A BLACK MAN contests a white woman in a bitter battle for the right to take on a war hero and become president of the world’s only super-power. Little wonder that many of my British friends are riveted by the stuff of which hit soap operas are made. No harm done, unless they focus too much on the personal drama, and not enough on the real policy differences that make this election so important not only to America, but the world.

This is not to deny that the political is the personal to some degree. Barack Obama has the support of his fellow blacks, and Hillary Clinton runs well among her sisters, especially those of a certain age. On the Republican side, maverick John McCain runs well among serving soldiers and veterans, and independent voters who like his famous “straight talk” and willingness to take positions unpopular with social conservatives in his own party.

But there is more to this contest than the colour of Obama’s skin, Clinton’s gender, and the heroism McCain displayed when a captive in Vietnam and when opposing ethanol subsidies in corn-growing Iowa. On the foreign-policy front, Obama and Clinton are for prompt withdrawal from Iraq, although both claim to recognise the need to continue to train Iraqi troops and perhaps maintain some sort of presence in the region. McCain is having none of such a retreat: he sees Iraq as an important battlefield in the war on terror, and a test of American resolve and honour. Whether a Democratic Congress will fund President McCain’s pursuit of such a policy is uncertain, even though he says his first act will be to close the Guantanamo prison and outlaw torture as part of his plan to return America to its moral roots.

That is not enough to persuade most of my British acquaintances to favour McCain. They might want to think again. Both Obama and Clinton have adopted an increasingly protectionist tone. Both want to abrogate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) unless Canada and Mexico agree to adopt US-style labour and environmental standards. Both are opposed to any new free-trade agreements, with Obama claiming they “undermine our national security”. Both want to put the Doha round of free-trade talks on hold. If you think the decision of the Defense Department to award a $35 billion (£18 billion) contract for air tankers to Europe’s EADS rather than Boeing is going to create a political storm in America, you are right. McCain, who has gone out of his way to shout his support for free trade in general and Nafta in particular, would face down such protectionist outrage, partly because he doesn’t believe you can erect barriers to Canadian goods and then turn round and ask their government to keep troops on the front line in Afghanistan. Given the chance, Obama or Clinton very well might veto the air tankers deal.

Clinton’s protectionist stance is aimed at the blue-collar workers who are among her strongest supporters and will vote in large numbers in the important Pennsylvania primary on April 22. It was such horny-handed toilers who helped her win last week’s primary in Ohio, where Democratic voters by a margin of 8-to1 tell pollsters that trade costs more jobs than it creates.

Obama’s position is, embarrassingly for him, less clear. He has taken a strong stand against Nafta, threatening “the hammer” of a “potential opt-out” if Mexico and Canada refuse to renegotiate the deal. But officials at the Canadian consulate in Chicago report, in a leaked memorandum, that Obama’s chief economic adviser, University of Chicago professor Austan Gools-bee, assures them his candidate’s statements are merely political positioning. That is good news for free traders, but doesn’t do much for Obama’s reputation for candour, a point Clinton made to some effect in Ohio and Texas.

Another issue of importance to the wider world is the strength of the US economy. McCain is advised by former senator Phil Gramm, a traditional budget-balancing, fiscal conservative, and Jack Kemp, the one-time congressman and vice-presidential candidate, who believes deficits don’t matter. Nobody knows who will gain McCain’s ear, which most often tunes out discussions of economic policy. McCain has pledged to keep the Bush tax cuts, Congress willing, while Obama and Clinton are committed to raising capital-gains taxes and repealing the Bush cuts, which would result in a huge tax increase just when the economy will most likely be emerging from the slowdown, or slipping into recession. And we know that McCain leans towards market-based solutions to problems such as healthcare and pensions, whereas Obama and Clinton see a larger role for government-mandated, and in Clinton’s case, government-run programmes.

There are other reasons that this election matters to other than Americans. Obama promises to arrange meetings with leaders of the Cuban, Iranian and North Korean regimes immediately upon taking office. Clinton is more cautious, calling for diplomatic clearing of some troublesome underbrush before sitting down with America’s enemies. McCain favours the ejection of “a revan-chist Russia” from the G8, and a big increase in the size of our armed forces. Throw in his plan to form a League of Democracies to act quickly when the UN is bogged down, and it is clear why he has not endeared himself to the soft-power set in Europe.

Meanwhile, with no need to choose between soft-power protectionists and a hard-power free trader, the world can sit back and watch. McCain will undoubtedly receive a polite reception when he visits London this month, but my private polling suggests that most Brits would much prefer tea with Obama.

Irwin Stelzer is a business adviser and director of economic policy studies at the Hudson Institute

stelzer@aol.com

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive