Where’s the beef?

As a whole both Democrats will ensure a more progressive taxation system, funding proposals by winding back some of the Bush tax cuts enacted for the wealthiest one percent of Americans. McCain will counter by requiring a 3/5 majority for Congress to raise taxes in any form.

Despite significant foreign policy differences, statements of principle from all candidates’ demonstrate that Bush has established himself as a great educator - in the imprudence of unilateral and inflexible international conduct.

All three presidential hopefuls profess a more mature appreciation of the complex and sometimes subtle dimensions of wielding US power effectively. Diplomacy and the renewal of traditional strategic alliances are to be elevated by all in future US foreign relations.

Among unpopular positions that can expect a facelift is environmental policy, with all candidates demanding a leading role for the US in addressing global warming. McCain has a proven record of supporting environmental regulations, while Clinton proposes the creation of an “E-8” international forum comprised of major carbon-emitting nations to complement the G-8.

There is also unanimity between the candidates in rejecting the inconsistencies of the Bush administration in promoting democratic ideals abroad, while at the same time derogating from human rights and the rule of law in conducting the War on Terror.

Where McCain is most acutely distinguished from the Democrats, and Clinton from Obama, is in relation to the ongoing war in Iraq.

McCain supports escalation of the war to secure ultimate victory in a conflict cast as the frontline in the War on Terror. The centre of McCain’s foreign policy is founded in democracy promotion, in a far more tangible way than has been seen under George Bush. McCain believes democracy is the surest way to ensure global security, proposing the establishment of a worldwide League of Democracies, a strategic organisation comprised of democratic nations with the potential to act where the UN fails.

In comparison each Democrat candidate has rejected the strategic relevance of Iraq, which has distracted attention from the real frontline against terrorism in Afghanistan. Specific timetables for troop withdrawal are outlined by both to be implemented immediately if either is elected President. Yet in this war for nomination Obama continues to draw political capital from a record of early and consistent rejection of the war; Clinton in contrast has been forced to perform some explanatory gymnastics to follow her back-flip in initially voting to authorise the war, then refusing to apologise for doing so.

Further potential flashpoints can be gleaned from candidates’ statements on America’s current and future battles to wage. McCain’s ideological bent manifests itself in a hardline stance against Russia’s curtailment of domestic freedoms and its regional antagonism. He argues that Russia should be excluded from the G-8 as a non-democratic state, while Cold War style containment policies through NATO should be re-enlivened.

All candidates emphasise a preparedness to use military power to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran. However both Democrat candidates, particularly Obama, demonstrate a greater willingness to exhaust diplomatic means relative to McCain, who when asked of his intentions at a town hall meeting sang in reply: “bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ “Barbara Ann”.

Nevertheless, those who see Obama as the George McGovern of 2008 (the peacenik candidate who lost to Nixon in 1972), should remember that Obama has signalled a willingness to attack terrorist threats within Pakistan’s borders, even absent the consent of this key ally in the War on Terror.

In terms of their respective policy records, John McCain’s is the most interesting, partly because he has served in the Senate for much longer than Obama or Clinton, and partly because of an unconventional legislative record that has often put him at odds with the Republican Party leadership. He has been a leading advocate of campaign finance reform and of outlawing the use of torture by the US military. He has supported moderate positions on immigration, and in 2006 was one of a very small number of Republicans opposing a Senate bill which aimed to create a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

McCain’s record has a lot of cross over appeal; it also has the potential to alienate voters across the political spectrum because of its contrary elements: he is strongly anti-abortion but at the same time has been critical of the Christian Right leadership within his party.

To conclude, media coverage of the personal dimension in the US election is essential, but incomplete as a portrayal of the basis for selecting a US president. Personality does give form to the presidency: in the formulation of policy, in selling policy, and in determining a president’s success in negotiating the political system to give policy effect. Yet it is ultimately the substance of that policy which will inform understanding of what kind of world will be envisioned by the 44th President of the United States.