Every weekday afternoon on CNN, a program called Crossfire pits a Democrat commentator against a Republican. In what passes for debate, they raise topical issues in rapid succession and bellow over each other in an attempt to score cheap points and earn applause from the studio audience.
The overriding impression is one of mayhem, machismo, bluster and braggadocio. The aim is not to win anyone over but to shout them down. Those who clap do so not because they have been convinced but because their views have been confirmed. A few years ago this would have resembled little more than a device for a knockabout show on a channel with more airtime than news. But with the presidential election less than a year away, Crossfire is beginning to serve as a metaphor for the state of US political discourse.
A nation riven between those who adore President George W. Bush and those who abhor him is in no mood for reasoned discussion. Having rallied around the flag after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and then again (though less so) when the troops went to war, people are now retreating to their political affiliations. And all the indications are that they intend to stay there until polling day. Next year's presidential elections will be decided not by who can sway the center but rather who can shore up their base.
For every sign that some are desperate for regime change at home, there is proof that a similar number have undying faith in the president. In a recent Time/CNN poll, 47 percent said they were likely to vote for Bush and 48 percent said they would not; 79 percent of Republicans said they believed he was a president you could trust, 75 percent of Democrats said they thought he wasn't; 68 percent of Democrats believed he had been "too quick to interject his own moral and religious beliefs into politics," 67 percent of Republicans believed he hadn't. Break down the response of almost any question along party lines and the nation appears irrevocably split -- separate outlooks roughly equal in size.
"National unity was the initial response to the calamitous events of September 11 2001," argued the Pew Research Center in a report, The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized. "But that spirit has dissolved amid rising political polarization and anger. In fact, a year before the presidential election, American voters are once again seeing things largely through a partisan prism."
And what is true in the polls is reflected in popular culture. Dude, Where's My Country?, the latest book by the leftwing polemicist Michael Moore, may be No 1 on the New York Times bestseller list, but when it comes to children's toys, the Bush elite force aviator doll -- a 30cm figure of Bush in the military garb he wore on the USS Lincoln when he declared the war was over -- has set a sales record for collectible action figures on the KB Toys Web site.
It is a far cry from Bush's inaugural speech, in the wake of Florida's vote-counting debacle three years ago, when he pledged to "work to build a single nation" and "seek a common good." Instead he has created divisions so deep that Americans take one look at him and, depending on their political persuasion, see two completely different people. Asked to describe Bush, Republicans were most likely to use the words "decisive," "determined" and "strong," while Democrats described him as "cocky," "arrogant" and "boneheaded."
This gulf is already having far-reaching political consequences. For if the two sides are evenly balanced, as it appears they will be, the election will be shaped as much by logistics as politics. There will be no equivalent to the Reagan Democrats or Clinton Republicans in this election -- just voters who love Bush and voters who loathe him.
This explains the insurgent success of the former Vermont governor Howard Dean in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. His anti-war stance and promise to reverse tax cuts were initially dismissed as alienating to swing voters. But as the political landscape becomes ever more polarized, the issue is not whether you can influence the doubters (who are dwindling) but whether you can energize the devout (who are growing).
Dean has benefited not just from the rage that Democrats harbor against Bush's excesses, but from the frustration at their own party's inability to effectively challenge them in Congress. In order to run against the president, he must first run against the Democrats' party establishment.
Bush faces a different dilemma. With the ban on partial-birth abortions, a hawkish foreign policy and extensive tax cuts, he has already motivated his base to vote for him. His primary desire now is to do as little as possible before election day to further antagonize the Democrats' traditional supporters, who might otherwise stay at home.
The Medicare bill, passed with much arm-twisting last week, was aimed not at helping the elderly (by and large it won't) but at neutralizing an issue where the Democrats do well, relating to an electorally important group (the elderly) who lean toward the Democrats. Similarly, after backing a legal challenge to affirmative action in the Supreme Court, the White House has gone out of its way to look good to African-American voters. In June, the administration banned federal law enforcement officers from racial profiling in routine police work. A month later Bush went to Africa and branded slavery "one of the greatest crimes of history." He knows few black Americans will vote for him, but he hopes that, by appearing sensitive to their concerns, they will not vote against him.
For all the president's efforts, however, the Democrats are making almost all the headway. The increasing financial and human costs of the war in Iraq, and the state of the economy (a statistical recovery without jobs will not help the Republicans), have sent Bush's ratings into a four-month decline that shows few signs of reversing.
The trouble is, when it comes to logistics the Republicans win hands down. First, they have a candidate. The Democrats do not even have a clear frontrunner and will only get one after a bruising, costly, crowded battle likely to run at least into spring.
Second, the Republicans' most loyal supporters -- the Christian right -- are far better organized, motivated and ideologically cohesive than those of the Democrats -- African-Americans. Since the war the Democrats have won only one election -- 1964 -- without needing black support.
Finally, and most importantly, the Republicans have far more money. The Democrats are talking about giving up on the South altogether (with the exception of Florida) because they can't afford to fight in a region where they are unlikely to win any states.
Meanwhile, the Republicans have sufficient funds to talk about mounting a serious challenge in California -- a state they have not won since 1988.
The good news for the Democrats is that the basic message, that Bush is doing the country more harm than good, is finally getting through. The bad news is that the next election will be decided less by who has the best message than who has the biggest megaphone, whether they know which direction to point it and whether anyone at the other end is listening. On all three counts, the Republicans are ahead.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs