By Louis EA Moyston:
In recent months, weeks and days we have been listening to news on American politics and the search for a compromise. The history of this word is rooted in American politics from the Constitutional Convention in the post-1776 period to the civil war of the 1860s. The American system of government is based on a compromise - a reasonable agreement between two or more parties. The emergent Tea Party politics that has fuelled the Republican Party has outlined the ideological framework for the Republicans in Washington, creating an inflexible political atmosphere. It is this ideology that has caused the stalemate - the ideological thrust has no room for compromise because their inflexibility is rooted in the idea that they must get rid of Barack Obama, making him a one-term president.
Just look at the BRICS nations and you will understand the magnitude of America's problem. America has lost its industrial edge and has been in two major wars that have been sucking the nation's resources. This combination has led to the decline of the USA. If they manage to get rid of Obama, a nativistic agenda will emerge in the USA - blacks and foreigners will become the focal point of their aggression. Norway has given us an important lesson. The weakness of the sharing of power in the US government may require new reforms regarding decision-making of this nature.
There is a rich history of compromise in American politics. It was the compromise between the Virginia and the New Jersey plans on the idea for the system of government as it is today. Other major compromises - 1820, 1850 and 1877 - more or less had to do with slavery, the politics of the South and the new territories in the West. American politics is built on compromises - the ability for parties or others to arrive at a reasonable conclusion; it is about making deals.
Interestingly, many of the compromises in the past had to do with slavery. This is a history that Obama has to live with. The objective of the Tea Party-led Republicans is to get rid of Obama by bringing the government to its knees at all costs. It is important to look at the Tea Party and its last election campaign. There was a convergence of traditional right-wingers and Tea Party adherents in a campaign to demonise Obama. They insisted that he was not an American citizen and that he intended to apply the "Kenyan model" to America. There are two leading Tea Party women in the Republican Party who spend their time describing Obama as a person who lacks the capacity to lead. What is evident is not a new plan but the right-wing ideology that is linked to the fact that they cannot stand to see a black man in the White House. The world was in awe - the morning after - when Barack Obama became the president of the USA, and so too were many Americans. Obama has the capacity to lead. Indeed, he is among four great intellects of the American presidency - Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton. I write not as a fan of Obama but I respect his intellect and his story.
Generally speaking, political parties in America are different from political parties in England, Norway, Sweden, Germany and Jamaica. Parties in America are renewed, re-energised and re-inspired by external "locomotives". In recent decades there have been two clear regroupings of conservatives to play a "revolutionary" role in American politics. In the 1980s there was the emergence of the role of interest and lobby groups and their use of the media to influence American politics in their ideological interest. In the 1980s it was about the "Reagan revolution" and today in another "revolutionary" coat there is Tea Party politics. It was the surge of the Tea Party that significantly assisted the victory of the Republicans in the mid-term elections that put the Republicans in a leading political role on Washington. There is nothing easy about politics, but it is wise to defend a position as an end and not as a means. To treat political decisions like desire-satisfying desires is far from doing the right thing for the right reason. There is that inclination to remove Obama that has landed American politics in a morass of moral pollution.
It is important to look at America beyond Obama. Who landed the country where it is now? Who landed America in two major wars costing the country much of its wealth in a period when America was unable to create adequate wealth to satisfy its appetite? There are some practical things for the Americans to be concerned about like increasing (not regaining) its competitive edge. It must produce more scientists and increase the role of science and technology in national development. By not recognising American current weaknesses, right-wingers aim their anger at blacks and immigrants for America's declining and decaying economy. Other implications include the use of right-wing politics to invade and capture strategic resources from the developing countries. The European aspect of nativistic politics was illustrated by that mass killer in Norway on July 22.. Ominous clouds are on the horizon of American politics.
Louis EA Moyston
thearchives01@yahoo.com
Saturday, July 30, 2011
jamaicaobserver
An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World. This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American politics. Show all posts
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Monday, November 8, 2010
Mr Obama, it will not be an easy road
By Christopher-Burns
Without advancing the crucifixion theory, US President Barack Obama should have known that in politics the journey between Palm Sunday and Good Friday can be as triumphant as it can be absolutely hellish. Consequently, he should have anticipated the terrible results from last Tuesday's mid-term elections, because as he now concedes, "Ultimate power resides with the people"; however irrational the exercise of that power may appear. For, whether by fair means or foul, the Republicans, aided and abetted by an insurgent group of angry, impatient, ultra-conservative (and more often than not unreasonably myopic) Tea-Partiers, stuck to their message of demanding a smaller government and lower taxes and were handsomely rewarded by American voters.
Defeats are always hard to accept, even in circumstances where it was obvious from the start that the quality and quantity of inputs would not have produced good outcomes, but we have to move on. So like many other presidents, prime ministers and premiers, Mr Obama may have come to the realisation that leadership is not easy and that political leadership, in particular, is one of the most thankless jobs anyone could aspire to, because no leader, however well-intentioned, can ever meet everybody's expectations. Nonetheless, last Tuesday's election results were not about a pack of ingrates. People were "mad as hell" about everything and they forgot about what Obama inherited - since as president he owns all the issues.
Remarkably, Obama's admission that he has not been as passionate in leadership as he was as candidate - though visibly obvious - conveys a tiny part of a bigger problem. You see, Democrats foolishly underestimated the strength and reach of the Tea Party; herein lies the real problem. As I see it, Obama continues to err by stubbornly pursuing his brand of clumsy intellectualism over practical intelligence and empathy, especially in moments when the country wants compassionate leadership. Sometimes, he appears so academically bionic and unexcitingly robotic that he seems unable to read the mood of the people, much less understand the political zeitgeist, however threatening. I have never been able to fathom why he chooses to use feather pillows to fight the massive artillery power of his political opponents, knowing full well that American politics is a high contact sport.
None of this is to suggest violent confrontation or political incivility, but my gosh, stand up and fight like a man, if you truly believe in something, as I think Obama does in his policies. Say what you may about the Republicans and their coterie of Tea-Party supporters, they are never short on enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness. This makes me worry about Obama's Pollyannaish expectations for bipartisanship and compromise. This approach may seal the deal for his ouster in 2012, as the Republicans are not in the mood for consensus and with Congress now at extremes, right wing-conservatives versus liberal democrats; "Blue Dog" democrats and moderate-conservatives were booted out, cooperation looks unlikely.
The Democrats lost big and the scale of the electoral trouncing will have far-reaching implications, not only on the Democratic Party or Obama's presidency, but also on policy issues affecting immigration, education, climate-change, trade, health care, social and welfare spending, among other things. Politically, the size of the Republican win will give it the ability to carry out major redistricting - a practice that could almost guarantee a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress for a long time to come. Nationally, there were about 680 seat changes (including governorships and state races) to Republican control. This is above the 412 or so seats that changed hands when Democrats lost in 1994 under Bill Clinton.
In fact, historians have now declared the 60-seat gain by Republicans in the House of Representatives as the biggest since 1948. Already, predictions are being made as to whether or not Obama can survive this massive political tremor as he heads into the lame-duck session of his presidency and then on to the 2012 presidential and mid-term general elections. Shortly after Obama won the 2008 presidential elections, I remarked privately to a friend that his victory and success, though absolutely thrilling, historic and substantially important, may have been a strategy to place an important, but necessary, pause - like a comma - in America's history to showcase America as the land of possibilities; however temporary. As I said then, I say now: unfortunately I do not envision Mr Obama serving as president for more than one term and it would have nothing to do with underachievement.
Undoubtedly, Mr Obama's accomplishments far outweigh those of his predecessor, George Bush. He has brought a refreshing pedigree and purpose to the White House and to American leadership around the world. He has achieved in that health care reform law what many presidents before him did not achieve. Yet, Obama has been subjected to more attacks on his legitimacy to be president, his religion and love of country than any other president. Without citing race as the underlying factor for the hostility and indifference directed towards him, Obama's success does not mean America is post-racial - just listen to some Tea Partiers talk about "putting real Americans back in the White House".
Now that the Republicans have some power, let us see what they are going to do with it because America's problems are bigger than tax breaks, debt and deficits. America has been lagging behind some other industrialised countries in areas such as education, innovation, research and science. If they think stepping back into becoming an isolationist state is good for America they'd better think twice. If they think locking out immigrants and restoring the Bush tax cut will lead to an automatic spiralling in job growth or robust investments and economic activities they'd better prepare for a major disappointment. Certainly, it will not be an easy road.
