I guess that’s true. Similarly, Brexit was big news here. Every day a new story for a while. But I don’t pretend to know what it’s really like to live in the UK (though I did attend a semester of college in London), nor does my opinion matter as much as a citizen of the UK.
When it comes to 'what it's really like to live in the UK/US/pick your country', I would tend to agree with the gist of your argument. The locals are the real experts on that particular but important issue
. (Not even going into a comparison on how much less UK issues are covered in the US media as opposed to US issues in the world media -- we're not living in isolated islands anymore.)
But on highly politicized issues the 'locals' are also more vulnerable to echo chambers and aggressive misinformation designed to target and fool 'the electrorate', rather than outsiders.
A close-range observer of a scenery in broad daylight, while wearing a virtual reality helmet over his head, is less able to see its features than a distant observer looking through a telescope with his own eyes. But if both
are free from blindfolds, the local will of course be the one likelier to see the scenery and all its features clearer.
However, when it comes to globally significant public figures and leaders of superpowers, we're talking about much more than a strictly 'local' affair where the average local has 'automatically' a much better, closer and clearer access to the real person than the average non-local.
Intellectual authority to speak on any matter more than others must be earned and demonstrated. I for one was not
making any such a claim of authority. But it was unmistakably suggested I have less authority than another poster by sole appeal to my location outside the US. Dismissal of voices merely by appeal to authority is a classical fallacy and hampers all learning. Especially if one is claiming authority on the basis of citizenship, on a political issue
which as it happens splits
the citizens of that country right in the middle, and thereby entirely obliterating the notion of 'living here makes me more right than you'.
The same applies to claiming authority based on one's expertise in a particular field. Galilei believed in astrology. Jung in the esoteric. Both greatly contributed to advancing scientific practice and non-outlandish/parsimonious theories in their professional fields. For an ignorant lay person (on astronomy, psychology, astrological myths and esoteric claims) it's not always easy to see where Jung's and Galilei's professional scientific expertise ends and where the fluff begins. Just as it isn't for the average American voter to distinguish between hard facts and subtle or less than subtle propaganda spouted by CNN and Fox News.
It is not unheard of that one can be a brilliant expert in a narrow professional field, or a great source of overall knowledge of one's native country, while simultaneously espousing religious or political beliefs that reflect a less professional methodology of establishing a truth.