Can the American political system remain the American political system once it begins to become more serious about issues ? Take away catchy slogans like " Compassionate Conservatism " and " Change - Yes We Can " and Si Se Puede and all that and one gets a sense of how it must feel like in Beijing. Well, the slogans are not completely gone, but the mood has definitely changed. The sloganeering of the Romney campaign looks more rooted in issues - " Smaller, Simpler, Smarter " at least makes you think about government and the way government should work, whether you support his specific policies or not. The Obama campaign's " Forward " slogan, while less catchy than the 2000 and 2004 slogans, continues the same kind of vagueness. Apparently, there is a Bruce Springsteen song called " Forward - and Away We Go " behind the Obama campaign slogan. If the lyrics I read on the internet are accurate, then this song seems to be preaching ( or at the very least endorsing ) a kind of obsession with amoral philandering or putting a spin on some serious immoral philandering, depending on who you are. This the US political discourse can best do without during such bad economic times, with waning power abroad and with uncertain prospects for the future. Will the political atmosphere in Washington feel more and more like the one in Beijing as the realization dawns that giving long and deep tax cuts and hoping everything will turn out fine or sending the US military on missions with unclear objectives and unclear moral justifications and hoping that it will improve US image or power or goodwill abroad does not work.
How do you inspire the public if you are a Democrat ? You talk about the middle class and the poor. You talk about fighting to change the tax code so that it is less skewed in favor of the rich. You talk about curbing the influence of the super-rich on legislation. Obama's first term did not yield any good deals with the Republicans as far as taxes go. Paranoia about the effect of higher taxes led to extension of the Bush tax cuts. In such an environment, it is very difficult for an incumbent Democratic president to come up with campaigning strategies that enthuse the Democratic base ? Why do you expect your second term to be any different from your first term when it comes to taxes ? The fear of a double-dip recession is real and Republicans swear by ideology that favors lower taxes even when GDP growth is good ( although the scientific rationale behind this herd mentality is highly doubtful ). Also, Mr. Obama, why did you make the payroll tax cut into a bargaining item ? How do you enthuse the Democratic base after resorting to this kind of haphazard bargaining with Congressional Democrats ? During his first term as President, Obama has been anything but coherent on the tax question. His stances on taxes look more coherent now than towards the middle of his term. However, how do you convince the Congressional Republicans on the question of selective tax increases and tax decreases given the fact that you yourself went along with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts ? Should you promise tax increases when the recovery from the last recession is so weak and the job numbers are so alarming given the fact that you did not veto extension of Bush tax cuts that were passed using economic weakness as justification ? Mr. Obama, are you telling Americans and Democrats that you will veto any further extension of the Bush tax cuts ? If you are a Republican trying to enthuse voters about the economy, you sing the same old tune about the virtues of low taxes and how it spurs investment and growth. Unfortunately for Romney, a decade of Bush tax cuts hasn't had a very positive effect on investment in the US or on the US economy overall. Looks like Romney wants to give more tax cuts to everyone. But this raises questions about what he will do about the deficit. Talking about huge spending cuts is okay. However, he would do well to remember that when the Republicans had the White House and the Congress for several years during the Bush presidency, they could not cut spending. And if he wants to cut deficits purely through spending cuts, he needs to explain which items he will cut. Will he go with large defense budget cuts ? Are there good, credible, non-risky private sector alternatives for the government programs he may want to cut ?
After fighting two costly wars with very questionable benefits to the country, the US finds itself in a position where its military and geostrategic activities are being met with serious opposition or outright hostility. With the continuation of economic sluggishness, the ability of the US to project its power abroad has decreased drastically. America's rhetoric about being the champion of democracy around the world is being met with more skepticism. The process of reducing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is already underway. Generating partisan debates on foreign policy questions becomes difficult in these circumstances.
" Green jobs " was a big cathphrase of the 2008 elections. The Romney campaign website mentions that he will try to make the US energy independent by 2020. Americans should be skeptical about the achievability of energy independence by 2020. As for the effect on the overall economy, any new green jobs will replace conventional jobs, new green investment means less non-green investment etc. So, the Green economy thing is more about sustainability and resource independence and less about overall job creation. It depends a lot on how fast the scientific and research establishment, public and private, is able to come up with good solutions and cheap alternatives. It probably calls for a Beijing-style approach rather than a Washington-style approach.
China bashing has been resorted to by both Romney and Obama at one time or the other. However, calling China a currency manipulator misses the point. Low wages and other structural factors figure prominently in why China is exporting so much to the US. Different countries try to keep their currencies low or high depending on their economci needs and circumstances. It is wrong to give false hopes to the public on this question without paying serious thought to the complex economics involved.
It may be a good thing after all that Americans will have to pay more attention to facts and issues rather than gimmicks while deciding their president this time around.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )
How do you inspire the public if you are a Democrat ? You talk about the middle class and the poor. You talk about fighting to change the tax code so that it is less skewed in favor of the rich. You talk about curbing the influence of the super-rich on legislation. Obama's first term did not yield any good deals with the Republicans as far as taxes go. Paranoia about the effect of higher taxes led to extension of the Bush tax cuts. In such an environment, it is very difficult for an incumbent Democratic president to come up with campaigning strategies that enthuse the Democratic base ? Why do you expect your second term to be any different from your first term when it comes to taxes ? The fear of a double-dip recession is real and Republicans swear by ideology that favors lower taxes even when GDP growth is good ( although the scientific rationale behind this herd mentality is highly doubtful ). Also, Mr. Obama, why did you make the payroll tax cut into a bargaining item ? How do you enthuse the Democratic base after resorting to this kind of haphazard bargaining with Congressional Democrats ? During his first term as President, Obama has been anything but coherent on the tax question. His stances on taxes look more coherent now than towards the middle of his term. However, how do you convince the Congressional Republicans on the question of selective tax increases and tax decreases given the fact that you yourself went along with the continuation of the Bush tax cuts ? Should you promise tax increases when the recovery from the last recession is so weak and the job numbers are so alarming given the fact that you did not veto extension of Bush tax cuts that were passed using economic weakness as justification ? Mr. Obama, are you telling Americans and Democrats that you will veto any further extension of the Bush tax cuts ? If you are a Republican trying to enthuse voters about the economy, you sing the same old tune about the virtues of low taxes and how it spurs investment and growth. Unfortunately for Romney, a decade of Bush tax cuts hasn't had a very positive effect on investment in the US or on the US economy overall. Looks like Romney wants to give more tax cuts to everyone. But this raises questions about what he will do about the deficit. Talking about huge spending cuts is okay. However, he would do well to remember that when the Republicans had the White House and the Congress for several years during the Bush presidency, they could not cut spending. And if he wants to cut deficits purely through spending cuts, he needs to explain which items he will cut. Will he go with large defense budget cuts ? Are there good, credible, non-risky private sector alternatives for the government programs he may want to cut ?
After fighting two costly wars with very questionable benefits to the country, the US finds itself in a position where its military and geostrategic activities are being met with serious opposition or outright hostility. With the continuation of economic sluggishness, the ability of the US to project its power abroad has decreased drastically. America's rhetoric about being the champion of democracy around the world is being met with more skepticism. The process of reducing American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is already underway. Generating partisan debates on foreign policy questions becomes difficult in these circumstances.
" Green jobs " was a big cathphrase of the 2008 elections. The Romney campaign website mentions that he will try to make the US energy independent by 2020. Americans should be skeptical about the achievability of energy independence by 2020. As for the effect on the overall economy, any new green jobs will replace conventional jobs, new green investment means less non-green investment etc. So, the Green economy thing is more about sustainability and resource independence and less about overall job creation. It depends a lot on how fast the scientific and research establishment, public and private, is able to come up with good solutions and cheap alternatives. It probably calls for a Beijing-style approach rather than a Washington-style approach.
China bashing has been resorted to by both Romney and Obama at one time or the other. However, calling China a currency manipulator misses the point. Low wages and other structural factors figure prominently in why China is exporting so much to the US. Different countries try to keep their currencies low or high depending on their economci needs and circumstances. It is wrong to give false hopes to the public on this question without paying serious thought to the complex economics involved.
It may be a good thing after all that Americans will have to pay more attention to facts and issues rather than gimmicks while deciding their president this time around.
by C. Jayant Praharaj ( send comments to [email protected] )