On the eve of an American Presidential election that has polarized the world unlike any election before you'd be hard pressed to get a rational, sane response as to why Bush must be defeated. It is not Kerry should win, but Bush must be not be allowed to win. Emotions are running high, intellect low. Europeans especially are anti-Bush. The usually sane and sensible Guardian newspaper demonstrated how knee-jerk has fogged thought, and actually published a column last week that openly called for the assassination of the current American President. The author of the opinion piece asked: where are John Hinckley, Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth now "that we need you"? While the writer apologized afterward, no editorial heads at the Guardian have rolled. It boggles the mind that such a piece could have appeared in a Western democratic country.

Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas Friedman used the call-for-assassination-as-solution example in his New York Times column (Oct. 27), addressing what he terms the hole in the American heart. Friedman outlined how American politics is so polarized that there is no centre, only sides. Elsewhere, excepting, notably, Russia, there is almost no support for an administration that has taken American policy profoundly to the right. As Friedman noted, when - as Bush has done - America begins to export fear instead of hope, the whole center of gravity of the world is affected. The rest of the world repositions themselves in relation to America.

Estonia is still in America's camp, perhaps because Estonians, unlike the French - and far too many Canadians - are able to place hope in the system rather than demonize it, vilify an administration. Opponents of Bush point at its policies in Iraq - which can still turn out positively. That is a big if, hanging on the results of the first democratic free elections in Iraq. As Juhan Parts noted this week, mourning the loss of Arre Illenzeer, the second Estonian serviceman to die in Iraq, the closer this historical event gets, the more active the terrorists and criminals destabilizing the situation in Iraq have become.

John Kerry has not offered a solution, George W. Bush keeps saying that he has not made any mistakes in Iraq. Estonia's position vis-à-vis serving in the Coalition of the Willing is harder to justify domestically after Illenzeer's death. Internationally, and morally, however, Parts and others in his position would be craven to pull out of Iraq.

The issue is, after all, one of democracy. Friedman argues that a freely elected democratic government in Iraq might be the magnet to begin pulling the moderate center of the world together, bridge the present impasses in the international community. That should be a common goal.

Fareed Zakaria's must-read book "The Future of Freedom" suggests that there is a way out from this polarization, a world where societies find themselves trapped between repressive dictatorships and fanatical masses. It is a stretch to suggest that the anti-Bushites belong to the latter category. But the authority so poorly wielded by Bush and Cheney does not justify the widely held stance of the international community. As Woodrow Wilson famously noted, the challenge of the twentieth century was to make the world safe for democracy.

Are we safe in the twenty-first century? Electing Kerry to the most powerful office in the free world is not the immediate answer. Neither is allowing Bush to operate untrammeled. I believe that most people voicing concern are faced with Hobson's choice.

It is ludicrous to pay heed to polls taken in democracies outside America that indicate the majority would like to see John Kerry lead the US out of the present quagmire. It is even more far-fetched to presume that this is any more than petulance about having no say.

Vaclav Havel's "The Politics of Conscience" would make a good companion reader to Zakaria's worthy work. The Czech philosopher-politician believes that the whole tendency of modern society is towards an anaesthetizing of conscience and the commensurate extinction of the sense of responsibility.

All social action requires information about the wants and needs of an indefinite number of people, not merely the American, French, Canadian or Estonian people. Friedrich Hayek, the original free-market economist, considered spontaneous solutions to conflicts as an answer to these ills. Again, no solution that is based on Zakaria's reading of illiberal democracy, which result will sadly be seen next week regardless of who triumphs, can overcome the fact that spontaneity is in conflict with a desire for order.

The politics of conscience bring us to Thomas Hobson, the 16th century English liveryman who is enshrined in popular thought as giving us Hobson’s choice - what is offered or nothing at all. Hobson demanded that every customer of his livery take the horse nearest the door. If that nag was ready for the glue factory, too dam bad.

Those dissatisfied members of the international community who voice support for Kerry at all costs fall victim to a line of thought that expect democracy to be spontaneous. Neither Kerry nor Bush, Democrat or Republican will be able to overcome that wish. The culture of expectation, of hope, not fear -us what is powerfully entrenched in the American subconscious. Now replaced by what Friedman terms the lack of a humanitarian centre, not only in America's heartland but in Europe's progressive core.

As one who has, since gaining franchise never cast a winning vote, except in Estonian elections of the past, I could take the cop-out of being glad that I do not have a vote in this Presidential election. It saves me from the responsibility of choice. Never having failed to exercise franchise, I can look at the flawed systems in place. Parts and Martin never received my vote, thus I can snipe from the outskirts, as is my right, take advantage of the boons of democracy. For anyone who cannot participate, much less contribute to the legal outcome of the American election, such snide carping would be unconscionable the morning of November 3rd.

Come what may, the hopes of Wilson, Havel, Hayek, Friedman, Zakaria et al are built on the rock of conscience and responsibility. The braying abroad may turn what stability exists in today's world into further insecurity. Is that the intention of the polarized anti-Bush, anti-American international community?

Märkmed: