Of faith and dreams and fathers; and Iran

In The Independent, Johann Hari provides an interesting way of looking at the Obama-McCain race: an examination of the diverse journeys of their respective fathers, both of whom have had books written about them by their sons. I learned from the article that Niall Ferguson, the Harvard history prof, is McCain's foreign policy adviser. Ferguson is best known as a modern advocate of colonialism: he has long argued that the US should become a new sort of British Empire, invading and reforming the savages wherever they live in the world. Ferguson's arguments found scant support in Britain, but he has made quite a name for himself across the Atlantic; his other pet scheme is the abolition of all existing taxes and their replacement with a 33% sales tax (Huckabee-style economics). It should be admitted that Ferguson has written some fine books and is by no means not respected within the academy. He is also a champion of counterfactual history.

***********************************************************************

John McCain's expected and deeply disingenuous ploy of making Obama appear to be "soft" on Iran has led the Democractic nominee appear more hawkish on the issue. This might worry some who, like me, find Obama's foreign policy ideas to be his most appealing. But it ought not to truly detract from his world standing, for it is surely not hard to understand the pressures that he is under. McCain is clearly a man with little understanding of economics and no new or interesting policy ideas. He thus has to rely on the national security card to win votes, especially in states like Ohio and Michigan where his best economic ideals (his belief in free trade) do not go down well with voters. It is thus necessary for Obama to counter this move by seeming like something of a hardliner himself. If he manages to find a way of appearing both strong to the American people, who always seem to need an "enemy", usually a fictitious one, and at the same time maintain his commitment to negotiation and intelligent diplomacy, it will be a supreme balancing act. Even if he does not strike this balance during the campaign, and errs on the side of hawkishness, there is no cause for us to think that he would be a hawk as President.