4 ms·

I remember when Obama when to the UK to voice his support for Macron in the UK elections. Does that not count as a USA-sponsored ad? Because it sure has the sam

I remember when Obama when to the UK to voice his support for Macron in the UK elections. Does that not count as a USA-sponsored ad? Because it sure has the same effect and intention as one. Why the double standard?

detaro 9y ago
It's at least transparent. If a foreign politician publicly supports a candidate in my country, I have a better idea about what the motivations are, and can evaluate it appropriately (which might be negative, if I think my future government shouldn't be so friendly with them) (Given the levels of ad targeting possible, this also is a possible argument against domestic targeted election ads)
danans 9y ago
Macron was centrist the candidate in France, not the UK. But otherwise, there is a double standard. However, your Obama anecdote doesn't demonstrate the double standard at all. Obama was being totally transparent in his support of a candidate in a foreign election. There was no attempt to disguise his intent to influence the election. It was a straightforward endorsement. A better example of the double standard would be ignoring the US-backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the best known of the many instances of the US covertly influencing the political process in other countries. That a country that the US has been a traditional adversary of tried to influence US affairs isn't really that surprising. That the attempt has been brushed off or even welcomed in some sections of US society is perhaps the novel part.
dragonwriter 9y ago
There is a world of difference between overt preference of the kind you describe (though the specific example is clearly false, since Macron was never a UK candidate) and covert influence masked as grassroots domestic groups.
Muli22 9y ago
Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today. They just didn't think the other side can play the same game. Which goes - Tell people what they want to hear and whoever gets the most attention wins. Every politician whether they were tech literate or not got on Facebook and Twitter after Obama won. Facebook has enabled the propping up of unqualified to govern but qualified to be "like"d candidates all around the world. They have done serious damage to society in the last 10 years and we are just getting started as people realize the damage.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today. Barack Obama had been in electoral politics, as first a state and then US senator, for just over a decade before being elected President, and had been widely hailed as an up and coming star in the party and likely future Presidential candidate after his national convention speech when running for the US Senate. He was not at all an “overnight political success”.
  - zghst 9y ago
    I believe the commenter refers to “overnight” as representative of his transformation into a wide national figure, amplified by the explosion of technology during his tenure.
  - slamdance 9y ago
    so - he was a state senator for less than 4 years (Less than one full term) before being elected president. I would say that's "overnight" as far as politics go - considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      He was a state senator for a full term, and a US Senator for a partial term (and very active as a political, if not elected, figure before that, which is what being a “community organizer” is.) > considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle. Sure, by that standard anyone who succeeds does so meteorically, since only a handful do per generation, while many spend whole careers in politics. But that just means the standard is nonsense.

detaro 9y ago

It's at least transparent. If a foreign politician publicly supports a candidate in my country, I have a better idea about what the motivations are, and can evaluate it appropriately (which might be negative, if I think my future government shouldn't be so friendly with them) (Given the levels of ad targeting possible, this also is a possible argument against domestic targeted election ads)

danans 9y ago

Macron was centrist the candidate in France, not the UK. But otherwise, there is a double standard. However, your Obama anecdote doesn't demonstrate the double standard at all. Obama was being totally transparent in his support of a candidate in a foreign election. There was no attempt to disguise his intent to influence the election. It was a straightforward endorsement. A better example of the double standard would be ignoring the US-backed overthrow of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the best known of the many instances of the US covertly influencing the political process in other countries. That a country that the US has been a traditional adversary of tried to influence US affairs isn't really that surprising. That the attempt has been brushed off or even welcomed in some sections of US society is perhaps the novel part.

dragonwriter 9y ago

There is a world of difference between overt preference of the kind you describe (though the specific example is clearly false, since Macron was never a UK candidate) and covert influence masked as grassroots domestic groups.

Muli22 9y ago

Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today. They just didn't think the other side can play the same game. Which goes - Tell people what they want to hear and whoever gets the most attention wins. Every politician whether they were tech literate or not got on Facebook and Twitter after Obama won. Facebook has enabled the propping up of unqualified to govern but qualified to be "like"d candidates all around the world. They have done serious damage to society in the last 10 years and we are just getting started as people realize the damage.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Obama was the poster child for overnight political success using more or less the same mechanics that social media is built on today. Barack Obama had been in electoral politics, as first a state and then US senator, for just over a decade before being elected President, and had been widely hailed as an up and coming star in the party and likely future Presidential candidate after his national convention speech when running for the US Senate. He was not at all an “overnight political success”.
- zghst 9y ago
  I believe the commenter refers to “overnight” as representative of his transformation into a wide national figure, amplified by the explosion of technology during his tenure.
- slamdance 9y ago
  so - he was a state senator for less than 4 years (Less than one full term) before being elected president. I would say that's "overnight" as far as politics go - considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    He was a state senator for a full term, and a US Senator for a partial term (and very active as a political, if not elected, figure before that, which is what being a “community organizer” is.) > considering the others who make it their entire careers and never reach the pinnacle. Sure, by that standard anyone who succeeds does so meteorically, since only a handful do per generation, while many spend whole careers in politics. But that just means the standard is nonsense.