|
It’s barely two years since Americans trooped out in their millions to
elect their president, governors and members of Congress on
November 4, 2008. But in less than two months from now they
will be heading back to the polls for the midterm elections.
All members of the US House of Representatives and one third
of all senators are due for election every two years, which
invariably falls in midterms. Thanks to the US Constitution
which decrees only a two-year term for members of the House
of Representatives and a six year term for Senators. Such a
skewed tenure has, however, necessitated midterm elections
for the bi-cameral US Congress.
In this regard, however, the term “midterm” must be understood as
referring to the presidency rather than to congressional
tenures. Midterm elections therefore come midway into the
tenure of the president rather than that of a congressman or
woman as the case may be. Since the president is elected on
November 4th every four years, it therefore means that
midterm elections must hold two years into the tenure of the
president, which, in Obama’s case, will be held on November
4, 2010, on the second anniversary of his election.
Thus Americans have another date with history on that date. And as
before, President Barack Obama is in the thick of it all.
Why so, the reader might ask? The reason is because although
midterm elections do not directly affect the president they
almost invariably assume the character of a referendum on
the president’s policies and programs as well as his job
performance in office in the preceding two years to the
elections. As such, an unpopular president far away in
Washington, DC, is sure to become a drag on the fortunes of
a candidate of his party in a local election taking place in
the states and the reverse is the case with a popular
president.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, however, President Obama is anything but
popular at this point in time due to the lingering economic
woes in the US leading to a jobless growth, which have
sapped his goodwill and popularity. According to the recent
Gallop Poll, Obama’s job approval rating is 43% as of now.
That’s not so great but not terribly low either.
To put it in historical context, Obama’s approval rating at this time of
his presidency stands shoulder to shoulder with the approval
ratings of such greats as ex presidents Clinton, Ronald
Reagan and Jimmy Carter, though slightly below GW Bush for
understandable reasons. Bush’s popularity soared with the
9/11 attack and remained so into the early months of the
Iraq war until his mishandling of the war turned the tables
against him. On the contrary, Obama inherited an unpopular
war in Iraq and faltering one in Afghanistan. When that’s
coupled with a recession, he got a plateful of disasters
that could sink any president’s popularity. It’s no
surprise, therefore, that his popularity is not soaring like
the eagle at this time as it once was before and after his
inauguration. Times have changed and the chicks have come
home to roost. As soon as the honeymoon was over the grim
economic realities soon dawned on Americans with
unemployment rate hitting 9.6%. And as that number goes up
Obama’s popularity goes down. His popularity is inversely
proportional to US unemployment rate.
In some weird way, however, that’s good news for the Republicans, who are
already salivating on their impending victory in the
midterms and whose congressional leaders are already
measuring the drapes in the Speaker’s and Senate Majority
Leader’s offices in Congress. Anything below 50% job
approval rating is a danger signal for the ruling party in
the US in midterms. That explains why Obama has hit the
campaign trail not necessarily to help shore up his numbers
but to get his party candidates some much needed help in the
face of a fierce Republican offensive aided by its Tea Party
foot soldiers.
The auguries are not rosy for the Democrats, in fact, they’re foreboding.
A loss of Congress could effectively torpedo Obama’s agenda
and put the Republicans on the driver’s seat, at least in
Congress, possibly in both houses. If that happens, Obama
could be reduced to a lame duck president and unable to
accomplish anything meaningful for the remaining two years
of his presidency. There will be gridlock in Washington
similar to what happened during the Clinton years when
Republicans seized control of Congress. Even while out of
power the Republicans have managed to obstruct or outright
kill many of Obama’s initiatives. How much more
obstructionist would they become when they seize power in
Congress?
There is no question it will turn Obama into a lame duck president unless
he’s willing to swallow the bitter pills that will be
administered on him by Republican controlled Congress. He
could be forced to, in effect, abandon his Democratic agenda
and implement a Republican agenda in its place or else
remain a lame duck president. That’s the humiliation that
could attend Republican takeover of Congress. I could even
go as far as to predict the Republicans toying with the idea
of impeachment on the president, the same way they did to
President Clinton under the pretext of lying under oath. I
wouldn’t put anything past the Republicans in their
vindictiveness and hatred visceral for Obama.
Obama sees the danger ahead in the midterms. He’s sees his presidency in
peril if he allows the forces of reaction to take hold. He
sees the Republicans launching all manners of probes and
even initiating impeachment moves against him if they have
an overwhelming majority in Congress. He’s therefore
fighting to save his presidency from being rubbished by the
Republicans and disgraced out of power on some flimsy
charges.
Now he’s charging hard at the Republicans calling them obstructionists to
his reforms agenda. "If I said fish live in the sea, they'd
say no," he blasted the Republicans, accusing them of
seemingly running on a slogan of “No, we can’t.”
“Most Republicans have said no to just about every policy I have
proposed. If I fail they win,” Obama said, while carefully
and methodically laying out the charge on Republicans in
Cleveland, Ohio, in a seemingly aggressive offensive against
the Republicans. That was followed with a news conference at
the White House later where he further took the battle to
the doorsteps of the Republicans. He seems to be using his
bully pulpit to full effect.
However, Obama’s newfound aggressive push-back at the Republicans at this
late hour is an indication of his acknowledgement of the
serious damage the Republicans propaganda machine has done
to his administration’s records. And he’s well within his
rights to fight back like a bull in danger. But he’s coming
out a little too late in the day to define the Republicans
and etch such description in the minds of voters well before
the elections. The reason for his late showing is not
altogether farfetched. He had been trying hard to reach out
to the other side of the isle all along but has found out
too late that his “reaching out across the isle” mantra is
pure wishful thinking and unworkable for a party that
believes in scorched- earth politics and filled with racists
who hate his skin with every ounce of their beings. The
Republicans want no outreach of any sorts from and Obama
himself has painfully acknowledged the reality that finding
common grounds is the farthest thing from the minds of
Republicans, who are determined to take down his presidency
by whatever means necessary.
Does Obama not know that majority of Republicans see him as usurper of
the throne of their forefathers? Does he not know that’s
reason why they want him to wear his birth certificate on
his forehead wherever he goes to prove his citizenship or
else use that to nullify his presidency and reduce it to a
phantom? Did they do that to senator McCain who was born in
Panana outside the US allegedly on a US Ship or wherever
when his father was serving in the navy? Did anybody
question that record of his birth? Did anybody ask for the
authentication of his birth record? Does Obama know that his
race is at the roots of such idiotic demands being made of
him by Republican nuts? He probably does, but it would be
politically incorrect for him to publicly voice it out. In
fact, he would publicly deny the existence of such
sentiments on the part of the Republicans. Yet he knows too
well that such sentiments are at the roots of his problems
with the Republicans. It’s reason why he would never get
their cooperation on anything no matter how hard he tries.
Even if he adopts a Republican plan like tax cuts, they will
find a reason not to cooperate with him by finding something
in it to criticize.
When faced with such an implacable adversary it is no use playing nice
and seeking cooperation endlessly in futility. Republican
cooperation with his administration does not serve their
purpose of taking power back. Obama should therefore
understand the fundamental imperatives of the power game. As
he himself has said in the above quote, if he fails they
win. It’s therefore in their interest to make certain that
he fails in his policies. Why then was he insisting on
reaching out to them when he knew they would rebuff his
moves? Was it just to paint the Republicans in bad light as
obstructionists in the eyes of the public? If all the time
and efforts put on courting the Republicans to no avail were
put in ramming through his own agenda with control of both
houses of Congress, it would have been time better spent
advancing his agenda. But he started on a totally wrong
premise of working together. Working together with whom, an
adversary?
Finding common grounds with the Republicans is an impossible task except
where common grounds are already in existence in which case
all would naturally fall in line with no major disagreements
from them. Where it is in the interest of the Republicans to
play ball they will play ball without any prodding from
Obama. Where it is not in their interests to play ball Obama
could spend all his time in the presidency trying to “find
common grounds” with them, but they will remain unmoved.
Such has been the case so far and will continue to be the
case as the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, lamented in
his reaction to the stimulus plan Obama unveiled for small
businesses, amongst others.
What the president needs to do in such circumstances and has done in some
instances like the extension of the unemployment insurance
and the financial reforms, is to find ways to split their
ranks and peel off some parts of the stubborn Republican
skin while at the same time launching a blistering media
campaign against it to help define it in the public mind.
That means Obama needs to get into the propaganda business
just like the Republicans and roll up his sleeves for a
bruising battle with them. He could do with some of that
stuff. He should quit playing the gentleman and get into the
rough and tumble of American politics as practiced by the
Republicans. The nice guy image that he has been cultivating
should take the back seat when dealing with brutal opponents
like the Republicans.
Obama and his totally intimidated Democratic Party men and women had,
before now allowed the Republicans to define them as “tax
and spend” liberals with little or no results for the huge
amounts voted for the economic stimulus program. And they
have allowed that totally dubious and unfair
characterization to stick to their skins for too long. But
nothing could be farther from the truth. Allowing an
opponent to define you in politics is a dumb thing to do.
Obama and his team have not sufficiently countered
Republican charges of alleged failure of his economic
policies which have succeeded in turning the economy back
from the brink of total collapse.
Smelling victory at the midterm the Republican House of Reps Minority
Leader,
John Boehner
(Ohio), made it clear to Obama he shouldn’t count on them for
his new economic plan of injecting $50bn to build railways,
roads and airport infrastructures to further spur economic
growth and job creation:
"We don't need more government 'stimulus' spending. We need to end
Washington Democrats' out-of-control spending spree, stop
their tax hikes, and create jobs by eliminating the
job-killing uncertainty that is hampering our small
businesses," hollered Boehner, lecturing Obama and the
Democrats on the economy.
His counterpart in the Senate Mitch McConnell rubbed it in when he told
Obama that Americans were "still looking for the
'shovel-ready' jobs they were promised more than a year
ago". Ask Boehner how would jobs be created, and he would
yell out “tax cuts!” at you. Ask him further how come the
economy collapsed on their heads when they were in power
with all their tax cuts and he will probably tell you the
tax cuts were not enough and that was why the economy
collapsed. And the only solution to the unemployment problem
is tax cuts and more tax cuts until there is no taxation in
the US. And by the way, he might tell you also that tax cuts
will reduce the huge US deficits as well!
Ladies and gentleman, welcome to Republicans’ Economics 101.
Can you imagine a Republican lecturing a Democrat about the economy?
Since when did Republicans become economic experts in the
United States? What a joke! But joke or not it’s only
possible because Democrats have allowed themselves to be
pushed around by the Republicans despite their majority in
Congress and control of the White House. They seem to be
rolling over each time they get a hard punch from
Republicans when they should be counterpunching and
outpunching the Republicans who drove the economy into a
ditch after squandering, under President Bush, the huge
budget surplus left behind by President Bill Clinton, a
Democrat.
A party that turned a budget surplus into $1.3tn budget deficits is
hardly the party you want to a lecture from on balancing the
national budget. A party that turned a growing economy into
a recession is hardly the party you want to hear lecturing
you on good economic management. It’s that simple Democrats
know these historical facts much more than this writer does.
Why they don’t stick them in the face of Republicans, who
are busy lecturing them on the economy, is totally beyond
me.
How about telling the Republicans to just shut up for a second while the
Democrats clean up their mess? That sounds quite reasonable
and natural to me, and I would guess, for most people too,
who might find themselves in similar position. You don’t
want to get lectures from the man who defecated in your yard
while you’re busy cleaning up his mess after him, do you?
That sounds pretty straightforward to me, and I should
imagine, to all reasonable people. I don’t know for the life
of me why it would sound that difficult to both the
Democrats and the American voting public. One would think
that what a reasonable man would do to a man who defecated
in a public place is to hand him over to the cops for
prosecution, and if he’s a politician get his ass fried and
his neck twisted at the polls to serve as deterrent to
others. But the contrary appears to be the case in America.
That Republicans who defecated in the public place barely two years ago
are now the ones running around lecturing Democrats about
economic hygiene and appear set to be rewarded by the
American voters in the next midterm elections, is clear
indication, not only of the timidity of the Democrats in
general, but the very low regard the Republicans have for
the American public. It’s also an indication of the warped
mentality of the average voter in the United States. A party
that should be writhing in contrition is now on the
offensive and one that should be on the offensive is now on
the defensive. What a terrible irony! Republicans who were
in complete disarray barely a year ago seem to have turned
the American universe upside down.
And what was Obama’s answer to all these taunts and lectures from the
Republicans on his economic performance? Not particularly
bullish.
Hear Obama: "Now here's the honest truth, the plain truth. There's no
silver bullet, there's no quick fix to these problems.”
Now, that’s quite an honest and truthful answer that I couldn’t agree
more with. Unfortunately, honesty does not get people to the
polls nor does it win votes. When people are hurting and
jittery about their economic conditions honest truth is a
harder pill to administer on them. What they want to hear is
not the bitter truth but sweet promise of better days ahead.
Tell them their lost jobs are coming back in different
forms, their lost homes will be recovered in different
forms, and their lives rebuilt even stronger. Give them your
roadmap to get to where they want to be. Don’t be apologetic
and cow about it. Proudly show them the future you desire
for them and you’re working your tail off to bring about on
their behalf as did Moses to the Jews about the Promised
Land.
Apologies don’t cut it. Honesty doesn’t cut it. Modesty doesn’t either.
Apologies are a sign of guilt and weakness and Americans are
not comfortable with leaders who exhibit signs of weakness.
They’ve been socialized from birth to conquer and overcome
all adversaries and adversities, natural or man-made and are
unnerved and riled by feeling of weakness and hopelessness.
It’s just not in their character and chemistry. Therefore,
Obama should at all times project that national persona of
strength and supreme confidence even in the midst of
economic adversity.
