At a dinner table in Akron, Ohio, half a dozen Democratic activists recently took a break from trashing US political activist Ralph Nader for allowing a victory for former US president George W. Bush in 2000 to discuss the material benefits of US President Barack Obama’s first term. One had been able to keep his children on his healthcare plan after graduation; another with a pre-existing condition had been able to move plans without penalty. Then there was an awkward silence, broken by the mention of the jobs saved in Toledo, 225km away, by the auto bailout. That brought us on to Republican US presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s call to “let Detroit go bankrupt.”
And soon, the conversation is flowing as easily as the beer as talk turns to how bad things might have been — and could yet be — with Republicans at the helm.
Such are the cramped parameters within which Democratic loyalists converse. Questions about poverty, bankers, inequality, climate change or drone attacks are not engaged with a defense of Obama’s record, but avoided with a threat: Romney. Speculation about what Obama might have done differently are met with arguments about what Bush did wrong. Inquire if Obama will get more done if elected, and they shrug and point to the obstructionist Republicans in congress.
Dare to prod further as to why anyone should vote for him given the likelihood that Republicans will win in congress and they will take you right back where you started: Romney. Any question about the good things that might have happened as a result of Obama’s victory in 2008 is short-circuited by a response about the bad things that might happen as a result of his defeat this year. Hope curdled to fear. Everyone can tell you how things get worse; no one can tell you how they get better.
The paradox of large numbers of people investing heavily in a result without expecting a great deal from the outcome is particularly stark during a presidential election. On the one hand, there is the hoopla: the polls, bumper stickers, stump speeches, conventions and debates. All the trappings to celebrate the assumed connection between political power and the popular will. On the other hand, there is cynicism: the low turnout, voter suppression, billionaire donors and contrived controversies. All the evidence of a system corrupted by money and openly rigged.
These contradictions are not unique to the US. Britain is midway through its conference season, where the three main parties lay out their stalls. They have fewer members combined, The Economist reminded us recently, than the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Yet we treat their annual gatherings as moments of major national significance.
However, they are particularly acute here because of the dislocation between rhetoric and reality, pageantry and practice, and the nation’s belief in its own democratic values and its actual plutocratic electoral culture. And they are particularly acute now. Obama ran on change — a phenomenon that US elections are not equipped to deliver.
How could they? They adhere to the golden rule that those who have the gold make the rules. That has long been a problem. In 2008, Obama and then-Republican US presidential candidate John McCain spent as much on TV ads in Florida as all the parties spent on the entire 2010 UK general election. Now it is even worse. A few years ago, the US Supreme Court loosened the rules to allow unlimited donations from anonymous sources.
“It’s really sad,” Arnold Hiatt, a key Democratic funder, told The New Yorker. “You could buy this election for a billion dollars.”
While this makes a mockery of democracy it does not create an illusion of choice. The outcome in these elections matter. Hanging chads and slender margins notwithstanding, by the end of the night on Nov. 6, either Obama or Romney will be president.
The case against the Republicans is not difficult to make. Their numbers do not add up, their arguments do not make sense and their record in office contradicts virtually every one of their professed principles. During the eight years prior to Obama’s presidency, they ballooned the deficit, crashed the economy, increased the power of the state over the individual and sent the US’ standing plummeting throughout the world. They built that.
The world is not marginally different because Bush won in 2000 or 2004. Romney is running to the right of him and Obama is running to the left of former US vice president Al Gore.
Insisting it makes no difference who wins is not tenable. Last year, Chelsea Shinneman of Roanoke, Virginia, had a baby, Harrison, who was born with a congenital heart defect. Were it not for the new healthcare act, Harrison would have been destined for a lifetime of sky-high insurance premiums.
In Fort Collins, Colorado, the head of the Homelessness Prevention Initiative, Sue Beck-Ferkiss, could point to 36 families in the area helped by stimulus money. Had there been any Latinos at the table in Akron, they might have added to Obama’s achievements his executive order to halt the deportation of young undocumented immigrants. Had there been soldiers, they might have talked about the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
So it matters who wins. Just because improvements are incremental rather than transformative does not mean they are not important. The problem is not that there is no difference between Obama and Romney, but that there is insufficient difference between what Obama has delivered and is offering and what the country needs at a time when poverty is rising, wages have stalled, civil liberties have been suppressed, kill lists drawn up and drone attacks escalated. It is possible to indict the Republican party and vote for Obama without endorsing his record or making excuses for his failures.
However, it is not possible to understand his failures without recognizing that an electoral system funded by the wealthy will never be capable of distributing resources and power equitably, regardless of who is in charge. The fact that this is the choice Americans are faced with does not mean they do not deserve a better one. It simply reflects why, under these terms, a better choice is not possible.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday last week held a debate over the constitutionality of the death penalty. The issue of the retention or abolition of the death penalty often involves the conceptual aspects of social values and even religious philosophies. As it is written in The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, the government’s policy is often a choice between the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods, and it is impossible to be perfect. Today’s controversy over the retention or abolition of the death penalty can be viewed in the same way. UNACCEPTABLE Viewing the
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused