The Tribune

Peter Young argues that saturation coverage of the race to the White House is justified for a nation founded on rebellion.

As a Briton accustomed to periods of electioneering measured in weeks rather than months, the current race for the American presidency is nothing short of extraordinary. The struggle to win each political party’s nomination has been in full swing since the middle of last year and the general election is not until November.

National media coverage of the long-drawn-out contest to choose the Democrat and Republican candidates is relentless and almost oppressive to the extent that news of the outside world, or even reporting of domestic affairs, seems increasingly to be put on the back burner. Now, as the plot thickens following “Super Tuesday” and with the direct battle between the chosen candidates still to come in the Fall, this media intensity will only grow.

The television coverage is both fascinating and mesmerising. One is able to watch an intriguing battle being played out blow-by-blow for the top job of the leader of the free world while, at the same time, the painstaking analysis of the minutest detail, with endless repeats of every sound bite and film clip, is mind-boggling.

Not only are the backgrounds, characters and utterances - every remark and tweet, it seems - of the contenders under merciless scrutiny, but the viewer is exposed to commentary by political party strategists and analysts whose often conflicting interpretations and insights can become overwhelming. Meanwhile, the polls, produced daily and by many different bodies, can vary considerably but are relied on heavily as indicators of what is to come.

This massive media coverage is clearly justified since it makes compelling viewing and produces impressive TV ratings. But what precipitates this obsession with the US political process and is it more pronounced than in previous electoral cycles?

Does it perhaps derive from America’s deep-rooted libertarianism and commitment to individual freedom so that most people are keenly interested in their political leaders to whom a great deal of power is given? Or, more specifically, is it that this time around there has been a breakdown of public trust and disenchantment with the political class so that the American people are turning on their own government and want real change?

The evidence indicates that people are indeed both fed up and angry with the traditional party organisations, with the influence and special interests of major donors and, more widely, with the Washington establishment; and this is reflected in the success so far of the so-called outsiders which, some now say, amounts to a political revolution.

The nation was founded on rebellion against government and taxation from afar so the importance of constraining the power of a future government was recognised from the outset by the framers of the Constitution. It follows that the choice of political representatives is crucial.

Nonetheless, even though the presidential candidates are regularly questioned about foreign affairs issues, concentration on this election at the expense of news about other countries seems to ignore the significance of the US’ widespread involvement and influence at the international level.

By any standards, the American story has been a huge success. A land of immigrants, seeking relief from oppression or simply a new life of opportunity and freedom, and blessed with huge natural resources, it soon overtook other countries economically - and during the last century America has made an immense contribution to the rest of the world.

A traditional policy of isolationism prevented it from entering the First World War until late in the day in 1917. Similarly, President Roosevelt resisted calls for help from beleaguered British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the face of Hitler’s march across Europe with the result that America only became seriously involved in World War Two following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.

After that, there was no looking back - the defeat of Nazi Germany, followed by a massive aid programme (the Marshall Plan) to rebuild Europe, and of Japanese militarism; the containment of communism in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe resulting in its collapse; and a commitment to capitalism which ensured a largely free market global economic system.

Given its size, economic power and influence, and in its own interests, the US has to be engaged diplomatically, militarily and economically with the rest of the world: investment and trade (for example, most recently, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership known as TTIP ) together with contributions to regional co-operation such as NATO for the defence of Europe and, currently, pressure on Russia over Ukraine as well as action to end the conflict in Syria and to defeat ISIS. All the while, too, the US maintains a permanent military presence around the world - not only in the Middle East but in places as varied as Japan, Korea, Germany and Britain.

Despite all this, or perhaps because of it, the US’ image overseas remains tainted. In 1958, the bestselling novel, ‘The Ugly American’, portrayed Americans abroad as loud, ostentatious and likely to indulge in boorish behaviour and disrespect for local people and customs - the book was said to have helped to spawn President Kennedy’s Peace Corps project.

Viewed by Iran, until the recent nuclear deal, as the ‘Great Satan’, America is still widely resented for its arrogance and interference in other countries’ affairs and for riding roughshod over so many of them. It is also seen by foreigners as a flawed nation of racial tensions and riots, assault rifles and lack of gun control, crumbling inner cities, poverty and income inequality, trigger-happy police, and the worst manifestation of the excesses of capitalism.

To the regular visitor, however, and to those who know the country well, this public image stems from ignorance and jealousy so that the US has a far worse reputation abroad than it deserves; and part of it can be attributed to the openness of life in this showcase of democracy when every happening, good or bad, is splashed over the international (and social) media.

Furthermore, as individuals at a personal level, Americans tend to be friendly, forthcoming, kind and generous - and, as an exchange student many years ago at a boarding school in Massachusetts, I myself can strongly endorse that.

On the whole, the majority still enjoys a relative level of economic security in a well ordered society which is the envy of much of the rest of the world. Moreover, people are optimistic and outgoing in a way that puts to shame so many Europeans with reactionary and cynical attitudes.

Given the serious terrorist threat, it is not surprising that voters in the run-up to this presidential election are worried, in particular, about national security as well as immigration. They are also concerned about the economy and, reportedly, a nationwide deteriorating infrastructure, a glaring current example of which is the water system crisis in Flint, Michigan - a situation more typical of a third world country.

In perilous times, and with a widespread feeling that the country has lost its way, they are looking for a strong leader who can both protect the nation and get things done in order to restore it to its former glory.

In these circumstances, is it any wonder that Americans are obsessed with the process of choosing that leader for the next four years and perhaps beyond. This is not just because of the need to elect someone who can run the country properly and is capable of being the commander in chief but also who can be trusted not to abuse the enormous power of a US president - someone who will govern in a manner that protects the interests of all Americans and not exceed the authority of the office, which President Obama has been criticised of doing by his use of executive orders to bypass the elected US Congress.

Meanwhile, friends and admirers of America will continue to be fascinated and mesmerised by the wall-to-wall television and other media coverage of this compelling saga of the race to the White House as it unfolds daily.

But, in practice, domestic TV audiences need not be overly concerned about the dearth of foreign news. Life outside the US goes on and, if they want to know what is happening elsewhere, they can do no better than tune in to the BBC whose mantra remains ‘there are many sides to every story and we report them all’.

• Peter Young is a retired British diplomat living in Nassau. From 1996 to 2000 he was British High Commissioner to The Bahamas.