain's Queen Elizabeth ll, is still able to veto some of the actions of the properly elected U.S. Congress and Senate. A U.S. President can also dispatch thousands of troops to a war that he selects with far greater ease than Queen Elizabeth can move even one red-coated Guardsman who is on duty at Buckingham Palace.

      But there's another dimension - one that I've slowly come to appreciate. As I watch this McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden race unfold, I've begun to recognize that when electing a President, the citizens of America are really electing someone to fill the old national role that King George lll once held for the American colony; and that Queen Elizabeth ll still holds for the U.K.

      What I appreciate is that while the ordinary U.S. citizen may be deeply concerned about the particular policy matters that a local mayor or state congressman may espouse; that same citizen is probably more concerned about the image of a President. I reckon that the whole mix of motives that cause a voter to sway towards one and away from the other has much more to do with emotion and the national image than with any particular policy.

      If this Presidential race was purely issues-driven, I would find it difficult - perhaps impossible - to explain why McCain chose Palin as late as he did; and why Hillary and Barack didn't earlier join up and create an unbeatable 'dream team'.  The fact that the process isn't issues-driven, but instead is forced along by national emotions that often seem disconnected from issues, makes me feel, even more strongly, that it is a 'king' making process.  

Local interests

The fact that a Presidential candidate actually campaigns across all 50 states and the whole of the U.SA.'s 300,000,000 population, means that he (or she) cannot personally represent any reasonable constituency. In Canada (and in the U.K., in India, and in many other democracies) each constituency consists of about 20-40,000 persons who all live in a finite and relatively small geographic area. This grouping of voters elects one person who will represent their local interests on the national plane.

      But a U.S Presidential candidate - like the U.S President - is trying to represent the interests of a group of voters spread over a constituency that is ten thousand times larger, covering a geographic area stretching from the hurricane buffeted tropics of Florida to the blizzard affected tundra of Alaska.

      All of that, and more, coupled with the style and aura that ordinary U.S. citizens attach to their President, convinces me that though he (she) may be called 'President', in the minds of all U.S. citizenry, that person is really thought of as a kind of 'king' or 'queen'. When I work through the many shifts and changes in presidential campaigns, I find them far easier to understand if I put them in this context.

     I find that Obama's rhetoric and appeals to emotion are appropriate. I find that McCain's selection of a relatively unknown woman is exactly right. I find the highly stylized and completely theatrical TV 'debates' are excellent mechanisms for each person to show his (her) regal qualities. The breathless media hype is just about showing each candidate as a political aristocrat worthy of a crown. The investigative search for a candidate without personal blemishes is akin to a fairytale Prince's search for a 'fair maiden'.

I reckon that I now have a better understanding of all the hoorah and hoopla surrounding this 2008 U.S. election. The process elects a modern replacement for mad King George lll, and then places the kingly powers once held by King George into the hands of a person now referred to as 'President'. I suspect that, in the mind of almost every American voter, there is a little nugget of emotion that is secretly electing a 'king' who will reign for precisely four years.

    For 2008, I hope they make Obama 'king'. But, much more importantly, I hope that this time around, the U.S. citizens and systems responsible for vote-counting, actually do count ALL the votes. In Bush/Gore 2000, they didn't.

What do you think? What would be in Bermuda's best interests - Obama or McCain as U.S. President? E-mail editor Tony McWilliam: tmcwilliam@

bermudasun.bm[[In-content Ad]]

---