The Republicans know their political terrain better than the Democrats.
They care little about honesty and are ready to twist and
bend the truth with their propaganda machine and turn white
into black and black into white without batting an eye.
Truth manipulation, which is pure propaganda, is their home
turf. Republicans are not honest with their records of
disaster before Obama took office on a bleeding and
prostrate economy. Against what the whole world knows,
they’re now claiming that America never had it so good under
President GW Bush. They’re claiming now that Obama’s
economic policies have driven the American economy into a
recession and have dubbed it “Obama’s recession!”
It’s propaganda at work.
They’re not honest with their records of deficit spending on Iraq with
borrowed money from China. Imagine the United States
borrowing money from China to fight a fraudulent war in Iraq
which claimed the lives of nearly 5,000 service men and
women and tens of thousands of wounded veterans many of whom
are maimed or permanently scarred for life both mentally and
physically shattering their lives and dreams. Imagine the
lives of young men and women wasted in a fraudulent war and
the authors of that war are still arrogantly breathing fire
without any hint of remorse. Imagine the party that drove
not just the United States but the entire world economy in
recession still beating its chest like a chimp without
batting an eye. What do Republicans care about economy
anyway when they’re busy scouting for the next war front
globally? Truth is the Republicans care less about the
economy even as they gratuitously and shamelessly make their
pitches on it.
These people have no qualms at all. They’re merely shedding crocodile
tears about the state of the economy under Obama as if they
had better economic records under their watch. For the
avoidance of doubt the US economy was in deep recession
under GW Bush and the economy was losing between 400-800,000
jobs every single month when the recession began in August
2008 right up to when Bush left office. America lost a total
of 8million jobs in the Bush recession before Obama stopped
the bleeding and proceeded to add some 3million jobs to the
US economy. Yet these people have the guts to assail Obama’s
records of not only stopping the economic hemorrhage, but
actually growing the economy from a deep recession that was
verging on depression. But Obama and the Democrats are
partly to blame for assuming willy-nilly responsibility for
the bad economy and playing down their achievements in that
regard as a matter of policy. It is unfortunate that the
Obama administration has not been able to beat its own
trumpet and has been rather too apologetic about the
economic condition he did not create in the first place. If
anyone needs to be apologetic about the economic conditions
in the US it is not Obama and the Democrats, but the
Republicans. The blame for the fall of the US economy must
be laid squarely at the doorsteps of the Republicans, who
managed to turn a robust economy left to them by President
Clinton into a beggarly economy. Obama and Democrats should
always appear upbeat about their records of growing the
economy from the doldrums of recession back to life.
A president that has achieved so much within so short a period not only
in turning the economy around, but also in major areas of
healthcare and financial reforms, education, and technology,
has no reasons whatsoever to be apologetic of his records.
But the reverse appears to be the case with Obama and the
Democrats in the name of humility, forthrightness and
modesty. To buttress the above contention the author
stumbled across this report by one Jeffery Zeleny of the
New York Times dwelling precisely on this issue.
“Two years after arriving in Washington on a
message of hope and change, Democratic candidates are not
extolling their party’s accomplishments, but rather
distancing themselves from their party’s agenda.”
Timid Democrats are running away from their own records! What a pathetic
bunch! What kind of message are they sending Americans when
they run away from their own record in office? Democrats are
sending a clear message that they’ve failed the American
people, period. If so, why should they come back to ask for
their votes? The irony of it all is that the record they’re
running away from is a record of achievement worth crowing
about.
Now, if Obama and his Democratic Party members cannot blow their own
trumpets in an election year, who will blow it for them and
when will they ever blow it? It would appear that Obama and
his party members are waiting on the Republicans to blow
their trumpets for them— the very people who would deny that
Obama and his party have any trumpets at all let alone
blowing one. I don’t know what it is called, but if this is
a political strategy to lie low in humility, it seems quite
odd to me and totally out of place in partisan politics,
particularly in an election year. Obama and the Democrats
appear to have perfected the art of self effacement. Each
time there’s some good news in the economic indicators Obama
would come out to tell Americans that it was good but not
good enough for him until every American who is out of work
found a job. There’s no time Obama and his self-effacing
Democrats would beat their chests and crow about their
achievements. Now, Obama is a smart leader, but I’m not so
sure that’s exactly a very smart thing to say in the
circumstances even if it shows his candor and humility.
Obama would pat himself and his team on the back only when the last
American who is out of job finds a job? Why should he set
the bar so artificially and unrealistically high for himself
and his party? When is that going to happen? There’s no full
employment anywhere even at the best of times. There will
always be unemployment even in a booming economy. The
reality is that Obama’s artificial goal is not going to
happen anytime soon or even at all. On the contrary, the
economy will continue to make its tepid journey to full
recovery down the road and Obama should justifiably pound
his chest as the architect of that recovery. Whether slow or
fast recovery is the direct opposite of the recession he
inherited from George Bush and the Republicans and he and
the Democrats should be proud of their records rather than
being apologetic or timid about the economy.
