It is hard for international observers of the US to grasp the political paralysis that grips the country, and that seriously threatens its ability to solve its domestic problems and contribute to international problem solving. The US’ governance crisis is the worst in modern history. Moreover, it is likely to worsen in the years ahead.
The difficulties that US President Barack Obama is having in passing his basic program, whether in health care, climate change or financial reform, are hard to understand at first glance. After all, he is personally popular, and his Democratic Party holds commanding majorities in both houses of Congress. Yet his agenda is stalled and the country’s ideological divisions grow deeper.
Among Democrats, Obama’s approval rating early this month was 84 percent, compared with just 18 percent among Republicans. Fifty-eight percent of Democrats thought the country was headed in the right direction, compared with 9 percent of Republicans. Only 18 percent of Democrats supported sending 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, while 57 percent of Republicans supported a troop buildup. In fact, a significant majority of Democrats, 60 percent, favored a reduction of troops in Afghanistan, compared with just 26 percent of Republicans. On all of these questions, a middle ground of independents (neither Democrats nor Republicans) was more evenly divided.
Part of the cause for these huge divergences in views is that the US is an increasingly polarized society. Political divisions have widened between the rich and poor, among ethnic groups (non-Hispanic whites versus African Americans and Hispanics), across religious affiliations, between native-born and immigrants and along other social fault lines. American politics has become venomous as the belief has grown, especially on the vocal far right, that government policy is a “zero-sum” struggle between different social groups and politics.
Moreover, the political process itself is broken. The Senate now operates on an informal rule that opponents will try to kill a legislative proposal through a “filibuster” — a procedural attempt to prevent the proposal from coming to a vote. To overcome a filibuster, the proposal’s supporters must muster 60 of 100 votes, rather than a simple majority. This has proven impossible on controversial policies — such as binding reductions on carbon emissions — even when a simple majority supports the legislation.
An equally deep crisis stems from the role of big money in politics. Backroom lobbying by powerful corporations now dominates policymaking negotiations, from which the public is excluded. The biggest players, including Wall Street, the automobile companies, the health-care industry, the armaments industry and the real-estate sector, have done great damage to the US and world economy over the past decade. Many observers regard the lobbying process as a kind of legalized corruption, in which huge amounts of money change hands, often in the form of campaign financing, in return for specific policies and votes.
Finally, policy paralysis around the US federal budget may be playing the biggest role of all in the US’ incipient governance crisis. The US public is rabidly opposed to paying higher taxes, yet the trend level of taxation (at around 18 percent of national income) is not sufficient to pay for the core functions of government. As a result, the US government now fails to provide adequately for basic public services such as modern infrastructure (fast rail, improved waste treatment, broadband), renewable energy to fight climate change, decent schools and healthcare financing for those who cannot afford it.
Powerful resistance to higher taxes, coupled with a growing list of urgent unmet needs, has led to chronic under-performance by the US government and an increasingly dangerous level of budget deficits and government debt. This year, the budget deficit stands at a peacetime record of around 10 percent of GNP, much higher than in other high-income countries.
Obama so far seems unable to break this fiscal logjam. To win last year’s election, he promised that he would not raise taxes on any household with income of less than US$250,000 per year. That no-tax pledge, and the public attitudes that led Obama to make it, block reasonable policies.
There is little “waste” to cut from domestic spending, and many areas where increases in public spending are needed. Higher taxes on the rich, while justified, don’t come close to solving the deficit crisis. The US, in fact, needs a value-added tax, which is widely used in Europe, but Obama himself staunchly ruled out that kind of tax increase during his election campaign.
These paralyzing factors could intensify in the years ahead. The budget deficits could continue to prevent any meaningful action in areas of critical need. The divisions over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could continue to block a decisive change in policy, such as a withdrawal of forces. The desire of Republicans to defeat the Democrats could lead them to use every maneuver to block votes and slow legislative reforms.
A breakthrough will require a major change in direction. The US must leave Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby saving US$150 billion per year for other purposes and reducing the tensions caused by military occupation. The US will have to raise taxes to pay for new spending initiatives, especially in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, education and relief for the poor.
To avoid further polarization and paralysis of US politics, Obama must do more to ensure that Americans understand better the urgency of the changes that he promised. Only such changes — including lobbying reforms — can restore effective governance.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of Economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS