The US presidential election is still six months away and it is impossible to know with any certainty who will be nominated to represent the major parties, much less who will be the 45th occupant of the White House.
However, it is not too soon to assess the mood of the country’s more than 320 million inhabitants and what it would mean for the man or woman who ultimately prevails in what must seem to most people around the world to be an endless political soap opera.
The dominant mood in the US is one of considerable anxiety, if not outright anger. The Washington Post recently published a four-part series of articles revealing popular fury aimed at Wall Street, Muslims, trade deals, Washington, police shootings, US President Barack Obama, Republicans, immigrants and other targets.
One of the worst descriptions to be applied to a person nowadays is “professional politician.” The beneficiaries of this state of mind are anti-establishment candidates who espouse policies in opposition to free trade and immigration reform and who call for a radical overhaul of current tax and spending policies. The details of what they advocate might well differ, but their platforms share a promise of radical departure from the “status quo.”
The basis of this mood is hardly self-evident, as the country is better off economically than it was six years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the 2007 and 2008 economic crisis. More than 9 million jobs have been created since then, interest rates are low — making loans for homes and cars more affordable — and the fall in the price of gasoline is the equivalent of a US$700 tax cut for the average US family. In addition, the stock market has risen about 200 percent since its low of seven years ago and millions of people who were without health insurance are now covered.
However, this good economic news is offset in many cases by weak growth in household incomes, which have stagnated in real — inflation-adjusted — terms for about 15 years. The percentage of Americans working full time has still not reached the level it was at seven years ago, and many fear that their jobs will disappear because of foreign competition, new technologies, or outsourcing.
A large number of Americans are living longer, but are anxious, as they have failed to set aside the funds needed to ensure that their retirement would allow them to live comfortably into old age. Some are paying health-insurance premiums that they previously had avoided because of mandates in the reform enacted under Obama.
There is also the issue of inequality. This causes real anger, but the problem is not so much inequality, which, although worse, is nothing inherently new, as it is the decline in opportunity. The “American Dream” is giving way to class consciousness — a profound change for a country founded on the ideal that anyone can improve his or her lot through hard work.
However, the reasons for anxiety and anger transcend economic realities and worries. There is also physical insecurity, whether because of crime or the fear of terrorism. In many communities, there is concern, too, about where the culture and the society are heading.
Modern media tend to make things worse. Ours is an age of “narrowcasting,” not broadcasting. People increasingly tune in to cable channels or Web sites that reinforce their views and ideologies.
Little of this is reassuring. The national mood transcends the election campaign and would pose a real challenge to the new US president and Congress. The divisions within and between the Democratic and Republican parties would make compromise and the formation of coalitions that are essential for governing all but impossible.
Concerns over retirement and healthcare affordability would make it that much more difficult to reform entitlements, even though their expansion would drive up the national debt to record levels. Free trade is blamed for job losses and is losing support, even though it has also been a source of new jobs and greater consumer choice — and has strengthened the US’ strategic position around the world. Immigration, long part of the country’s heritage and a source of valuable talent, is now the object of so much controversy that prospects for reform are dim.
The mood of the US might also intensify officials’ domestic focus. Already turned off by foreign involvement in the wake of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions, which cost much more than they achieved, many Americans are skeptical of what the US can accomplish abroad.
They are frustrated with allies seen as not carrying their fair share of common burdens, and they are increasingly convinced that the government needs to focus less on the world and more on fixing what is wrong with the US.
Some in other countries would no doubt read all of this with satisfaction; but, overall, it is bad news for much of the world. A US that is distracted and divided is less likely to be willing and able to take the lead in promoting stability in the Middle East, Europe, or Asia, or in meeting global challenges.
Without US leadership, these challenges are likely to go unmet, turning into problems or, worse, crises.
Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as director of policy planning for the US State Department from 2001 to 2003, and was former US president George W. Bush’s special envoy to Northern Ireland and coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his
Retired army major general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰), a former head the Taoyuan chapter of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) veterans branch, on Wednesday last week said that chapter head Tsang You-hsia (臧幼俠) — who dismissed Yu from his position — “would rather see cross-strait unification than yield to the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] government.” The statement ignited public debate, as it was the first time that a retired officer loyal to the nation — and the KMT — said out loud what has long been rumored among the public: Some KMT members would rather work with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)