How in the world would a physician who revived a dying patient and
brought him back to life be apologetic of his records just
because the patient is not recovering fast enough in the
estimation of his opponents who were responsible for the
near death experience of the patient in the first place? I
don’t get it.
Now, Obama may have been sounding hyperbolic in wishing every American
who lost his job to get it back before claiming victory in
his economic management. It may sound politically expedient
to tell every American who lost his job that he would not be
satisfied nor rest until each and everyone of them gets back
his job, but that should not prevent him from celebrating
his achievements so far in that quest. Everyone may not have
gotten back his job but some are getting back their jobs or
getting other jobs nevertheless. Or, what should we make out
of the 65,000 jobs created in August? Somebody got hired
somewhere, thanks to Obama’s economic policies. He has been
creating tens of thousands of jobs every month since the
recovery began under his watch. Given the huge numbers of
jobs lost that might not be a cause for jubilation but
certainly a cause for hope, even cautious celebration. And
he shouldn’t wait until the economy begins to create
millions of jobs monthly before he starts to celebrate his
achievements, not quietly in the White House, but publicly
in Main Street.
It is imperative that he must create a sense of the inevitable recovery
in the public mind by drumming up the successes of the
recovery so far rather than dwelling on doom and gloom
scenarios being gleefully promoted by the Republican
propaganda machine designed to turn Americans against him
and the Democratic Party.
Such timidity has become the culture of the Democrats who don’t seem to
know how to celebrate their achievements. Rather than
celebrate their widely acknowledged historical achievements
in the several areas indicated above, they’re playing shy
and giving in to the Republican propaganda machine
portraying them as failures. A party which government was
losing more than 500,000 jobs monthly now has the guts to
tell the Democrats who are creating tens of thousands of
jobs monthly that it is a failure on the economy—in other
words, the pot calling the kettle black. It appears the
Republicans have given some cool aid to the Democrats to
drink and lie low. I don’t get it.
Obama on Attack Mode
Now, the Republicans are upbeat hoping to snatch both houses of Congress
from the Democrats in the midterm elections. They’re not
running on any records of prudent economic management
because they know they have no records to run on. They’ve
figured out that they can win simply by casting the
Democrats and Obama as failures on the economy. In other
words, they want the midterm elections as a referendum on
the Obama administration rather than an inquisition into
their tenure under GW Bush. And the strategy seems to be
working. The Democrats would be stupid to make this election
a referendum only on Obama and their party and not on GW
Bush and the Republicans. And there is some indication that
Obama is doing just that. It’s about time his party men and
women toed the same line.
Addressing an enthusiastic crowd on his campaign trail Obama said this
about the Republicans:
“They think you'll just believe that they've changed. These are the folks
whose policies helped devastate our middle class and drive
our economy into a ditch. And now they're asking you for the
keys back."
That might be a good beginning but not nearly enough. Obama and the
Democrats must be on the attack rather than on the defense
because, why they have a record to run on, the Republicans
have none or one that they’re trying to run away from
because it is so noxious they don’t want voters to remember
it. It is the duty of the Democrats to constantly remind
voters of that noxious record of the Republicans as Obama is
beginning to do. It’s unfortunate though that his party
candidates are not on board with him on this and many of
them are trying to distance themselves from their own
records just like the Republicans, thereby creating an
opening for the Republicans to go on the attack. Obama
should move quickly to stiffen their wobbling spines.
How is it that a party with an atrocious record on the economy is on the
attack and one with promising records on the defense? That’s
an abnormality that must quickly be rectified before it’s
too late. Although Obama and the Democrats have waited for
too long to go on the attack doing so now might make some
difference by reminding some people suffering from amnesia
that having a Republican in Congress is bad news for the
economy and for America. Anyone who would wish the Bush
years on America again has a death wish for America.
That said, the Democrats have a reason to be jittery about the midterms
for the following reasons: (1) It seems that Americans have
short memories.
Obama subtly hinted at this in the quote above… "They're betting that
between now and November you'll come down with a case of
amnesia. They think you'll forget what their agenda did to
this country.”
This is direct allusion to the affliction of amnesia that many Americans
are suffering from. And Obama is not alone in his diagnosis.
Former President Bill Clinton put it even more directly at a
rally in Nashville, Tennessee when he was reported to have
complained that "There are three things we have too much of
- too much apathy, too much anger, too much amnesia…"
Oh, that word again “amnesia!” Americans are suffering from too
much apathy, too much anger, and too much amnesia! That’s a
poisonous broth, right there! Was that a correct diagnosis?
Two presidents coming down with the same exact diagnosis
about their people can’t be both wrong. It’s a known
American affliction that has been confirmed by recent polls,
which show a majority of potential voters favoring the
Republicans over the Democrats in the midterm elections.
Isn’t that incredible? Republicans that were chased out of office just
two years ago are now the darlings of the American voters
for doing nothing but frustrating the efforts of the man
they elected president to help clean up the mess left behind
by the Republicans. American voters are going back to their
vomit because they have forgotten how awful it tasted while
it lasted.
Character Traits
Republican obstructionists are now to be rewarded for frustrating Obama’s
agenda. If the polls are anything to go by, Americans want
the Republicans who, in the words of Obama, drove them into
the ditch back in power over the Democrats to drive them
into another ditch. They don’t seem to have any sense of
history at all, however recent it may have been. How does
one explain this weird psychology of the American voters,
which is totally counter intuitive? That would be a question
for the psychoanalysts and I’m not one. But I would venture
to stake out some plausible explanations.
Before I get there, however, I would want to make this serious
observation that the mental affliction of amnesia suffered
by Americans in general has, not just political, but
security implications for the nation. This is already
playing out in Afghanistan, which sponsored the terrorists
that attacked the United States on 9/11, the 9th
anniversary of which was being observed at the time of
writing this piece. America justifiably went to war in
Afghanistan to drive then ruling Talibans out of power and
deliver justice to the terrorists who attacked her, with
overwhelming global support and approval as expressed in the
strength of its coalition as opposed to that of Iraq.
However, although the Talibans have been taken out of power, they’re far
from defeated and are fighting to come back to power. That
war is far from over necessitating troops surge by the Obama
administration, which has yet to register any appreciable
impact. Bin Laden and the Talibans are still in Afghanistan
fighting and hoping to drive the Americans out of the
country to enable them do what they know best—plotting
another attack against the US. Yet Americans seem to have
forgotten all about that in just a few years, and are now
clamoring to end the war in Afghanistan even with the
Talibans gaining ground on the international coalition in
the war. As of today the war in Afghanistan has suddenly
become nearly as unpopular as the Iraq fraudulent war,
compelling President Obama to set a date for America’s
withdrawal from Afghanistan just as he did for Iraq. When
that happens your guess is as good as mine what could happen
to the Ahmid Kazir’s government in Afghanistan.
This is one of the terrible implications of the affliction of amnesia on
US public policy and, by the way, the number one reason why
the United States lost the war in Vietnam. Negative public
opinion rather than military superiority made all the
difference between victory and defeat in US wars. Thus any
adversary who could wear the US out and able to manipulate
public opinion in the US is assured of victory in the long
run. This must be a fundamental weakness in a democracy.
Now, tell me how could a people who were itching for war a
few years back suddenly develop cold feet after the war was
launched? If they don’t have the stomach for wars, short or
prolonged, they had better not start one in the first place.
It’s that simple. The United States had better not start
what it cannot finish if it’s going to allow public opinion
to determine its victory or defeat in wars. Cutting and
running is not a sign of strength but of weakness. And
that’s what she appears to have done both in Iraq and soon
in Afghanistan, all because of negative public opinion.
The American public doesn’t seem to distinguish between an unjust and
therefore unpopular war as was the case in Iraq and a just
and therefore popular one as it’s the case in Afghanistan.
Regardless of the justification for a war, they soon grow
tired of it and demand a return of the troops. And a
president, who is reluctant to go that route as was GW Bush,
for instance, soon falls out of favor and thrown out of
office with his party, however popular he was when he first
launched the war. That initial popularity is no insurance
for remaining in power. Obama is risking that eventuality.
Even though he didn’t start it Obama’s troops surge in
Afghanistan is already taking a toll on his popularity as
Americans grow increasingly war weary.
(2) Quick fix mentality. This is another mental affliction of the
American public. The United States is a nation of quick
fixers. Americans are essentially an inpatient people who
want quick fixes for every broken system or device. Anything
broken must be fixed like a flat tire. Some might naively be
imagining the economy to be something of a Saddam Hussein,
who could be fixed with a cluster bomb projected from an
Aircraft Carrier. Most Americans seem unable to tell the
difference between fixing a broken economy and a broken car.
That’s their problem. With such a one-track mindset, it’s no
surprise therefore that many Americans couldn’t understand
why it’s taking President Obama seemingly forever to fix the
economy and get their jobs back without much ado. A slow
economic recovery doesn’t therefore catch their fancy as a
quick fix. Though fundamentally lacking in spiritual
enlightenment, they want a miracle worker of sorts, who
could literarily command the economy to get back on track
and return their jobs to their pre-recession times. And when
that’s not happening, they get mad, really mad, and all hell
is let loose. It’s sad.
That trait dovetails into what President Clinton referred to as too much
anger. Americans are angry, but they don’t seem to know whom
to direct their anger at even as everyone knew who drove
their economy into a ditch. Strangely enough, they’re mad
with the guy who is fixing the economy for them not getting
the job done fast enough rather than with the guy who broke
the economy in the first place. It’s like a man who took his
damaged car in an accident to a body shop for repairs
getting mad at the shop owner for not getting his car
straightened out on the spot and get home rather than with
the guy who damaged the car in the first place. Lawyers
would call such misdirected anger transferred aggression,
but psychologists and mental arts practitioners probably
have some technical term for it.
However, this mental orientation is troubling and has severe implications
for the polity. It explains why American authorities had to
rush in ill-digested stimulus packages for the economy even
before it was thoroughly thought through. The question to be
asked was, is the economy broken? If the answer was yes,
simply apply the fix! Rush in stimulus package for a quick
fix, and bingo, all would be well and dandy! Well it hasn’t
quite worked out that way. Huge stimulus funds are still
sitting idly by in the vaults in both the Bush and the Obama
administrations not knowing where to apply them and on what
conditions or terms and to what effect or purpose. All
manners of “pork” were loaded into the economic stimulus by
Congress that had no bearings whatsoever on the financial
meltdown or the economic revival.
And it explains the fire brigade approach to economic management in the
United States not just under the Republicans, but under the
Democratic administrations as well. Economic illiteracy on
the part of members of the public is no reason for fire
brigade approach to economic management. Politicians in the
US are all too willing to pander to the whims and caprices
of voters who bellyache over issues they knew very little
about. Sometimes leadership demands otherwise because
everyone cannot be an expert in these complex economic
issues regarding the financial meltdown.
Sometimes leadership demands that the voter be told the truth as Obama
has done that there’s no silver bullet to fix the economy
overnight. The truth should be told and let the chips fall
wherever they may. The millions of jobs already lost will
not come back overnight and people should be made to adjust
to that bitter reality. Obama’s investment in new technology
to create the 21st C jobs is the way to go and if
displaced workers refuse to buy into that and vote the
Democrats out of power, so be it. They will find out down
the road that Republicans will not bring back those jobs
because they’re gone to China and India and Taiwan and
everywhere else but the United States.
And the Republicans, who are unwilling to invest in new technologies,
will further drive America into a deeper hole the next time
around. It falls on Obama to help avert such misfortune a
second time. As the Bible says, the old things shall pass
away to be replaced by the new. The world is moving into a
new economy and the United States cannot afford to be left
behind. That would be travesty and unthinkable to even
contemplate. History is replete with carcasses of fallen
empires because their leaders refused to change with the
times.
Fundamental Choices
In other words, Americans should be psyched up and prepared to go for the
long haul, not quick fixes. Obama’s economic stimulus says
it all—American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
It’s not just recovery of the old economy, but reinvesting
in the new economy and that’s necessarily a long term goal.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand this fundamental
truth. It would appear that the Obama administration is, for
understandable reasons, dwelling mainly on the recovery
aspect for now. But the emphasis should and must shift to
reinvestment in the new economy. It’s not a quick fix,
economic band aid just to stop the bleeding, but to grow the
economy in a completely new direction from the old economy.
ARRA is a completely new project that will take several
years not months to germinate and bear fruits and should
have been sold as such. It shouldn’t have been sold as some
quick fix even though it contains some measures designed as
band aids to stop the bleeding. Its long term thrust is to
remake the US economy and that takes time and people should
be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to get there.
It’s a choice between the old and the new economy.
While Obama and the Democrats are on track on this new direction the
conservative Republicans want none of the new economy and
want to stick with the old economy of iron and steel and
fossil fuel, and the old way of doing things. With that the
United States is guaranteed to be left behind by the rest of
the developed and even developing world as it is already
happening in the area of renewable energy. It’s a choice for
the American people to make and this should be placed
starkly on the table for them at this midterm
election—whether to stick with the old or transit to the new
economy with the rest of the world. Whatever choice they
make today will remain with them for decades to come. It’s a
fundamental issue that must be thoroughly explained to them
during the campaigns. It goes beyond quick fixes to the
economy that everyone seems to be hankering after at the
present.
This is not about who gets to Washington, DC, first to take control of
Congress. It’s about the future of the country and the
future of the present and future generations to come. If the
right choice is not made today, America is guaranteed to
lose its preeminent position as the world’s greatest
economic engine in the not too distant future and she will
have her short sighted politicians and ignorant voters to
thank for it.
