Oh come on America…

Come on America, you’re not going to fall for this are you? What Obama has failed to do is down to your bipartisan political system that puts block after block in the way of getting anything like serious change. And if you believe that Romney is going to do anything spectacular in getting the country back to work you are frankly deluded.
Oh, and you’re whinging about $3.90 for a gallon of gas. We have to pay out $10. Count yourselves lucky.

CNN Political Ticker

(CNN) – The New York Daily News and Long Island’s Newsday endorsed Republican nominee Mitt Romney for president, switching from their 2008 pick of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

In an article published in the newspaper’s opinion section Sunday, the Daily News’ editorial board dissected the nation’s economic hardships down to the dollars and cents of an increasingly expensive subway ride to a $3.90 average for a gallon of gasoline.

View original post 380 more words


Flip-flopping Mittens

A quick trawl through the news sites for the past twenty-four hours reveals that although Obama kicked Romney’s ass in the last debate, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that Mittens might just swing it in November.

Please no…  The man will say anything to get elected.  Yes, Ok – in that he is probably no better than most politicians.  After all, you can be the best possible candidate in existence but your policies mean sweet FA unless you’re in power and able to at least try to put them into effect.  That said, Romney has quite the track record of trying to be all things to all people.

Surely the American electorate will see through that.. won’t they?

Election 2012 – Romney or Obama 5

As promised, it’s time to look at the foreign policy angle.  Stripping away the hype and the partisan commentry, just where do these two stand?  Romney details two main issues he believes need dealing with if the USA is to remain at the top of the world economically and militarily.  One he describes as challenging the jihadists and the other as competing with Asia.  Alongside this, he has gone on record as saying Russia is America’s biggest geopolitical threat today. (ABC News 11 September 2012).

As for Obama, his policies (dubbed the Obama Doctrine by Washington Post Columnist EJ Dionne), can best be described as deployment of American power tempered by practical realism and self-awareness.  Which means what exactly?  Well, looking back to 2009, it meant rebuilding America’s often tarnished international reputation, normalising relations with Russia with a view towards further nuclear weapons reductions, working  more closely with China on regional and global issues and striving for peace in the Middle East.  However, the thing about Obama is that he’s also had to temper noble aspirations for a better world with a healthy dose of pragmatism.  To Republicans that makes him a phony – to his apologists it simply means that in the mix of global events since 2009, pragmatism has had to dominate.  Politicians can say what they like to get your vote – they may believe they can make it happen too.  Then reality in the shape of domestic criticism, vested interests, lobby groups and Murphy’s Law interferes.

I would reckon that the same holds true whichever country you’re the leader of.  America though is more under the spotlight than most and POTUS more than most other world leaders is going to have his every utterance and action analysed to the nth degree.  Hence, compromise becomes weakness and inability to deliver quickly incompetance.  In the end, people stop asking about your foreign policy strategy and start accusing you of simply responsding to events.  Assuming that whoever ends up back in the Oval Office in November will be affected by the same constraints, which of the two contenders is going to be better for a) America and b) the rest of the world?

a)  Well, I’m not American, so anything I say here is purely speculation.  Of the two, Obama is most on the back foot as regards foreign policy.  Republicans are gunning for him after the recent attacks on US embassies in the Middle East.  They regard his approach to the Syria situation as weak and are suspicious of his cooler attitude towards Israel.  Does Romney have anything better to offer?  Doesn’t look that way.  Romney accuses Obama of presiding over an American geopolitical decline and not being tough enough on Iran.  He also promises that Republican foreign policy in a Romney administration will mean ‘never having to apologise for America’.  Did he really mean that last bit to sound quite so strident?

Or is he quite happy with the image of America as the arrogant bully enforcing its will on the rest of the world right or wrong? Or is America de facto right, regardless of any external moral standards?  That attitude got Palestinian kids dancing with joy at the sight of 9/11 footage and to be honest I found it hard to blame them.  When the high school bully gets hospitalised it’s hard for his victims to feel sympathy.  No, Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s better than the alternative.  I want someone in the Oval Office who understands that the USA is not the sole arbiter of world power and who understands the psyche of people like the Russians and the Chinese.  I especially want someone who is willing to say to both Iran AND Israel thus far and no further.

Solving our many political and economic problems as a planet cannot be done by one nation acting as top dog.  Even the Chinese don’t really believe that.  A closer partnership between Russia, China and the USA could achieve much without a serious diminishing of influence for any of them.  America still has a lot to offer the world and still has a lot to do, but not as the sole  economic, moral and military force .  The following excerpt from an essay by Obama puts it pretty concisely:

“After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership — military, diplomatic, moral — to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century’s challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.”

Election 2012 – Romney or Obama 3

As promised, a little something on the subject of redistribution, a word which in the Republican lexicon seems to rub shoulders with terms like Marxist-Leninism.  So what’s the big deal here – after all isn’t redistribution something that all governments do in one way or another and not necessarily from the rich to the poor?  Straightforward redistribution could be from the healthy to the sick or from the young to the old. Lesser known ways include the tax exclusion for people who get employer-provided healthcare – money is redistributed from individuals buying insurance to those getting it from the workplace.

So, just what is Mitt’s beef with this issue?   Well, it seems he sees redistribution from the wealthy to the poor, from the multimillionaire to the unemployed, from the healthy to the sick as some form of fundamentally evil big government theft.  This sems to be saying to me that being poor, unemployed and sick really means you’re a bit of a loser and therefore unworthy of sharing in the American dream.  Find fiftty cents pal – phone someone who cares…  What’s with this attitude that a much needed increase in social welfare programs equates to rewarding freeloaders and penalising the successful?  Guys, I love the can-do spirit I see in most Americans I’ve met, their hard work and optimism.  But I wouldn’t want to live there – not with an attitude like that in charge.

No-one (including me) can seriously say that rewarding people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives is an economically viable or morally right action.  We certainly don’t belive in that here in the UK.  If you lose your job here (as a lot of us have recently), you only get your Job Seekers allowance (about $350 a month) if you have an accurate and checkable diary of your attempts to find work.  I’ve no problem with that and certainly don’t see it as rewarding failure.

It’s not just about ensuring there is a safety net (funded by our taxes) to catch us if we fall.  Redistribution also means taxation going on defence.  So if Romney and Ryan want to take on Iran then it will be American tax-payers’ dollars they use to do it.  Of course if Mitt wants to recruit and arm his own private army out of his personal fortune and lead it himself that’s a different story.  Some Iranians might die…laughing.

As a UK citizen I find the Republican link between redistribution and socialism puzzling, if not plain absurd.  If anyone out there feels like explaining it to me feel free. I may not agree with you, but I’ll certainly listen.  One thing I’ve not covered here is the possible origin of Romney’s ideas – but that’s for next time.

Election 2012 – Romney or Obama? 2

An old friend who moved to the States six years ago and now lives in Birmingham Alabama tells me (and I quote), that with an economy breathing out of its ass as badly as theirs is, Romney ought to be able to ‘snowboard the landslide wave’.  Outside the real diehards of the GOP, I wonder how many Republicans really see him doing that?  (I’ll deal with the Tea Party another time – those guys operate on a totally different wavelength).  Obama may not have cleared up the economic mess but it’s important to realise that it wasn’t his party that caused it.  Obama’s been struggling with the aftermath of eight years of Dubya.  Minimal regulation allowed the banks to go crazy and start gambling with other people’s cash.  On top of that, the regulatory agencies who could have helped put a brake on this were starved of the money, manpower and resources necessary to make a difference.  Romney knows all this, but he and his GOP backers seem unable to step beyond the usual adversarial two party politics to come up with a credible solution.  It’s far easier to throw obstructionism, lies and innuendo at Obama (the so-called ‘birther’ issue for example) and hope enough of it sticks.  And I thought UK politics was adversarial…

My Alabaman contact tells me that however much Obama may have screwed up, it’s difficult to see how he could have succeeded.  In fact, no other president since Roosevelt has taken office in economic conditions quite so dire.  FDR got three goes at the Oval Office and a world war to assist in revitalising the economy.  Neither Obama nor his successor will get the former and as for the latter – well, it’s kind of hard to revitalise mounds of irradiated rubble…

Which brings me nicely to foreign policy.  ‘Do what we want or we’ll send in the troops’ no longer really qualifies Mitt.  Neither does giving Israel an unequivocal guarantee of US support or promising to build that Polish based anti-missile ‘shield’.  Russia may indeed be America’s top geo-political rival as Romney recently asserted, but his stance on Russia is way too strident for us Euros to feel anything other than nervous about it.  ‘Everything we try and do globally they try and oppose’ says Mitt, citing Russian ‘obstructionism’ on the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian Civil War.  Hmm – the logistic support provided by Moscow for the allied intervention in Afghanistan seems, amongst other things, to have slipped his mind.

The world has too many problems for America to adopt a confrontational foreign policy – unless of course it has no choice.  Obama seems to understand the need for dialogue better than Romney and while I don’t doubt that he’ll use force if he has to it is far more likely to be as a last resort.  In addition, Obabma knows that America no longer has the resources to play world policeman on its own.  China and Russia possess the geopolitical connections to do things America cannot – dialogue with them is essential if the world is to get through the next century or so in one piece.

Next up – Redistribution – is it really a dirty word?

Election 2012 – Romney or Obama?

I guess for most Americans this is a bit of a no-brainer, even if you don’t vote at all – like 36% of the electorate in 2008.  Over in Europe the picture seems pretty clear too.  That said, over here words like ‘liberal’ and ‘socialist’ tend to be used slightly differently to how they are Stateside – to put it mildly.  Hearing Obama’s policies referred to as ‘socialist’ makes me wince – but then what I’d call ‘socialist’ most Americans would probably label communist, so I guess there’s a major difference of perspective at work here.  Have they just become general purpose snarl words for the neo-cons and Fox News to fling at people who don’t agree with them?

Be that as it may, the choice from this side of the Atlantic seems to come down to either a moderate liberal redistributive programme or a fiscally neo-conservative one.  OK, that massively over-simplifies the issue  but hey this is a blog post not an economic treatise so you’ll need to cut me some slack…;)  Romney et al seem to be saying that cutting government spending is going to instill confidence and generate economic recovery as the private sector steps into the breech.  That doesn’t appear to have happened – not in America and certainly not here in the UK where a far harsher level of austerity measures have been implemented.

Obama proposes a more Keynesian economic approach, as advocated by US economists Stiglitz and Krugman – although no Democrat President since Roosevelt has seriously attempted to follow this path.  Personally I don’t think the US two party system allows them to but there you go.  Increased regulation of finance and public spending plus equality raising measures such as greater access to healthcare are all on the list of possible measures.

Foreign policy is a whole new can of worms and since I don’t want to make this too long , I’ll deal with it another time.  Domestically I guess this comes down to two different visions for America.  One claims to be fighting against a tyranny of equality.  The other looks to balance the virtues of hard work and self reliance with compassion and assrts that the true test of greatness in a state is how it deals with its least fortunate and those least able to help themselves.  Mitt Romney essentially dismissed all those Americans too poor to pay income tax as losers, thus making clear to me what his take on the ‘American dream’ really is.

That’s all for now.