In the final Views post before Election Day, we head to India, where Rengaraj Viswanathan writes in the Merco Press that the U.S. election is no longer the “most watched show in the global theater,” and the transition of power in China is now watched with equal interest, both by Indians and citizens of other nations.
Viswanathan also notes that the U.S. elections don’t really matter to Indians because most policies will remain the same no matter who wins:
Presidents come and go. But the lobbies are permanent. Indians are used to a predictable American policy towards India: Democratic presidents repeat the rhetorical solidarity between the biggest democracies but are insensitive to India’s concerns on security, terrorism, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. Republicans presidents, on the other hand, see the opportunities for business in India and are willing to accommodate India’s interests, overlooking ideological differences.
Next we head to New York*, Gary Rosenblatt writes in the Jewish Week on the increasing complexity of what it means for Jewish voters in the United States to be pro-Israel:
Being “pro-Israel” used to be a simple proposition for American Jews. It meant supporting the government in Jerusalem, whether it was left or right, Labor or Likud. But for many, life is more complicated these days. While some American Jews continue to insist that our role should be unquestioning loyalty to the policies carried out in Jerusalem, others maintain that one can be a caring critic of the government in power, just as we are in the United States, divided into liberals and conservatives but equally committed to the strength and security of the nation.
*Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this report incorrectly noted that the Jewish Weekly is in Israel.
And in Latin America, an America Economia editorial says that the biggest problem facing whichever candidate wins the election is the fiscal cliff:
[O]ne has to note the discouraging level of discourse in Washington. The fiscal cliff is the best example of how Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on running the country. They are operating in exactly the style of Latin American countries.
This legislative polarization has been reflected in the presidential campaign, and in the opinions of the supporters of both candidates. The dialogue has drifted towards insults, and in some cases, lies.
The candidates themselves have not behaved much better – one accusing the other of being a socialist, the other retorting that his opponent is a capitalist bloodsucker.