People must be made to understand this very clearly during the campaigns
and Obama is best suited to sound this warning before it’s
too late. The Democrats must retool their message to the
American people and stay on top of it. This is not about
Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin ranting about a mosque in New
York City or about some racists hating to see Obama in the
White House. It’s about the very future of the United States
and her place in the comity of nations down the road.
America’s glory cannot be buried with the fast fading old
economy, but must be reborn in the new economy.
It’s the investment of today that will determine the position and status
of the United States in the immediate future. This is what
the elections truly must be about fundamentally speaking.
Reducing the elections to Obama’s popularity or lack thereof
amounts to trivializing the real and grave issues involved.
(3) When it comes to midterm elections, history is not on the side of
Obama and the Democrats. Historically, the party in power
nearly always sheds seats in Congress and might even lose
both houses altogether as was the case under President GW
Bush. The Democrats also lost both houses to the Republicans
under Clinton in a blitzkrieg led by Newt Gringrich. And
that history goes back to Reagan and down the line. And even
now as indicated above the polls are already trending that
way under Obama. Will Obama defy history? His presidency has
already defied history. But will he do it again? That
remains to be seen. The reason why that history has endured
has much to do with the legendary impatience and amnesia on
the part of the American populace already discussed above.
But it is by no means ossified.
(4) This is the fourth reason why Americans are turning to Republicans.
They have nowhere else to turn to but the Republican Party
that messed them up barely two years ago. Ordinarily when a
voter is dissatisfied with one party, he turns to another
party and when he’s dissatisfied with that party, he turns
to another party. But where does he turn to when there are
only two parties in the land and he’s dissatisfied with
both? Nowhere! This is the two-party conundrum Americans are
facing and the polls show their feelings toward both parties
in Washington. It’s not pretty for both although they’re
angrier more with the Democrats than the Republicans for the
simple reason that the Democrats are the ones in power with
control of both the White House and Congress. They have no
reasons whatsoever not to get things done on their own
terms. Unfortunately, they have allowed Republicans to push
them around and they’re set to pay a price for that at the
polls.
It stands to reason, therefore, that if Americans are mad with the
Democrats for not growing the economy fast enough, they
would turn to someone else to do the job. Unfortunately,
warmongering Republicans know next to nothing about economic
management and even their last presidential candidate,
Senator John McCain, in a moment of candor confessed that
the economy was not his “strong suit”. He should have added
this line: “nor is it for my party!”
Ask a typical Republican candidate to name ten programs he would execute
as president and he would reel them off his fingers as “tax
cuts, tax cuts, and tax cuts,” into ten places! Like the
carpenter Republicans see every problem as a nail and the
hammer as the solution. Tax cut is the solution to every
economic problem and their programs begin and end with tax
cuts. How dumb! Yet when Americans are driven to the wall
there is nowhere else to turn to but to the very man who put
them in a pit in the first place. Call it insane desperation
and you would be right on the money, but that’s the reality
starring us in the face as we move into the midterm
elections. The Republicans may end up recapturing both
houses of Congress, no thanks to an intimidated ruling party
and a totally disoriented electorate.
But the American people deserve better than being tied to the apron
strings of the Democrats and Republican Parties. A nation of
300 million citizens with over two hundred years of
democratic experience deserves better electoral choices for
its citizens. A two-party state is nothing but pure tyranny.
Isn’t it tyrannical that Americans who are disillusioned
with both parties have nowhere else to go but to the same
parties that failed them? There is very little difference
between a two party state and a one-party state as obtains
in communist countries like China and former Soviet Union.
Only a veneer separates the two. This is a shame that people
are forced to choice one or the other rather than plurality
of parties represent their ideological leanings or political
interests.
Political pluralism or multi-party system represents true democratic
choices in a democracy and a one or two-party system is a
pathetic caricature of democracy.
It’s high time a third and even a fourth party was birthed in the United
States, and the materials for that are already there in the
independents. Independents account for the majority of the
electorate in the United States, far greater than the
Republican or the Democrats, who have been calling the shots
for centuries. Although previous attempts have been made to
bring that about, they have all fallen apart like a pack of
cards leaving Americans in a conundrum of a two party
tyranny.
Americans are in dire need of a political liberating force that would
free them from the Democratic and Republican yokes. It’s
about time… and the emergence of the Freedom Party in
New York State led by Councilman, Charles Barron, is a good
place to start. It has the potentials of spreading across
the nation to give both the Republicans and Democrats a run
for their money. Democracy means Choices and Choices means
Democracy.
Franklin Otorofani, Esq. contact:
mudiagaone@yahoo.com
|
Published
September 17th, 2010
