Although I am a Brit with some US connections (my nephews and brother’s family are from Chicago), I take a keen interest in the US presidential elections and especially the Democratic primaries. While I can’t vote and I can’t contribute any money to any political campaigns that doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion, and the last seven or so years have reminded us why we all have an interest in the outcome of the election. Some may presume that outsiders will want a weak, cheese-eating surrender-monkey as president, but I disagree. It is clear to me that the last seven years of total incompetence have been a disaster for the US. When the hub of the empire really believes that they can create their own reality, the correction won’t be long acoming, and better a gentle evolutionary correction from within.
The task that face us all are so vast that we must all meet these challenges and that will mean some extraordinary leadership—and leaders must try to unite all the people they aspire to lead. The only person with the kind of aspiration, vision, intelligence and leadership skills is (in my opinion) Barack Obama. He seems to have the potential to bring the country together, and has given every indication that he will bring the same approach to international relations. With this kind of unity of purpose, pretty much anything is possible.
So I am supporting Barack Obama.
Why would a philosophical website take up any position at all. I don’t subscribe to the view that philosophy can exist in some splendid isolation from the world it seeks to philosophise about–this is a modern delusion. Clearly generalisation and abstraction are valuable and important, but good judgement is required to decide when staying uncommitted on a given issue is going to be productive or counter-productive, and I have judged that I will need to take a position. it is incredibly difficult combine commenting on politics as polarised as this with a neutral position. As I plan to talk about this it is better to make it clear where I stand.