Early last week, US President Barack Obama cast a ballot in his local Chicago precinct — one of the few places in the US where he still remains a popular figure. As he was voting, a man walked past, pointed to a woman standing next to him and said: “Mr President, don’t touch my girlfriend.”
It was a joke and the president handled it with good humor as he poked fun at the man and ignored his request by giving the girlfriend a hug. However, it was a fitting reminder of Obama’s political standing: Not only do his congressional allies not want to be seen with him on campaign trail; his supporters do not trust him with their partners.
Obama has never been a very popular president. Only for brief periods has he had an approval rating above 50 percent and his disapproval rating has been higher than his approval rating since May last year, although the gap has rarely been as wide as it is now. This unpopularity has turned him into the focal point of Republican Party attacks and a drag on congressional Democrats who are on the ballot this autumn. For those Democrats in states won by Obama’s 2012 presidential challenger, Mitt Romney, Obama has become politically toxic.
Illustration: Mountain People
To be sure, practically every party whose president has been in power for six years goes through this — it happened in 1958, 1966, 1974, 1986 and 2006 — all years in which the party of the White House incumbent got smoked in midterm elections.
However, this year there is more than the traditional six-year itch. Crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, hysteria over Ebola and an obstructionist Republican US Congress that is on pace to pass the fewest number of laws in the nation’s history have driven Obama’s ratings further down. With the gridlock in Washington and the constant drumbeat of bad news from around the world, it is hardly surprising that Obama is taking most of the blame.
However, what has made matters worse is that members of his own party are abandoning him. In the past several weeks, former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has obliquely criticized his foreign policy decisionmaking, while former US secretary of defense Leon Panetta has been more direct in his ingratitude: He accused the president of demonstrating weakness because of his newfound reluctance to use US military force around the world.
On the campaign trail, it has become a game of political obfuscation for Democratic candidates when they are asked about Obama. In Kentucky, US Senate challenger and Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes refuses to say whether she voted for the president and can barely find it in herself to say a good word about him. North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan could come up with only a single example of the president’s strong leadership (the cleanup of the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, of all things), and in Alaska, when asked if he had voted for the titular head of his party, Senator Mark Begich said that he had — but that it did not matter since the president was “not relevant.” And these are Obama’s political allies.
However, the distancing goes beyond politics. Democrats are walking away from Obama’s accomplishments — and none more so than his signature achievement, Obamacare.
Grimes blasts the incoherent position of her opponent, US Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who wants to repeal the policy “root and branch” while keeping the popular healthcare exchange in Kentucky that is a result of, and sustained by, Obamacare. That does not mean she is vigorously defending the law. While other Democrats have spoken positively about some aspects of Obamacare, few are running on the issue, or trumpeting the good that it is already doing.
In a year when the biggest challenge facing Democrats is getting their voters to the polls, this is a strategy that seems perversely oriented to alienate core Democratic voters — particularly African-Americans, who are Obama’s strongest backers and the most reliable Democratic constituency.
By refusing to back the policies that define the party, they send an implicit message to voters that the unceasing criticism of Democrats from Republicans is in some way legitimate and accurate. The cumulative impact of Democrats trying to strike a nonexistent balance between separating themselves from the president and appealing to his political enemies is to provide voters with the sense that their core political beliefs are transitory.
So even if they are successful on election day, these Democrats are doing enduring damage to their party and to the ideology underpinning it.
This has been happening for six years. While Republicans have largely spoken with one voice in running down Obama, congressional Democrats have long been weak supporters of his agenda. They have played “every man and woman for themselves” politics. You might even argue that their political vulnerability — and the weakness of the Democratic brand — is worsened by this fact. What else would you expect when you are afraid to give voters a single affirmative reason to vote for your party?
In fairness it is hard to find an affirmative reason to vote for anyone this time. This is the dirty little secret of this year’s midterm election — it is pretty hard to argue that it will matter all that much.
Three years ago — after a plea from an Observer editor to help Britons better understand the increasing insanity of US politics — I wrote that “America is increasingly moving toward a parliamentary system in which politicians, rather than voting along regional lines or in pursuit of parochial interests, cast their ballot solely based on whether there is a D or R next to their name. Such a system might work well in the UK, but in the US ... a parliamentary-style system is a recipe for inaction.”
Three years later, things are so much worse. Dysfunction has become the new norm.
So while there are elections in both the US House of Representatives (where every member is up for re-election) and the Senate (where about a third of the 100 seats are in play), the latter is the only real game in town.
No one expects the Republican Party’s hold on the House to change, and even if the Senate flips to the Republicans (an increasingly likely scenario) it will not dramatically affect the nation’s politics. As long as the Republican Party controls either the House or the Senate, it can systematically block legislation, obstruct the president’s agenda, shut down the government (or hold it hostage) and continue its four-year pattern of governing while asleep at the switch. It is like having a Labour prime minister with a Tory parliament.
Once it was possible to cobble together groups of congressional Republicans and Democrats to pass bills, but in the modern Republican Party, nothing is worse than the idea of compromise with Democrats, and particularly not with the much-hated Obama.
For decades, the two parties have taken very different views on the role of government, but never has the divide been wider, and at no point since the 1930s has the Republican Party taken such a radical anti-government position. So if Republicans do take control of the Senate, the result will just be slightly more mindless obstructionism than has already seen over the past four years.
The dysfunction in US politics is so endemic that unless one party can take control of both houses and the White House nothing will change and nothing will get done.
From that perspective, this year is merely a skirmish in the bigger battle that is coming — and one in which Obama is likely to play a much less central role. Then, US voters will be selecting a new president along with a new Congress — and it is a year in which Democrats will have the political advantage.
With Clinton likely to be the Democratic nominee, her presence on the ticket should mobilize millions more Democrats than this midterm cycle. With Republicans defending far more Senate seats in 2016, that larger turnout is likely to boost the chances of Democrats picking up seats in the Senate. There is even a possibility that the combination of an energized Democratic base and an extreme conservative Republican nominee (such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz) could bring the House of Representatives into play for the Democrats. There is also the chance — albeit a very slim one — that Republicans could win back the White House and win the Senate while holding the House.
However, it is no exaggeration to say that this is the only real hope of breaking the downward spiral of not just US politics, but of US governance. One party must run the table. The other must be vanquished. Period.
This is a very far cry from what Obama imagined six years ago when he ran for the White House. Then he spoke of moving past the former US president George W. Bush years and finding common ground in Washington. The exact opposite has occurred. So while Obama remains the fixation of the midterms — and there will be plenty of fights to come over the next two years — the US is already on the cusp of the post-Obama era and a political battle royal that will drag on long after he has left office.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers