Mebbe I'm just a contrarian...

Scratch that - I know I am (odd, given I was a Regular), but if I were undecided, these two bits would push me into the Bush camp.

Headline and lede from a Financial Times article by Andrew Ward and James Harding:

North Korea Warms to Kerry Presidency Bid North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader. But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.

Because my first thought is - if North Korea thinks the idea of Kerry as President is a Good Idea, then it probably isn't a Good Idea. Now, if the position of Pyongyang were "Whichever of you Yankee Imperialist Running Dog Crap-faced Weasels wins the election, stay the hell out of our business!" well, that means "Dear Leader" is running scared of the US, regardless of who's in charge, and, well, that *is* a Good Thing. But it's apparent that the Pyongyang Plutocrat thinks life would be better under Kerry. And that isn't a Good Thing.

The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme.

Kim doesn't want to use the Khadaffi gambit, it would seem. Which is why, whether you like it or not, Bush is a Good Thing (and I have some real problems with him, folks - but then that's true for me with any politician, frankly, neccessary evil that they are). Another four years of Bush are likely to dislocate several (not overthrow or relpace neccessarily, just discombobulate) several other foreign powers who want to behave badly. Note to internationalists, just because some other nation/culture wants to do something, doesn't automatically make it better (nor worse) than Our Way. Sometimes, the other guy is just Bad. And it is the duty of Presidents to deal with that, not to suck up to Chirac and Schroeder. Remember - not all opposition to US actions is prinicpled, the Other Guy is a politician, too, and many times is just trying to keep his national ox from being gored.

The FT goes on to note the very thing that inspired this post:

Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry as soft on national security.

A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as "Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he returned from serving in Vietnam.

They're right, Mr. Kerry, the endorsement of the NKPA is not a Good Thing. Nor the PAVN.

Of course, another bit of foreign viewpoint which would push a vacillating Armorer into the Bush camp is provided by another Brit paper, the Independent:

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington 04 March 2004

If the human race as a whole, rather than 50 states plus the District of Colombia, could cast a ballot this coming November, John Kerry would surely win the presidency by a landslide.

This is statement that can only be made by leftists. Any right-winger making a statement like that would be accused of cultural imperialism and worse. Remember - even though for the most part they are uncomfortable with the whole "God" concept - they'll happily tell you that somehow they have received the wisdom of the ages and can say things like that.

Of course, the corollary response to this would be: "If the 50 states plus the District of Colombia could cast a ballot this coming election in Germany/France/United Kingdom, only Tony Blair would surely win the election by a landslide."

The silly thing is, the first statement will be seen by some as righteous, and the second statement be seen (by the same people) as a horrible instrusion in the affairs of those states... but I digress. I can do that. It's my blog, and you aren't paying anything for it.

One thing that's fun about reading the Brit papers... they don't make the pious pretentions of unbiased 'reporting' (except perhaps as unwitting satire) that US news organizations pretend to.

But, as everyone knows, one went to Vietnam and the other didn't. One became a Republican and a B-list Texas oilman before abandoning drink, finding God, and following his father to the White House. The other turned against the war in which he was a decorated hero, before entering Democratic politics, spending the past two decades as senator for Massachusetts.

Nope, that's sure an even-handed description, as everyone knows.

But, despite my snippings, the article is in fact more balanced than it appears, and is informative for how it reveals a foreigners viewpoint of our election process.

In terms of character, too, the contrast could not be greater. Mr Bush, in his campaign persona at least, is an affable regular guy with a sense of humour, who mangles the language even more than most of us. Mr Kerry, on the other hand, projects elitism. Tall and gaunt, he might have stepped down from Mount Rushmore, long on gravitas but very short on laughs.

Those differences matter. The issues and trends in the American presidential mix can be impossibly complicated. Quite understandably, voters decide on the basis of character. A rule of thumb in modern US elections, is that the perceived nicer guy tends to win (Richard Nixon being the exception). In that respect, score it for Mr Bush.

From character flows a person's entire approach to governing. Mr Bush, famously, doesn't do nuance. For this utterly uncurious President, the world is black and white. In the Bush world view, it is a case of "either with us or against us."

Mr Kerry on the other hand does nuance, if anything to excess. All too often a Kerry speech is a symphony in greys. The habit reflects his knowledge of the issues, and the ensuing realisation that most things in life are more complicated.

Mr. Cornwell calls it more evenly than perhaps he realizes. I don't know - but this is another bit of foreign viewpoint that would tip me to Bush.

For the record? A good chunk of the rest of the world is ruled by people more interested in maintaining their power than uplifting their people. For all it's flaws, and they are legion, the US system still empowers more people with upward mobility than other governments. If you want me to do more than listen respectfully but sceptically, then get your own houses in order. And that's not the opinion of some insular 'Murican who's never been out of Kansas.

I' was born outside the US and I've been in a lot of places, seen a lot people, lived among 'em for over 15 years and wouldn't consider emigrating anywhere. Though vacation homes in Australia and New Zealand would be nice. And mebbe the Canadian Rockies, near Banff or Calgary.

The whole Financial Times article (which is more nuanced than my screed - but hey, this is an Op-Ed page, not 'news') is here.

The whole piece from the Independent is here.