Democracy

[Prospero]

I've been criticised by some - almost invariably on the right - for "sticking my limey nose" into American politics.

I do not regret that at all.

I post stuff here about US politics at this crucial time because I care - about America, about democracy and about the future.

Okay.

So this will be my last post before America votes tomorrow. Votes in an election which is clearly one of the most important for a long time.

It matters for many reasons. And these go beyond America's national boundaries.

The US is the most powerful nation in the world. How it is governed affects us all.

So why is it an important election?

!. Because the future of democracy is in the balance here.

There have already been attempts by the Republican party to tamper with the electoral process. It was a Republican initiative which enabled corporations to our millions into the process via super pacs.

The furore over IDs for voters. This is being stirred up almost exclusively in place here poor people from the black and Hispanic communities vote. The Republicans want to stop them. Because they vote, in large part, for the Democrats. Everyone has a right to vote - whether they vote for Communists or the Nazi party!

Now the Supreme court is set to consider - and perhaps pass - a change which will remove safeguards from States with historically bad records on voting for ethnic minorities. These safeguards were put in place in the late 1960s to prevent any State from arbitrarily changing the voting rules. (See the powerful arguments on this from the Professor of Jurisprudence at Harvard, Ronald Dworkin posted here some days ago for a fuller explanation of this)

2. Climate change. A crucial issue and though Obama has a thin record on this, the GOP is hostile to the whole notion of climate change. They will take away from all kinds of initiatives designed to do something to fight the process of climate change. They are hostile to the science which has virtually proved that climate change is underway.

In many respects they are hostile to science itself.

3. Help for the poorer and weaker US citizens. You'e seen the real Romney in that leaked speech earlier this year. You've seen how Romney operates as a business man in his savage years with bain - throwing thousands out of work to enrich himself.

We know about Ryan's philosophy - inspired by that mediocre Ultra-Conservative thinker Ayn Rand. (I have amended this after it was rightly pointed out that the use of the word fascist was lazy)

They say they will fix the economy but won't say how. But they do plan tax cuts for the wealthy.

A Romney administration will scrap affordable health care if they can. It was a move designed to make health care available to more Americans.

They will cut spending on all manner of other social programs. The behaviour of the tea-party infested Congress since 2010 with its zealous efforts to cut spending on everything (at one point voting for moves that would lead to thousands of public employees in the US losing their jobs). This will be accelerated under an incoming GOP administration.

The gridlock in Washington over the past two years - which the GOP has ignored when accusing Obama of failing to fix the economy - is of GOP making. The new Tea Party congressmen are immune to reasoned argument. They are implacable in their hatred of Government. Romney will discover this if he becomes president. Unless he bows to the will of big business - people like the Koch Brothers.

Romney reckons he can fix the US economy. But refuses to spell out how this work - aside from tax cuts across the board.

4. Women's rights. We've seen the attitude of some of the more extreme Republicans to Rape. Any pregnancy that results is a gift from God. Women's bodies will resist pregnancy from rape. etc etc....They are a lunatic fringe. But a vocal one representing a wider body of belief among like-minded bigots. And they have not been disowned. Women's rights are threatened. In all probability a new and Conservative dominated supreme court will throw out the right to abortion. (Roe v Wade) And contraception issues.

5. The rights of the gay and the transgendered. Would these be safe under a Romney administration. Not if he listens to the religious right - a powerful part of the machine that might put him into office. Under Obama there has been real progress. Expect that to be at least stalled under a GOP administration. if not reversed.


8. Foreign policy. Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place.

Look at Obama's record. Troops out of iraq. A plan to pull Americans out of the Afghanistan muddle (a muddle because Bush dropped his eyes from the issues there for the fallacious invasion of iraq). Libya. Stupid accusations and smears by the Romney campaign - oft repeated here - about the lack of foresight by the US Government in protecting your ambassador. Wrongful accusations as if in the disorder that is Libya effective intelligence can work. This is a bigger subject than i plan to unpack here.

The Arab spring. Should the US have NOT supported the notion of real democracy among the oppressed Arab populations?

