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
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under