Today we begin a weekly series on the presidential election campaign in the United States that looks beyond the news stories.
By R M Austin
The United States presidential elections of 2012 are refracted through a multiplicity of media and internet outlets, some of them blatantly biased. The impression of a messy and clamorous political situation is reinforced by the relentless and contending claims of the candidates and their surrogates, and the noisy intrusions of an overly talkative punditry. But this is American democracy at work. It is seeking solutions to unprecedented political and economic problems, against the background of a failing economic system, a divided polity, and an angst-ridden population.
The central feature in this situation is a contest for the power, the like of which is unknown in modern American politics. It has been noted by everyone that this is only July – very early in the campaign – and already the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, and the Republicans, led by Mitt Romney, are like two scorpions in a bottle, locked in a life or death struggle. God knows what will happen in the coming months.
The Republicans want President Obama out. And they are prepared to do anything to see him gone. Carefully calculated political tactics have unfolded in key ‘swing’ states to suppress the votes among constituencies favourable to President Obama and the Democratic Party: the Afro-Americans, the Hispanics and young people. In Pennsylvania, a key ‘swing’ state, some 750,000 (note the population of Guyana) can be disenfranchised by a new state law which requires voters to have a government ID in order to cast a vote. This has met a legal challenge but it has clearly rattled the Democratic Party and its supporters. But laws which could lead to the suppression of the vote have been passed in 13 states and proposed in 21. All this is ominous because the indications are that this will be a very close election, which could be decided by a margin of a few thousand votes, and the legal challenges might not be concluded in time for the elections.
But matters do not rest here. Money is being poured into this election campaign in unprecedented volumes and the Republicans are doing better than the Democrats. In fact, the Obama campaign, consisting of some hardened Chicago pols, sent out a memo about two weeks ago warning that it was being outspent and that if this continued the President could well lose the election. This torrent of money, facilitated by a Supreme Court decision, is coming from men, who also want to see Obama vacate the White House. Not all of them are known; some are. The Koch brothers are notorious. And so is Sheldon Adelson, owner of casinos in Las Vegas and Macau. These men are the spearhead of a Republican cohort, which do not only want to dump Obama but also to ensure that the right controls both houses of Congress. These men might be partly responsible for more than a billion dollars being spent during the current campaign. If they succeed, in effect, in displacing the American voter, can the world really speak of a democratic system in the United States?
But Obama does not want to go gently into the good political night. He has emerged as a skilled politician who is reading the political tea leaves well. And he and his campaign are working overtime to overcome the financial deficit. They run an efficient system. I brought my computer to New York and set it up. How the Obama people found out I was here is the stuff of legend. Soon I found an e-mail in my inbox requesting a donation. Initially I demurred. Later I appealed to my sister. She made a modest contribution and received such a lovely letter from Axelrod and company beginning “Dear Myrna…” that sent her into seventh heaven and a state of continuous rambling about the need for “Her President” to win the elections. People tell me that this kind of approach by Obama to the ordinary citizen for small donations will over time make a significant addition to his campaign finances.
Obama has also realized that the middle class has been battered by policies over the last thirty years, that have favoured the rich. His political mantra, which is resonating with important sections of the electorate, is to rebuild the middle class in order to sustain economic growth. Moreover, he has offered an attractive vision for the future of the United States: more taxes for the rich to pay down the deficit; major investments in education, technology, and infrastructure; a more measured approach to foreign policy in a world in which American power and influence have waned; and an idea of governance which takes into account the vulnerable elements of the society and the developments of modern technology. A multicultural America is also part of this vision.
The Republicans have rejected Mr Obama’s vision of America. Influenced by a powerful right wing, which includes a particularly nasty ‘lunatic fringe,’ they have openly sided with the rich and are calling for more tax cuts and a reform of entitlement programmes, which have been the bedrock of the social contract; the safety net for the poor.
I must confess that American political culture has undergone radical change. A few decades ago it would have been political suicide for any politician to reject the poor and enthrone the rich. Now the Republicans do it openly. This, allied to a venomous hatred for Obama and an open philosophy of xenophobia, are not only raising questions about this party in this election but also about its place in a US, which is or is about to be the first country in the Western world that does not have a white majority.
A lot is riding on this presidential election. America cannot continue as it is, paralysed by a dysfunctional legislative system, burdened by major fiscal problems and held back by religious fundamentalists. The elections ought to provide the basis for solutions to these clamant issues. Equally, a lot will depend on the main antagonists in this fight: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; both Harvard educated and very religious.