Israel. Liberal Israelis recognise that Obama has been a good friend to israel. Romney's principle support there is inspired by the nation's largest circulation paper - a free sheet owned by the Vegas casino magnate from the radical right winger Sheldon Edelson (whose influence on both US and Israeli politics is increasingly pernicious) a man who is in favour of the expansion of Israeli settlements and a supporter of Netanyahu. As will a Romney administration. (A huge part of his campaign funding comes from Edelson). Romney has already publicly said he believes the palestinians have NO INTEREST in peace,

And Iran. The sabre ratting by Romney suggests they'd launch a pre-emptive strike again Iran - or support an Israeli one. The result would be a regional conflagration. Iran is an issue that calls for clear heads and clear thinking.

9. The Supreme Court. Three justice are likely to retire during the life of the next administration. If they are appointed by Romney you can be sure they will be young Conservatives - enabling the sort of constitutional changes that a balanced Supreme Court is a hedge against. So expect women's rights to be curtailed. perhaps civil rights.(in voting terms) And perhaps a breach of the wall between church and state.

10. The influence of the Tea party. it isn't a party no - but it has a broadly united vision. it is against "big Government." It is against much Government at all. It has already gridlocked Congress and prevented Obama from taking significant action to help the economy. The Tea party (funded via big business through think tanks, foundations and other networks) is a tool of big business which smokescreens of disinformation try to hide. it has corrupted the Republican party - leading to the ousting of many long serving and conviction politicians and their replacement by extremist zealots. A Romney administration will either kow tow to them or face a fight for the soul of the party.

11. Romney himself. This man is a shape shifter. He serves only his own self interest - shrugging off previously held positions as and when he perceives he needs to alter to succeed. His father had convictions. Romney junior appeared to have convictions when he introduced his health care reforms in Massachusetts. Now he had disowned them and has embraced the Right in his will to power. Convictions are simply another piece of clothing he puts on and takes off as his own ambitions require.

12. The media. Will PBS be started of funding under a Romney administration. That looks likely. So Fox News with its lies and distortions for all? Yep the propaganda machine is in full flow.

13. Ryan would be President if Romney were removed. Do you really want this?

So there we are. I am sure i've missed many issues here.

In the end the issues are for America to decide. we sit on the sidelines. We hope and pray the US will make the right decision.

In the view of most of the world that should be another four years for Obama and the Congress back in Democrat control.

[Stavros]

I think that the extensive coverage of US politics in the UK deludes many of us into thinking we know more than we do about US politics; that doesn't mean we are ignorant, but I think most of us have only a rudimentary knowledge of the way laws are processed through Congress, make assumptions about the actual powers a President has (and does not have) without knowing the truth, and regularly ignore the Supreme Court unless it becomes a news story. At the local level I would suggest we are pretty well ignorant, I have no real insight into how San Francisco is governed and have no idea who is on the ballot paper in most elections at the state and local level, which is where American democracy is at its most 'popular' in the literal sense. And Americans have the right to vote for a whole load of local officials we never vote for here.

I think it is wrong to claim only Republicans tamper with the electoral process; most congressional seats in the US never change because the district boundaries are fixed and both parties get down and dirty to make sure boundary changes do not affect their little fiefdoms, as a result I think the figure is that barely a third of Congressional seats are genuinely contested -what we would call marginal seats in the UK Parliament. The Democrats are not saints, they wouldn't be where they are today without a record of back-room deals, and an unhealthy dose of corruption -and after all, Obama was elected in Chicago, one of the dirtiest cities -politically- in the US; surely the name Daley means something to you. The Democrats have had their fair share of dodgy Majors too.

I think you are wrong on the Middle East -an attack on Iran would not provoke a regional conflagration, Iran has too many enemies and too few friends to make that happen. Iran would retaliate, and that is where the danger lies -not only from a spectacular 'terrorist' incident, but as is now being argued by some analysts, the use of Drones by the US is encouraging other states to acquire them. No reason why Iran should not have its own drones. I think this new chapter in the 'arms race' is the biggest long-term military headache that the Obama administration has initiated -on the advice of the military of course.

I also cannot totally agree with this: Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place. I dont think even the Bush administration intended to make the world better, but the Middle East is no more or less stable because of regime change in Iraq. Regime change did not widen instability in the region, it was an act that pre-empted nature, given that Saddam was not immortal, and it did not create an 'Afghan' style Jihad against the US, drawing in thousands of Mujahideen and sucking neighbouring states into the conflict. In fact, the most notorious foreign fighter, the Jordanian al-Zarqawi was viewed by Iraqis as a pest and I believe they informed on him so the US knew where he was when he was killed. Iraq has to some extent imploded in the way it was expected to -the Kurds have consolidated their control of the north, the Shia have won elections because of their numerical superiority, and the Sunna feel isolated and left out of a system they once controlled. Iran was undoubtedly strengthened as a result, yet its clout in Iraq is mostly financial, just as its lifeline in Lebanon is lubricated with money. turn off the money tap and where does Hezbollah get its bounty from, taxes? This doesn't mark much of a change inspired by the Bush administration's intervention, and the Arab Spring has deeper roots and longer term consequences than anything Bush or Blair got up to. The whole point about the Arab Spring is that it comes from deep within the historical experience of the region, and prefigures changes that everyone is scared of -even the people trying to make it happen.

I am not sure how far the Obama administration sought a joint effort with Russia to prevent a deterioration in Syria -it could be they were taken by surprise, that Hillary Clnton wavered, that the Israelis stuck their neck in with their usual bogus intelligence; it could be the Russians refused to co-operate because their strategic interest in the naval base at Tartus is threatened by a new government in Damascus; it could be that the Russians see an opportunity to weaken the US in a region where its reputation is low; I don't know the full story, but I have a deep fear that in reality, nobody really cares that much about Syria.

Although its for a another thread, the biggest fear is regime change in Saudi Arabia -the Saudis are backing some very nasty people in Syria to prevent democracy taking root there; the US backs the Saudis up to a point; same with Qatar, and I don't doubt the other monarchies from Morocco to Oman are all feeling nervous. The US doesn't control this agenda, and for the time being it is ineffective; whether Obama in a second term, or Romney in his first can make a difference I very much doubt.

I also don't think this is a hugely important election compared to elections in the past, the trend towards a libertarian policy platform in the lower ranks of the Republican Party will continue, but I don't know if its a vote-wining trend; I suspect that many Republicans are not as extreme as their representatives, but is this enough? My guess is that Obama will win a narrow victory, I think he can only lose in the electoral college. The key to the next four years is not foreign policy anyway, but US jobs, and that is the hardest policy expectation to meet, whoever wins.

[an8150]

Reluctantly, I'll engage with your slur of Ayn Rand, Prospero.

Have you read any of her work?

Describing her as a neo-fascist is about as politically literate as describing Stalin as a proto-Thatcherite.

[Stavros]

Reluctantly, I'll engage with your slur of Ayn Rand, Prospero.

Have you read any of her work?

Describing her as a neo-fascist is about as politically literate as describing Stalin as a proto-Thatcherite.

This is a point I also forgot to make; thanks an8150. Rand is at the polar opposite to fascism.

[Prospero]

Stavros - the bulk of my knowledge of US politics comes from direct contact with Americans, with my time spent in Washington and other parts of the US and from a wide reading of primarily US sources. So I find your imputation that I am ignorant a tad patronising.

Many of the points you mention - about voting for local officials etc - are very familiar to me. i was writing a short hand version of the major things that concern me and many Americans. The assertion this is a major election are not simply mine from drawn from US sources and from talking to people there.


Stavros wrote: "I think that the extensive coverage of US politics in the UK deludes many of us into thinking we know more than we do about US politics; that doesn't mean we are ignorant, but I think most of us have only a rudimentary knowledge of the way laws are processed through Congress, make assumptions about the actual powers a President has (and does not have) without knowing the truth, and regularly ignore the Supreme Court unless it becomes a news story. (I have addressed this before. I have paid attention to this for a long time - not merely now.) At the local level I would suggest we are pretty well ignorant, I have no real insight into how San Francisco is governed and have no idea who is on the ballot paper in most elections at the state and local level, which is where American democracy is at its most 'popular' in the literal sense. And Americans have the right to vote for a whole load of local officials we never vote for here.

I think it is wrong to claim only Republicans tamper with the electoral process; most congressional seats in the US never change because the district boundaries are fixed and both parties get down and dirty to make sure boundary changes do not affect their little fiefdoms, as a result I think the figure is that barely a third of Congressional seats are genuinely contested -what we would call marginal seats in the UK Parliament. The Democrats are not saints, they wouldn't be where they are today without a record of back-room deals, and an unhealthy dose of corruption -and after all, Obama was elected in Chicago, one of the dirtiest cities -politically- in the US; surely the name Daley means something to you. The Democrats have had their fair share of dodgy Majors too. (Daley means plenty to me. Do you have any evidence to suggest there were sirty tricks in Obama's election there? Smearing obama with the Ghost of Mayor Daley is somewhat cheap otherwise. There are mountains of evidence for republican attempts to tamper with the electoral process. As you well know.)

I think you are wrong on the Middle East -an attack on Iran would not provoke a regional conflagration, Iran has too many enemies and too few friends to make that happen. (Iran has friends in the Lebanon - Hizbollah and in Gaza. And would very possibly attempt to hit US bases in the region. The oonfrontation between Saudi Arabia and its allies and iran is already being fought in proxy ) Iran would retaliate, and that is where the danger lies - not only from a spectacular 'terrorist' incident, but as is now being argued by some analysts, the use of Drones by the US is encouraging other states to acquire them. No reason why Iran should not have its own drones. I think this new chapter in the 'arms race' is the biggest long-term military headache that the Obama administration has initiated - on the advice of the military of course.

I also cannot totally agree with this: Look back at Bush. Did he make the world better? No. His interventions left the entire Middle east a much less politically stable place. I dont think even the Bush administration intended to make the world better, (the object for the new american century certainly attempted to extend US power - and i agree he didn't attempt to make the world a better place. But he did make it a worse place. DThe balance of power in the region has been altered with a powerful Sh'ite community in Iraq, previously supprised by Hussain, now potentially Iranian allies. ) but the Middle East is no more or less stable because of regime change in Iraq. Regime change did not widen instability in the region, it was an act that pre-empted nature, given that Saddam was not immortal, and it did not create an 'Afghan' style Jihad against the US, drawing in thousands of Mujahideen and sucking neighbouring states into the conflict.(There is ample evidence of considerabe Jihadi action in Iraq, though this has now diminished) In fact, the most notorious foreign fighter, the Jordanian al-Zarqawi was viewed by Iraqis as a pest and I believe they informed on him so the US knew where he was when he was killed. Iraq has to some extent imploded in the way it was expected to -the Kurds have consolidated their control of the north, the Shia have won elections because of their numerical superiority, and the Sunna feel isolated and left out of a system they once controlled. Iran was undoubtedly strengthened as a result, yet its clout in Iraq is mostly financial, (Yes - this might well have happened at some point. US intervention speeded up the process, and where was the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq? ) just as its lifeline in Lebanon is lubricated with money. turn off the money tap and where does Hezbollah get its bounty from, taxes? This doesn't mark much of a change inspired by the Bush administration's intervention, and the Arab Spring has deeper roots and longer term consequences than anything Bush or Blair got up to.(I think you misread me if you think i was suggesting that Bush and Blair had any impact on the Arab spring.) The whole point about the Arab Spring is that it comes from deep within the historical experience of the region, and prefigures changes that everyone is scared of -even the people trying to make it happen.

I am not sure how far the Obama administration sought a joint effort with Russia to prevent a deterioration in Syria -it could be they were taken by surprise, that Hillary Clnton wavered, that the Israelis stuck their neck in with their usual bogus intelligence; it could be the Russians refused to co-operate because their strategic interest in the naval base at Tartus is threatened by a new government in Damascus; it could be that the Russians see an opportunity to weaken the US in a region where its reputation is low; I don't know the full story, but I have a deep fear that in reality, nobody really cares that much about Syria. (I agree about this. )

Although its for a another thread, the biggest fear is regime change in Saudi Arabia -the Saudis are backing some very nasty people in Syria to prevent democracy taking root there; the US backs the Saudis up to a point; same with Qatar, and I don't doubt the other monarchies from Morocco to Oman are all feeling nervous. The US doesn't control this agenda, and for the time being it is ineffective; whether Obama in a second term, or Romney in his first can make a difference I very much doubt. (Yes - the future of Saudi is crucial)

I also don't think this is a hugely important election compared to elections in the past, the trend towards a libertarian policy platform in the lower ranks of the Republican Party will continue, but I don't know if its a vote-winning trend; I suspect that many Republicans are not as extreme as their representatives, but is this enough? My guess is that Obama will win a narrow victory, I think he can only lose in the electoral college. The key to the next four years is not foreign policy anyway, but US jobs, and that is the hardest policy expectation to meet, whoever wins." (On this we disagree and i have spelt out my arguments - one of the most important being the impact of Conservative appointments to the Supreme Court. I suspect if the Republicans win then there is a possibility that Romney will face a revolt of his own if he adopts the vaunted centrist policies he is now proclalming to win the undecided voters. If he loses then the party will become more radicalised. What impact that would have in the longer term is unpredictable and somewhat subject to the US economic performance over the next four years. But if Obama wins and yet the radicalised Republicans retain control of Congress then we can expect more gridlock and the blocking of any attempt at measures that might help the economy)

[Prospero]

Loose language regarding Rand. Fascist was the wrong word. But yes i have read Atlas Shrugged and a biography of this woman. Fascism was the wrong word. But a celebration of intense selfishness is certainly accurate. There is a powerful passage in that book (or is The Fountainhead) where a train is going to crash and a figure walks through the carriage outlining why the people aboard deserve to die. Largely because they did not take responsibility for their own lives. The metaphor is pretty clear. Rand's writing was required reading for Ryan's staffers though he has since claimed he prefers certain Catholic philosophers including Thomas Aquinas.

[an8150]

Propsero, fascism doesn't celebrate selfishness (although objectivists do celebrate what we call enlightened selfishness or enlightened self interest). Fascists come in different shapes and sizes, but the original Italian model, which is generally transplanted in other variants of the creed, demands that everyone is subordinate to the state which acts in the name of the collective to champion the deemed needs of the nation. It's a kind of militaristic, mercantilist socialism. There is a key moral distinction between saying, as a fascist might, "you deserve to die, and I'll make it happen", and "you deserve to die, and I won't lift a finger to save you".

I hold no brief for either Paul or Romney and consider it presumptuous to lecture another electorate on how it should vote. Personally, I doubt the outcome of this election will alter one jot the central feature of contemporary American governance, namely that the United States economy, according to Obama's own budget office, is due to shut down in 2027.

[Prospero]

An8150 - I stand corrected on Fascism (as I've already acknowledged). As i said a shamefully loose use of language by me,

I was not "lecturing' - merely posting my own thoughts on why this election matters beyond the boundaries of the US - and why it matters generally to America. I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

[broncofan]

I hold no brief for either Paul or Romney and consider it presumptuous to lecture another electorate on how it should vote. Personally, I doubt the outcome of this election will alter one jot the central feature of contemporary American governance, namely that the United States economy, according to Obama's own budget office, is due to shut down in 2027.

I don't think it is presumptuous for a non U.S citizen to have strong opinions about how we should vote. The more a person knows about the policies of another government the stronger the opinion they're going to form about what is right and what is not. If you've noticed, most of the threads here are by Americans who know nothing about British politics, or European politics generally and so it is quite nice that people from other parts of the world are knowledgeable about U.S politics. Otherwise, there would be much less basis for discussion. This is less a defense of Prospero than a basic observation.

I also don't really understand the basis for believing the U.S economy will shut down and that it will not matter who is in office. Yes, we have tremendous and growing national debt, but we still have a strong credit rating and a productive economy. Anyhow, whatever the projection is, I've never heard of an economic model that can sustain accurate predictions more than ten years out. I would happily bet the U.S economy is still running in 2028, but to be fair perhaps the bet should be secured by British Pounds or Euros (Actually, Euros? Perhaps the Yen is safer.).

I don't think there's anything enlightened about Ayn Rand's self-interest. It is vile and base. It is a philosophy based on turning a blind eye to the problems of the less fortunate then going a step further and blaming them for those problems. To see this philosophy used as the underpinning of governance anywhere in the world would be cause for concern for a decent observer. People who make mistakes do not deserve to die and grandiose enterpreneurs do not deserve to be lionized for their good fortune. This may sound like a strawman or an extreme interpretation of objectivism. However, if you've seen Republican governance in the U.S, it is hardly a stretch. And they are not even so bold as to blame people for their problems. Slashing disability, failing to address wage discimination, removing funding for public schools. These are the fruits of Ayn Rand's train analogy. Ayn Rand's model citizen overcomes a disability, is an auto-didact, and breaks down all barriers to discimination with her fist. Or gets a free train ticket.

[trish]

Rand is a hack novelist. I read Atlas, Fountainhead and the Virtue of Selfishness.
It appeals especially to adolescent males who usually mature out of it. She's warmed over Nietsche for self absorbed nerds. Her writing is an understandable but reactionary response to the communist expansion that she was witness to. There is no communist threat today. There are still the equivalent of robber barons and growing economic inequity. Selfishness was never a virtue and greed is always a vice.