November 08, 2010
Burnscg@aol.com
jamaicaobserver
Without advancing the crucifixion theory, US President Barack Obama should have known that in politics the journey between Palm Sunday and Good Friday can be as triumphant as it can be absolutely hellish. Consequently, he should have anticipated the terrible results from last Tuesday's mid-term elections, because as he now concedes, "Ultimate power resides with the people"; however irrational the exercise of that power may appear. For, whether by fair means or foul, the Republicans, aided and abetted by an insurgent group of angry, impatient, ultra-conservative (and more often than not unreasonably myopic) Tea-Partiers, stuck to their message of demanding a smaller government and lower taxes and were handsomely rewarded by American voters.
Defeats are always hard to accept, even in circumstances where it was obvious from the start that the quality and quantity of inputs would not have produced good outcomes, but we have to move on. So like many other presidents, prime ministers and premiers, Mr Obama may have come to the realisation that leadership is not easy and that political leadership, in particular, is one of the most thankless jobs anyone could aspire to, because no leader, however well-intentioned, can ever meet everybody's expectations. Nonetheless, last Tuesday's election results were not about a pack of ingrates. People were "mad as hell" about everything and they forgot about what Obama inherited - since as president he owns all the issues.
Remarkably, Obama's admission that he has not been as passionate in leadership as he was as candidate - though visibly obvious - conveys a tiny part of a bigger problem. You see, Democrats foolishly underestimated the strength and reach of the Tea Party; herein lies the real problem. As I see it, Obama continues to err by stubbornly pursuing his brand of clumsy intellectualism over practical intelligence and empathy, especially in moments when the country wants compassionate leadership. Sometimes, he appears so academically bionic and unexcitingly robotic that he seems unable to read the mood of the people, much less understand the political zeitgeist, however threatening. I have never been able to fathom why he chooses to use feather pillows to fight the massive artillery power of his political opponents, knowing full well that American politics is a high contact sport.
None of this is to suggest violent confrontation or political incivility, but my gosh, stand up and fight like a man, if you truly believe in something, as I think Obama does in his policies. Say what you may about the Republicans and their coterie of Tea-Party supporters, they are never short on enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness. This makes me worry about Obama's Pollyannaish expectations for bipartisanship and compromise. This approach may seal the deal for his ouster in 2012, as the Republicans are not in the mood for consensus and with Congress now at extremes, right wing-conservatives versus liberal democrats; "Blue Dog" democrats and moderate-conservatives were booted out, cooperation looks unlikely.
The Democrats lost big and the scale of the electoral trouncing will have far-reaching implications, not only on the Democratic Party or Obama's presidency, but also on policy issues affecting immigration, education, climate-change, trade, health care, social and welfare spending, among other things. Politically, the size of the Republican win will give it the ability to carry out major redistricting - a practice that could almost guarantee a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress for a long time to come. Nationally, there were about 680 seat changes (including governorships and state races) to Republican control. This is above the 412 or so seats that changed hands when Democrats lost in 1994 under Bill Clinton.
In fact, historians have now declared the 60-seat gain by Republicans in the House of Representatives as the biggest since 1948. Already, predictions are being made as to whether or not Obama can survive this massive political tremor as he heads into the lame-duck session of his presidency and then on to the 2012 presidential and mid-term general elections. Shortly after Obama won the 2008 presidential elections, I remarked privately to a friend that his victory and success, though absolutely thrilling, historic and substantially important, may have been a strategy to place an important, but necessary, pause - like a comma - in America's history to showcase America as the land of possibilities; however temporary. As I said then, I say now: unfortunately I do not envision Mr Obama serving as president for more than one term and it would have nothing to do with underachievement.
Undoubtedly, Mr Obama's accomplishments far outweigh those of his predecessor, George Bush. He has brought a refreshing pedigree and purpose to the White House and to American leadership around the world. He has achieved in that health care reform law what many presidents before him did not achieve. Yet, Obama has been subjected to more attacks on his legitimacy to be president, his religion and love of country than any other president. Without citing race as the underlying factor for the hostility and indifference directed towards him, Obama's success does not mean America is post-racial - just listen to some Tea Partiers talk about "putting real Americans back in the White House".
Now that the Republicans have some power, let us see what they are going to do with it because America's problems are bigger than tax breaks, debt and deficits. America has been lagging behind some other industrialised countries in areas such as education, innovation, research and science. If they think stepping back into becoming an isolationist state is good for America they'd better think twice. If they think locking out immigrants and restoring the Bush tax cut will lead to an automatic spiralling in job growth or robust investments and economic activities they'd better prepare for a major disappointment. Certainly, it will not be an easy road.
November 08, 2010
Burnscg@aol.com
jamaicaobserver
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)