I am in the somewhat unusual position of having a potential right to a vote in the U.S. Presidential election which I have not taken up. In 1934, as a move towards gender equality, President Roosevelt gave American women the right to retain their citizenship if they married a foreigner. My mother had married an Englishman in 1920, had forfeited her citizenship and was in due course able to regain it. In 1978, she died as a dual citizen of the United States and the United Kingdom; in her later years she used to travel to the United States on her American passport.
In 1981 I discussed with the U.S. Embassy in London my own possible citizenship. A consular official very kindly explained to me that the citizenship was not retrospectively available to children born before 1934. “If you were born after 1934, or were illegitimate, you would be entitled to American citizenship.” In 1992 Congress passed a citizenship law which rectified this, but I did not come to hear of it until a year or two ago. I have not taken up the offer so far, though I probably would have done so if I had been working in America. However, it has given me a somewhat different view of the Presidential race. If I had chosen to take up my right, I could be a voter.
In fact, I still take an Anglo-American point of view. I have considerable admiration for both the candidates, or assumed candidates. I have met Senator McCain and was much taken by his personal courage and independence of mind. I would certainly have liked him to have been the Republican candidate in the 2000 election. I think he would have been a better President than George Bush, with a much greater understanding of the intricate world in which Bush has been an awkward and naïve President, though successful at achieving re-election. I am older than Senator McCain, and have been writing about Presidents since the late Truman years, in one place or another. I regard Senator McCain as a very promising young man, and would be more than happy to see him elected President. Indeed I would probably vote for him, if I had claimed my vote, if only out of loyalty to our generation. He has the advantage – and the handicap – of experience of the world of power.
Yet I see great advantages in Senator Obama. In terms of experience of international affairs he obviously ranks below John McCain. But that may be an advantage in its own way. He was still a student when the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War came to an end. But that means that he is relatively free of the Cold War assumptions. The dynastic period of U.S. politics, Bush – Clinton – Clinton – Bush – Bush has a consistency of outlook which stretches from 1988 to 2008 – a period of twenty years. The Democratic primaries have only narrowly rejected a continuation of the dynastic period which has severed this continuity. Senator McCain offers new thought, new policy, because he is an independent minded man. Senator Obama offers it partly because he is outside the establishment because of his race, and partly because he is a generation younger. He would not want to be an imperial President, because he has not the same historic experience as the dynastic Presidents.
At all events, I am proud of my potential citizenship even if I have not adopted it. The American system has produced two admirable candidates – the strongest pair since Adlai Stevenson ran against President Eisenhower in the 1950s.
William Rees-Mogg
The Daily Reckoning Australia
P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.
Related Articles:
- Barack Obama is a Strong Favourite to Win the Presidency
- President Barack Obama and Franklin Roosevelt Are Becoming Akin
- Statistically One Vote Doesn’t Make Any Difference
- Politics and Investment Intertwined
- The Real Beauty of Modern Democratic Capitalism
About the Author
Leading political editor William Rees-Mogg is former editor-in-chief for The Times and a member of the House of Lords. He has been credited with accurately forecasting glasnost and the fall of the Berlin Wall – as well as the 1987 crash. His political commentary appears in The Times every Monday. His financial insights can only be found in the Fleet Street Letter, the UK's longest-running investment newsletter.
Comment by Brian on 1 June 2008:
The real beauty of what America is all about is their constitution and bill of rights, which extol small non-oppressive government and preservation of individuals' rights. However, all three presidential candidates mentioned in this article and hyped by the mainstream media are the antithesis of this. By definition, they are all socialists. Ron Paul is the only real option, and the only one who does not speak mumbo-jumbo. see http://www.ronpaul2008.com
Comment by David on 2 June 2008:
The author mentions that he "see[s] great advantages in Senator Obama". The American public, in contrast to the Press, see little advantage in Sen. Obama, nor in the other two Senators. In this area of Florida there is little enthusiasm for any one of these pretenders. This election may have the lowest turnout in years.The choices this election are between bad and worse.
Comment by Clive on 2 June 2008:
Ron Paul is the only option, I agree with Brian.
Its a crime that the The (Free) Media wont even tell people that there is a fourth candidate, I trully wonder how many people even know Ron Paul even exists let alone is in the running for President.
Comment by mike on 2 June 2008:
Lord Rees-Mogg writes "I am in the somewhat unusual position of having a potential right to a vote in the U.S. Presidential election which I have not taken up" ...hmmm...maybe congress could be persuaded to pass another law which would enable people in this situation to sell their option to vote in the next presidential election to the highest bidder....yes...all 300 million or so ....who knows....many bills passed in the legislatures of the highest regard are an attempt at this sort of thing already...you know....we'll pass the farm bill if it includes the cannibal clause...it may sound wrong and evil but it's the right and good thing to do because it's balanced, inclusive, lucrative...and will bring democracy to the world.....astutue americans can do this already by pledging their own vote on e-bay to of course...the highest bidder...
Comment by Greg on 3 June 2008:
William Rees-Mogg has lost it, and senility seems to be setting in. Every time that I think that the US President could not get any worse, both the Republicans and Democrats manage to nominate candidates to prove me wrong. Surely thay can never choose anybody worse than Clinton, Obama or McCain?
Ron Paul was the only candidate worth voting for from the major parties. In his absence, Bob Barr the Libertarian candidate or Chuck Baldwin from the Constitution Party are the best options.