Saturday, June 2, 2012

Party Hard Politics Update

Party Hard Politics Update

‘Four more years? Four more years of hell!’

Posted: 01 Jun 2012 02:32 PM PDT

Walking into a Democratic fundraiser just before the 2004 election, the Clintons were confronted by a group of supporters of Bush shouting out ‘Four more years! Four more years!’. In true Clinton style, Hillary turned around and shouted back at them, ‘Four more years? Four more years of hell!’. The comment summed up the desperation that many Democrats felt as President Bush was re-elected and continued his divisive foreign policy and impotent domestic strategy.

In 2004, Bush was able to get re-elected for a few reasons. He riled up the base on social issues, and got huge turnout among evangelical Christians. Groups associated with his campaign trashed his opponent Senator Kerry, largely discrediting his military record using morally dubious insinuations and falsehoods. Finally, Bush argued forcefully that in a post-9/11 world, with America in the midst of the War on Terror, he was the man to lead and defend against the dangers that had arrived in the American homeland. The election was tough, and it was close and there are lessons from it that should be considered as President Obama seeks re-election.

 

 

This election is very different to both 2004 and 2008. In 2004 the key issue was security and Iraq. In 2008, while the economy was absolutely central, the election nonetheless was defined by then-Senator Obama being seen as a transformational figure, who would move America into a post-racial and to some extent post-partisan world. By doing so, he would then address the economic tempest the US found itself in as his Presidency would ‘bring Americans together’.

Yeah, I know.

This election is about the promise of the Obama Presidency. Has he delivered on the economy, and brought renewed prosperity back to America through a new age of hope and innovation? The Republicans say no, and have nominated a man with a long history in the private sector, with extensive experience of business, making profit and building a successful enterprise. The argument therefore boils down to the debate that cleaves politics in the 21st century in two; those who believe the answer to every financial or economic problem is less taxes, fewer regulations and more government pull back from the economy, and those who believe government must at times act as a semi-artificial kick-start to growth, control the excesses of capitalism and raise funds to level the playing field and invest in infrastructure.

Looking back at the time President Obama has been in office, it is difficult to call it an unqualified success. Certainly, he was dealt an incredibly tough economic hand. He took over with financial difficulties, a sluggish economy and a foreign policy that was overstretched. In his time in office the economy has improved but in the eyes of some too slowly, while America has reduced its commitments overseas, many would argue undermining her influence. Governor Romney contends that the Obama Administration has got in the way of recovery with business regulation and finance from the Federal government trying to pick winners such as Solyndra. His answer is to ‘roll back government and get it out of the way of the American people for them to create jobs’. Well, if wishing made it so.

Away from the economy, the key issue for any President must be foreign policy. The President of the United States is a hugely influential figure in world affairs, and with continued instability in the Arab world, a Eurozone in crisis and an increasingly belligerent China there has never been a more important time for American leadership. President Obama likes to tout his ending of the War in Iraq, and boasts that American troops are beginning to withdraw from Afghanistan. He has sought a new relationship with the Muslim world based on mutual respect and ‘pivoted to Asia’ to try and build relationships with China and other Asian economies which he sees as the future.

Unfortunately, much of his foreign policy has been misguided and ineffective, leaving America and her allies less secure and a more chaotic situation in global affairs than in recent memory. There was ‘leading from behind’ in Libya, bowing to the wishes of the Russians on any number of issues from missile defence to NATO expansion, a perceived lack of support for Israel in its confrontation with Iran and diplomatic isolation caused by the Palestinians, and there has been consistent failure to maintain the key alliances that define American foreign policy. Obama may be getting the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but at what cost to regional stability and American influence in the region? Will American interests be served in the new Iraq? Will Al Qaeda return to Afghanistan to use it as a base to launch spectacular attacks against the West? Will Israel be forced to take potentially catastrophic steps in self-defence having been left high and dry by the Obama Administration?

Uncertainty prevails. Obama has shown himself to be ineffective, incoherent and uninspiring on foreign policy issues. What of Romney? The Governor has articulated a considerably more hawkish attitude towards America’s foes, and stronger support for American allies than has the President. Romney speaks of President ‘throwing Israel under the bus’, appeasing the dictatorships and apologising for America. Many of the concerns the former Governor raise are valid, and there remains the danger of the Obama foreign policy doing real damage to US interests around the world. If this election was only about foreign policy, then the clear, articulated message of Governor Romney which is unambiguous in its commitment to key principles should win the day. Of course, Mitt Romney has the advantage of not having had to actually engage with foreign policy yet.

So if Romney would be better on foreign policy, and has all this successful experience in business, he must be the right candidate? Four more years of Barack Obama, four more years of hell! Well, not quite.

The reality is the proposals put forward by Mitt Romney are not solutions at all, but rather a regression to the same old pseudo-scientific economic ‘truths’. Deregulating the industry that got the US into this mess (Wall Street), is not the answer. Slashing federal funding that keeps businesses employed supplying the government is not the answer. Cutting tax rates for the most wealthy and major corporations and denying the American people affordable healthcare is not the answer.

Romney is fond of saying government spending through a stimulus etc is not economic growth because it is artificial. The thing is, he is only half right. Government has a role to play at all times in doing things for various reasons, including the economic benefits to their suppliers. Even the US military is hugely helpful as an economic boost, beyond its security role. Yes in a stimulus period the government is taking an increasingly active role in the economy, but the wealth produced goes into creating the businesses that replace government spending when it drops off again. To the Romney camp the answer is just always to cut away at the government so there is nothing left. That will not rebuild the American economy faster than is happening right now, it is more likely to undermine it further as government suppliers are bankrupted by roll backs and reduced spending.

The US does have a deficit of stunning proportions. That in itself however, is not necessarily a disaster. There is a viral e-mail/facebook status that does the rounds about how if the US were a household then the credit card debt of the household would be 999999999 x the annual salary of the parents, or some such analogy. It is the same one that Thatcher used to explain why cuts had to be made. What this analogy ignores is that State budgets are nothing like household budgets. The Government can to a large extent control its salary (unlike the parents), it can put off paying the credit card for a lot longer than your average couple because if the banks (and China) call in their loans early and the US cannot pay, the system collapses. That’s why that won’t happen, no one wants to force that disaster.

This is not about denying the economic and financial challenges the US has, they are considerable and need to be addressed. The answer, however, is patently not to be found in the Romney economic medicine, that reads more like throwing the whole family out with the bathwater.

For the world and foreign policy, Mitt Romney presents a stronger US President who would stand up better for the values that make the US a shining city on a hill. His commitment to democratic allies, refusal to give in to dictators and despots as well as his fundamental commitment to American exceptionalism are the strong leadership characteristics the world needs from an American President.

But on the issues that define America today, Romney’s medicine would be poison. President Obama has not been spectacular, he has made the best of an awful situation and made a few mistakes along the way. His answers on the economy however, on healthcare for all Americans and a host of other domestic issues are clearly superior.

In a recent address in Minnesota, Obama said ‘This is not the time to play politics’. He could not be more wrong. Now is the time to play politics and win, because President Obama owes it to his party, and to his country, to be the President we all know he can be.

 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)