Voters taught US President Barack Obama a hard lesson for having lost his way, as the Democratic Party suffered a major defeat in the US midterm elections on Tuesday last week. Not only did the Republican Party expand its majority in the House of Representatives, it also won a majority in the Senate, thereby increasing its chances of regaining power in the 2016 presidential election.
Since the ruling party is responsible for the government’s performance and policy implementation, it has become routine for that party to suffer major defeats in midterm elections. Given Obama’s lack of popularity, as many as four Democratic Senate candidates chose not to invite him to stump for them during their campaigns, behaving just like the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文), who was said to have originally declined an offer from President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who doubles as KMT chairman, to join his campaign activities.
In fact, Obama has performed much better than Ma if we are to believe what the statistics tell us. His approval ratings still hover at about 40 percent, the US unemployment rate has dropped from 7.9 percent to 5.9 percent recently, and US economic growth in the third quarter of the year was as high as 3.5 percent. Moreover, the US stock indices have risen by 25 percent during his presidency. Ma falls far behind him on every count.
However, more than 60 percent of voters seem to believe that the US is lost and that it is heading in the wrong direction under Obama’s leadership, or as some would say, “lack of leadership.” Although the economy has been growing, most of the increased wealth has flowed into the pockets of the rich.
The Obama administration has displayed incompetence as a never-ending series of problems continue to emerge: The hospitals under the US Department of Veterans Affairs are inefficient and riddled with corruption; Obama’s healthcare plan was launched amid chaos; Obama wants to increase expenditures on social welfare, but does not dare increase taxes; he wants to push for immigration reform, but is too weak to follow through; and he is opposed to every foreign affairs policy implemented by the administration of former US president George W. Bush, but the only way he can handle these policies is by taking a step back.
Some critics have said that while Bush led without thinking, Obama is thinking without leading. Bush was good at recruiting talented people, while the talent within Obama’s team is questionable, because he prioritizes race and gender over ability when hiring top officials. This is precisely the same method that Ma follows when recruiting.
Bush launched his invasion of Iraq after listening to false information, and before the war was over, he attacked Afghanistan, which resulted in increasing debt and public fatigue. Obama has been moving in the opposite direction, doing all he can to remove US forces from the region, but his inability to do so effectively is a sign of indecisiveness and confusion.
Obama’s approval ratings of about 40 percent are seen as a big embarrassment, and voters gave his Democratic Party a big slap in the face in the midterm elections. Ma’s approval rating hovers just above 10 percent and earlier this month, the owner of a building in Chiayi City was pressured into removing an outdoor campaign advertisement because it said: “A vote for [the KMT’s Chiayi mayoral candidate] Chen Yi-chen (陳以真) is a vote for Ma Ying-jeou,” making it clear how bad he is for candidates.
A president this incompetent and confused, who specializes in passing the buck, really needs to be taught a lesson.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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