“The world would have voted for Obama out of hope in 2008,” Dominique Moisi, the highly regarded French historian and political scientist said the other day on a CNN talk show. “They would vote for Obama in 2012 out of fear.”

That is a pithy summation of world opinion on the eve of the presidential election, which is regarded as a cliffhanger in the United States but would not be close if the world, which is so affected by who wins the White House, had its say.

A sample of public opinion in 21 countries for the BBC published two weeks ago found that if the planet was a giant electoral college, U.S. President Barack Obama would win an unprecedented landslide on Tuesday. Thumping majorities in many countries, Canada included, supported Obama’s re-election.

Pakistan, which has more than its share of Islamic extremists, was the only country polled where people favoured Republican challenger Mitt Romney, although they did so by a margin of only 15 per cent to 11 per cent. The high number of abstentions came about because the vast majority of Pakistanis refused to specify which candidate they detested more.

Proving yet again that politics can make for strange bedfellows, Israel is the only country other than Pakistan that will probably favour a Romney presidency. However, the Jewish state, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his centre-right coalition have made it plain that they much prefer Romney, was not part of the BBC poll.

There are many reasons why the world heavily favours Obama and is aghast that Americans might pick Romney. The incumbent is a known quantity. He got U.S. troops out of Iraq and is getting them out of Afghanistan. A multilateralist with some experience of other cultures and ways, Obama does not raise the hackles of China, Russia or anyone else with any bellicose rhetoric. Albeit only with regard to the U.S. context, foreigners view Obama as a moderate on domestic policies because he favours retaining a limited safety net while making some modest improvements in public health care.

The international antipathy to Romney was encapsulated in a recent caption in Time magazine which read, “Mitt and the bomber boys.” Romney seems keen to take Iran on, but there is little international appetite for an attack on Iran. Even in Israel, public opinion is seriously divided about what to do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Romney still speaks as if the U.S. can stand astride the globe threatening military action and be heeded. But Iraq, Afghanistan and terrorist attacks on American targets in half a dozen countries have proven the limits of American power.

So, too, have the Arab Spring and Europe’s deepening economic crisis. Washington has had little influence over or involvement in either of these seminal events. Furthermore, it clearly has no idea about what to do about the tragedy in Syria.

As was noted in Canada and India, neither Obama nor Romney mentioned either country during their foreign policy debate. It was mostly about Israel, Iran and China, although the U.S. badly wants more Canadian energy from its closest trading partner and for geo-strategic reasons mostly related to China needs to improve ties with India.

To hear Romney talk, the clock would miraculously be turned back if were elected president. By shouting or clenching its fist, the U.S. would be heard and obeyed. Or else. Yet Russia and China bashing – which appear to be two of Romney’s strongest foreign policy positions – do not work anymore.

The U.S. has fewer options than in the past because it is nearly bankrupt while its old rival and its new one can draw on large financial reserves.  The American military machine remains formidable but it is tired. To cite one example, it is an open question whether the U.S. Air Force can afford the many upgrades to its bomber, fighter and in-air refuelling fleets that are needed at a time when the military has made buying more attack drones and preparing for cyber warfare top priorities.

Curiously, the alleged differences between Obama and Romney are not as great as might be imagined. Despite the U.S. debt crunch, both candidates intend to give the Pentagon more money. Both also seek to check China’s ambitions in Asia. And each man competes with the other in expressing his devotion to Israel. Despite global fears over a Romney presidency, what ultimately separates Obama and Romney on foreign policy is more a matter of tone than substance.

Does it really matter? While many still look to the U.S. for leadership, the reality is that in an increasingly multi-polar world, Old Glory holds less sway than it did a decade ago. That will be as true or more true a decade from now than it is today, no matter whether Obama or Romney wins the White House on Tuesday.