On Nov. 4, Americans will elect their 44th president amid the worst financial turmoil the country has known since the onset of the Great Depression in 1929. Both candidates are US senators with little experience as executives, so their ability to manage the crisis has become a central issue in the election.
At the beginning of the campaign, many observers predicted that Iraq would be the major issue this year. Instead, it is the financial crisis. In principle, this should help Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats, because polls show them stronger on economic issues, whereas Republicans and Senator John McCain do better on security issues. After the Republican convention, polls showed McCain ahead early last month, but after the financial meltdown, Obama took the lead.
Although both men have warily embraced the US$700 billion bailout of the financial sector, the contrasts between the two men are sharp. Obama is not only the first African-American nominee of a major party, but also one of the youngest candidates ever. McCain has experience as a naval aviator and more than two decades in the senate. If elected, he would be the oldest incoming president.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The two men differ in temperament as well as experience. McCain is a man of strong traditional values who prides himself on his willingness to act quickly and decisively, which he sought to do during the negotiations on the bailout by suspending his campaign to return to Washington. That effort appears to have backfired, because the Republicans that he leads initially balked at passing the legislation.
But McCain has shown himself to be resilient. Many people wrote off his campaign last year, but he had the skills to resurrect it and capture the Republican nomination. His choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate shook up the presidential campaign.
Obama, while an inspirational orator, has shown a cool and calm demeanor in responding to both the financial crisis and the turbulence of political campaigning. When embarrassed by comments made by the pastor of his church, he delivered an exceptional speech about race in America. If anything, some of Obama’s Democratic supporters wish he would show more emotion in responding to criticism.
One should be careful, however, about reading too much into national opinion polls measuring the candidates’ popular support. US presidents are elected by an Electoral College in which each state votes in proportion to the number of members it has in congress. Since even the smallest states have two senators, this leads to overrepresentation of lightly populated Western states that tend to vote Republican.
In 2000, former US vice president Al Gore won the popular vote, but President George W. Bush prevailed in the electoral college. Thus, the two candidates’ campaigns are focusing heavily on a dozen or so states in which voters are closely divided and could sway the Electoral College outcome. Each campaign is now desperately trying to gauge the impact of the financial crisis on these battleground states.
Not only does the Electoral College confuse predictions based on national opinion polls, but there is also the possibility of surprises which can lead to last-minute reversals. A mistake in a presidential debate can turn the tide of public opinion overnight, as happened to former US president Gerald Ford in his debate with former US president Jimmy Carter in 1976. Conversely, former president Ronald Reagan’s performance in his debate with Carter in 1980 is often credited with his victory.
Another event that could turn the tables would be an “October surprise” associated with terrorism, which could switch the agenda from the financial crisis back to security, the Republicans’ stronger suit. In 2004, shortly before the election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape that may have helped Bush defeat Senator John Kerry. From bin Laden’s point of view, Bush’s policies were more useful for his efforts to recruit supporters than Kerry’s might have been. One would assume that Obama would prove even more unsettling to bin Laden.
A recent BBC poll of 22 countries found that if the world could vote, Obama would win in a landslide. The pro-Obama margin varied from 82 percent in Kenya (where Obama’s father was born) to 9 percent in India. But Americans do not like outside interference in their elections. When Obama attracted a crowd of 200,000 to a speech in Berlin last summer, Republicans criticized him as an elitist who appeals to crowds overseas but not to blue-collar workers at home.
On the other hand, in a poll last month that asked Americans to rate a series of foreign-policy goals for the next president, 83 percent ranked “improving America’s standing in the world” as most important. And certainly the election of the first African-American as president would do wonders to restore the soft power that the Bush administration squandered over the past eight years.
Some people worry that Obama might be good for US soft power, but not for its hard power. Machiavelli famously said that it is more important for a prince to be feared than to be loved. Machiavelli may be correct, but we sometimes forget that the opposite of love is not fear, but hatred. And Machiavelli made it clear that hatred is something a prince should carefully avoid.
When the exercise of hard power undercuts soft power, it makes leadership more difficult — as Bush found out after the invasion of Iraq. Both McCain and Obama possess impressive hard-power political and organizational skills; otherwise, they would not be where they are today. But when it comes to the soft power skills of emotional intelligence, vision and communication, Obama outranks McCain. Whether that will sway US voters wary of financial turmoil on Nov. 4 remains to be seen.
Joseph Nye is an author and professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS