Posts tagged with 'usa'

Before he gave his feted keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention, few outside Chicago or Illinois politics knew who Barack Obama was. Just over four years later he was resoundingly elected President. I do not feel that our political system is conducive to producing our own version of Barack Obama. By this I do not mean having a Prime Minister of colour, but rather having a Prime Minister, or for that matter a leader of a major party, who has effectively come from no where. Would a Member of Parliament elected at the last general election have a good chance of being Prime Minister at the next election? They would have almost no chance. Not only that, it is extremely unlikely that a major party would elect as its leader someone who was unknown to party leadership four years prior.

We have become accustomed in this country to cookie cutter politicians. If you look at the leaders of the three main parties, they all are of a similar age, come from a similar background, and followed similar paths up the party ladder. Such a path involves going to a prestigious university, usually Oxford or Cambridge, immediately obtaining a job with a think tank, within the party or for a senior member of the party, and work your way up until pretty soon you are being placed in to a safe seat, which is usually no where near to where you are actually from or reside, the reason being you are guaranteed to become an MP. Why has this practice become so prevalent? Are the major parties unable to find sufficient political talent from local areas that they then have to ship candidates in? If those that are being placed in safe seats are in fact so politically blessed, surely they should be able to compete in any seat? Also, if potential future leaders have never had to compete in a tough election themselves, how does this bode for them being able to connect with a diverse electorate and build a broad coalition? And the way the parties choose leaders doesn’t help either, as their processes inevitably favour establishment candidates.

Of course, for every Barack Obama there is a Sarah Palin. Palin also came from nowhere and became a national phenomenon thanks to her shock pick as John McCain’s running mate n 2008. However she appeared to be far out of her depth at the time, and since the election she has shot for media attention and a pay packet, as opposed to building a political platform for future elections.

This is not to say that the American system is better than ours, both have major flaws. But ours still appears, in my opinion to convey the impression that it is somewhat of a closed shop, with the path to the top open only for the elite few. Having a completely unelected upper house, The House of Lords, as opposed to an elected chamber like the US Senate does not help this impression, nor does the fact that so much power rests in the hands of the government and its ministers. As a backbencher in the Houses of Parliament, how much power do you actually have over national policy? In contrast, a single member out of the 535 serving in Congress in Washington could author a piece of legislation that may change a nation. Not only that, this also allows for more politicians to gain media and public attention, which can of course come in handy if they have higher ambitions.

The example of Obama is I admit an extreme one. He was a unique candidate and electrified a nation at a time when they were calling out for change. Many may point to the likes of John Kerry, George W Bush and Al Gore as evidence that more often than not the establishment gets their guy in America as well. I would argue that the primary system that both parties in the US have for choosing their leaders at least presents the possibility of an outsider becoming their leader. The use of the Internet, both as a messaging tool and a fundraising one, far outweighs how we use new media in this country. Howard Dean showed how far this could take you, when in 2004 he came extremely close to capturing the Democratic Presidential nomination.

I’m not sure what could be done to remedy this part of our political system. Or perhaps my impression is just that, and in reality my concerns are unfounded. I am of course merely an outside observer. Be that as it may, I think that moving towards an elected upper chamber, somehow ending the practice of placing rising stars in safe seats, and increasing the power of backbenchers would not only change the impression many have about our political system, but in fact lead to positive substantive changes in the way our government functions. 

Former Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska) Age 46. Top Tier

The former half term Governor of Alaska has become the de-facto leader of the Tea Party movement and a prominent voice on the right. She has the bizarre ability of being able affect the news cycle just by updating her Facebook page or Twitter feed. Palin has almost no political accomplishments and, despite her large media presence, has not yet clearly articulated her own political vision. It appears extremely unlikely that she has the intellectual heft to come up with a platform for a general election, but that certainly wont stop her from running – she has given every indication that she already is running. One thing she has shown is a ruthless streak when it comes to her own ambitions. The vast majority of Americans, and increasingly the majority of Republicans, when asked do not believe she is qualified to serve as President. However she must be considered a leading contender as she probably has the most passionate following on the right and continues to have followers in the conservative media, as well as her being the Vice Presidential candidate in 2008. She would also be able to raise large amounts of money, and given the nature of the Republican nominating process, there is a clear path to victory for Palin. The problem is, the path to victory in a general election against Obama, is nearly non-existent.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) Age 63. Top Tier

The former one term Governor and Bain Capital founder continues to enjoy strong support within the party, particularly amongst the elite. Many feel somewhat regretful that Romney was passed over in favour of John McCain in 2008. Romney has made it clear that he wishes to run again, however many of the issues that caused him problems in the 2008 primaries are sure to crop up again. Firstly, his Mormon faith continues to be an anathema to many social conservatives, who also don’t trust him on issues such as abortion and gay marriage, due to Romney’s flip flopping during his political career in Massachusetts. Many conservatives don’t feel Romney is in his heart one of them; that he plays to the crowd too much. Romney also ran a relatively poor campaigning in 2008, given the huge amount of money he spent. The biggest issue for Romney this time around may well be health care. The reform passed by Democrats this year was largely based on the Massachusetts plan signed in to law by Romney when he was Governor. Given the relentless opposition to health care reform amongst most Republicans, this could be a boon for Romney’s opponents, making it relatively easy to tie Romney to an extremely unpopular issue for the base. Romney, for his part, and somewhat bizarrely, has come out against the Democrats health care reform, calling socialism amongst other things. As of yet Romney has not given a reasoned account of why he signed in to law a similar piece of reform, but now opposes the Democrats reform. Amongst other things, health care could prove once again Romney is simply a political opportunist. However given his name recognition, reputation economic competence and prodigious fundraising ability, Romney must be considered an early front-runner. 

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas) Age 55. Top Tier

If you are a conservative looking for a large platform, what do you do? That’s right, you get your very own show on Fox News. Which is exactly what Mike Huckabee did after he left office. Huckabee has considerable executive experience, having succeeding Bill Clinton as Governor in 1992. He is also a former preacher – a big deal in conservative circles. Huckabee also has a charming and humble persona, which allows his conservative views to seem less threatening than they actually are. In 2008, Huckabee was the defacto runner up to McCain. Despite his record of having raised taxes as Governor, the Christian right see him as one of their own. The main danger for Huckabee this time around would be that he would be one of several ‘christian conservatives’, and would be competing for a similar vote as that of the likes of Palin and Gingrich. 

Former Rep. Newt Gingrich (Georgia) Age 67. Second Tier

Mr. Newton Gingrich. He who has been married three times – and divorced one wife while she was in the hospital – yet still manages to exude a moral arrogance. Gingrich is making all the moves of someone who wants to run for President. He continues to be a large media presence, commenting on every issue possible. Gingrich is supposed to be a man of ideas, however recently he appears to be no more than a typical ideologue. He made his name with the ‘Contract for America’, which led to the 1994 Republican takeover of the House, but this was a long time ago and although Gingrich is still a relatively well known name, he has been out of politics a long time and his record of accomplishment would be limited. He would also be hindered with extremely high negative approval rating as well as significant personal issues. 

Sen. John Thune (South Dakota) Age 49. Third Tier

Support for John Thune seems to be built around ‘non-political’ assets. That is, many feel that he ‘looks’ Presidential – which obviously matters more than his intellect or temperament. Thune is a bonafide conservative, but his biggest accomplishment so far has been his actual election – he defeated than Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (a Democrat) in 2004. He has not been part of any significant legislation since being in the Senate and does not seem to have his share of ideas, in the same way as a Paul Ryan or Mitch Daniels. Thune may make an attractive Vice Presidential selection for a Governor, such as Romney or Daniels.

Gov. Mitch Daniels (Indiana) Age 61. Second Tier.

Daniels would be, in my opinion, the best possible candidate for the Republicans to chose. Daniels has significant economic experience, having been an executive at Eli Lilly before becoming President George W Bush’s Budget Director in 2001. He has been Governor of Indiana since 2005, and has been extremely successful in this job; his approval rating is currently around 70%. He also has the penchant for riding around Indiana not in a convoy but on his Harley. Unlike many other Republican politicians, especially those in Washington, Daniels is full of ideas and comes across as a pragmatist and not an ideologue. This was most evident in a recent speech he gave in which he advocated tax increases and Federal investment in education, research and development, and infrastructure. However the current nature of the Republican Party was shown again when this speech was met by disdain by many on the right who refuse to compromise on revenue increases and government spending. This would be Daniels’ biggest problem, especially if the next several months see increased confrontation between Congressional Republicans and the White House. Daniels also has relatively little name recognition with the Republican base, and his ability to fundraise has to be questioned. If he does decide to run, it will be interesting to see if he maintains his pragmatism or if he gives in to the base. If it’s the latter, the Democrats may portray him as just another extremist, if he doesn’t, and picks up traction in the primary season, the White House will seriously start to worry – especially if the economic improvement does not pick up steam.

Gov. Rick Perry (Texas) Age 60. Third Tier

Rick Perry assumed the Governorship after George W Bush was sworn in as President in 2001, and just this month won re-election to a third full term, defeating a relatively strong Democratic candidate in Houston Mayor Bill White. And although the Texas Governor is a relatively weak executive, 10 years as Governor of a large state is significant experience. Perry was in fact a Democrat until 1989 when he switched parties whilst serving in the Texas House of Representatives, and has now become a fairly conservative Republican. Over the past two years he has, amongst other things, vowed to fight the Obama administration in the courts over the health care law, stated that Texas may opt out of the extremely popular Medicaid program, that the 17^th Amendment allowing direct election of Senators as opposed to the previous position of them being appointed by Governors is bad for the country, and even that Texas may secede from the Union. He has also taken a step taken by most who wish to run for the Presidency – he wrote a book (or at least had it ghost written for him). Perry has given mixed messages about whether he will run, although after Bush and Tom DeLay Texas’ political stock has been damaged some what. He may cause a stir with some of his conservative views and should be able to fundraise enough to compete in the second tier, however he is, at the moment, at best a second tier candidate. 

Sen. Marco Rubio (Florida) Age 39. Second Tier.

Over and over again Rubio has been called the Republican Obama, and as such a fast rise and big future has been predicted, some even saying he could run for the top job in the land in 2012. Rubio is the son of Cuban exiles and is intelligent and charismatic. He is also a favourite of the Tea Party movement – indeed he was probably the first ‘Tea Party candidate’. However he tempered his views somewhat in the general election and there is real potential that he could be somewhat of a pragmatist on certain issues. Rubio’s Senate victory was impressive, in that he came from far behind to beat popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist in the primary (Crist would run as an independent in the general, but Rubio won the three way contest comfortably). Like Obama, Rubio spent several years in state politics, being elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2000 and being speaker of the House in 2007 and 2008. He also generated significant national buzz during his campaign – although there was no ‘eureka’ moment, as with Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. But Obama was in the Senate for two years before he started running for the Presidency, and had some legislative success in that short time. If Rubio wants to be the nominee in 2012 he would have to start running now, which is extremely unlikely. What is likely is that he will follow the path of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and try to maintain a low key approach in Washington, make a few friends, and try to have some legislative accomplishments. Unless there is a major scandal, Rubio will probably run for the Presidency one day, but I don’t think it will be in 2012. However if a Governor or former Governor is the nominee, Rubio will certainly be on any short list for the Vice Presidency. 

Rep. Michelle Bachman (Minnesota) Age 54. Second Tier

The fact the US Congress contains someone like Mrs Bachman shows how flawed it is. The travesty that is partisan redistricting allows Bachman to continue her political career by representing one of the most conservative areas of a fairly liberal state. Bachman has become the primary political mouthpiece for most things crazy, from saying President Obama wanted to create Soviet style re-education camps to saying his recent trip to Asia would cost $200million a day. She has no legislative accomplishments and appears to some intellectual issues, however she does appear to be somewhat delusional, which could in fact lead her to consider a run. She has already shown her ambition by attempting to mount a challenge for a Republican leadership post, which failed quite spectacularly. She vies with Palin for the honour of being Queen of the Tea Party movement. 

Rep. Mike Pence (Indiana) Age 51. Second Tier

Mike Pence has become a leader in Congress for the Republicans, along with John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. He is a central figure when it comes to crafting both policy and political strategy. Pence is extremely ambitious and if he decides against running for President, there is a good chance he may want to run for the Senate in 2012, even if it means running against current Republican Senator Dick Lugar, or for Governor of Indiana. Pence is extremely popular with both grassroots conservatives and establishment conservatives, and he is one of very few Republican leaders thought of as conservative through and through by the base. 

Rep. Paul Ryan (Wisconsin) Age 40. Third Tier

Ryan is known as a one man ideas shop for the Republican Party. He is intelligent and articulate, and could have a huge future in Congress. He is already a leader within the Party, and as the incoming Chairman of the powerful Budget committee, he will have a large influence over the economic legislative agenda for the next Congress. His ‘roadmap’, released in the weeks running up to the midterms, was an ambitious conservative agenda, that was met with a lukewarm welcome within his own party, mostly because it included such proposals as partly privatising social security, slashing Medicare and Medicaid, as well as gutting education spending – all of which are hugely unpopular with the American public. It is nearly impossible for someone to go directly from the House to the Presidency (the only person to do this was James Garfield in 1881) and Ryan may be more focussed on a lengthy congressional career, perhaps looking at running for the Senate in the near future. There is a chance Ryan may be chosen as a Vice Presidential candidate, but this is only likely if the Presidential candidate is a Washington outsider with high name recognition – perhaps Romney or Palin – as members of the House usually have little name recognition unless they are Speaker. It is extremely unlikely that Ryan will run in 2012, but his ideas may well form the GOP platform in the upcoming general election. 

Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minnesota) Age 49. Second Tier

Despite possible allusions, Pawlenty is no moderate. He is a conservative Governor of a pretty liberal state. He was apparently on John McCain’s shortlist in 2008, and is well thought of in elite Republican circles. Pawlenty certainly has some things going for him; he has been Governor since 2003, however in both his state-wide elections he has won a plurality of the vote, thanks to independent candidates. Pawlenty also decided not to seek re-election this year, which allows him to focus intensely on 2012. He makes frequent media appearances and is very. Pawlenty however may struggle to compete in the fundraising stakes with the likes of Romney or Palin, and would likely be fighting with the likes of Mitch Daniels for the same votes within the party. Like Daniels, Pawlenty may also be seen as ‘boring’ and unable to spark the base in to life. His record as Governor also has left a lot to be desired. It is almost certain Pawlenty will run, but he has a much better shot at being the Vice Presidential candidate than being the main man. 

Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) Age 39. Third Tier

Jindal was once lauded by many conservatives (including Newt Gingrich) as the new Ronald Reagan. However when his big moment in the sun came in 2010 when he gave the Republican response to Obama’s state of the union, he flubbed big time. His first nationally televised speech became the butt of many a late night joke. Jindal, has several things going for him. Firstly, for a party which has struggled to overcome its own racial issues, Jindal, as an Indian American (his actual name is ‘Piyush’) could g some way to alleviating many of those issues. Also, Jindal is still very young, giving him plenty of time to build his image and reputation. 

Gov. Haley Barbour (Mississippi) Age 63. Second Tier

Barbour is being strongly tipped for a Presidential run. He is the antithesis to Obama. He has a strong southern drawl and is a complete establishment politician. He is a former head of the RNC and extremely comfortable dealing with lobbyists and big business, so he could be able to raise significant funds. He has a long resume, topped off with his current job as Governor of Mississippi. Barbour however does not have significant grass roots support and would likely be seen as an establishment candidate at a time when his party is on an anti-establishment binge. 

Ambassador John Huntsman (Utah) Age 60. Second Tier.

Well this was a late entry, and I almost didn’t put Huntsman in as I really did not think he would do what he has just done. Huntsman is the former Governor of Utah, who Obama appointed ambassador to China. He was seen as a potential 2012 candidate, and by Obama appointing him as ambassador it was viewed by many as Obama blocking Huntsman from any potential run. Although he harboured Presidential aspirations, it was seen as unlikely that he would challenge his, by then former, boss. However in the past few days Huntsman has resigned as ambassador to China and he is almost certain to run in 2012. He is seen as a pragmatist, although his record is certainly a conservative one. He has bucked his party on occasion, for example supporting same sex civil unions in Mormon heavy Utah. He, along with Daniels, should be seen as the biggest possible threat to Obama. However Huntsman has something no other potential Republican nominee has – foreign policy credentials. By being Ambassador to China, Huntsman has arguably been the point man in the most crucial foreign policy relationship in the world. He also has access to significant personal wealth – his father founded and is chairman of the multi billion dollar chemical company, Huntsman Corporation. However Huntsman does not have the same sort of name recognition or base as Palin, Huckabee or Romney, and his pragmatic positions on social and economic issues will certainly cause him problems in the primary, as will his Mormon faith. 

Well it’s the day after the night before. I certainly did not enjoy this election night as much as the last one. Funny that.

Let’s face it; the Democrats took a beating. It was not as bad as it could have been, but it was pretty bad. So how could the Democrats have gone from such success, not only in 2008 but also in 2006, to what happened last night? Surely something must have gone drastically wrong, and all this talk of a massive liberal overreach must have some merit, right? Not necessarily.

After every election, there is always much talk about it being a change election, that the result was a repudiation of one party’s policies and the embrace of the other party’s policies. That is often in fact not the case.

If you would believe the Republicans, and many in the media, this was a rejection of policies that massively increase the size of government, tax increases and anti-business policies.

Firstly, taxes have not gone up. In fact the Obama administration passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history. The problem is, only a small minority in fact realise that their taxes have gone down. Secondly, the size of government has not increased massively. Government spending as a size of the economy has gone from around 20% under Bush to just over 23% under Obama. And this is with the government stimulus accounted for.

This election was about one thing – the economy. Even with the furore over health care (much of it unfounded) the Republicans would not have come close to the results they actually achieved if the economy was in a better shape. Unemployment is far too high, and this is the basis for much of the anger directed at government. If, for example, unemployment were 3 points lower, the deficit would hardly be an issue (for a start because it would naturally be much lower with a lower unemployment rate). Too many people feel not enough is being done to help the economy. Democrats also suffered because many of the younger people who were inspired and mobilised in 2008 stayed home.

In the House, most of the seats that Republicans won were in Republican districts. It was these seats that helped the Democrats win big in 2006 and 2008. Their achievement of breaking in to these conservative districts as Democrats was much more significant then Republicans simply taking them back.

The idea that it was the fault entirely of the Obama policies for the election result is also false. Many Democrats, for some bizarre reason, saw fit to run away from their votes. So if they supported health care reform or financial regulatory reform, they either did not talk about it or try to defend the votes, and in some cases even talked about regretting their votes. Many centrists lost, including Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in the Senate, and half of the conservative Blue Dog coalition was wiped out in the House. This means that being a centrist was not necessarily a benefit in this election. 

With Republicans now in control of the House, and with the Democrats having a much smaller majority in the Senate, surely Obama must bow to the will of the Republicans, and pursue a much small legislative agenda? Definitely not. Firstly, Obama is still the President, and he is more popular nationally than any member of Congress. He is still the one who will set the agenda. Secondly, there is no evidence that the American public want gridlock, that they want their public servants to do less. In fact, there is much more evidence showing that they believe Congress is not doing enough to solve major problems. If Republicans spend the next two years doing nothing but sending out subpoenas and shouting how they are standing in the way of Obama the socialist, they will get their butts whooped in 2012, and Obama will coast to re-election. Of course things such as cap and trade are now dead. But on many big issues – energy, education, tax reform, infrastructure and immigration – there should be more than enough common ground for good legislation.

The Republicans have won without espousing any great vision or big ideas to solve the major problems that face America. Their answer to everything seems to be either cut taxes, cut spending, or stop socialism. Their bumper sticker approach will now have to dramatically change now that they are in power. Its time for ideas, debate, civility and solutions.

As much as it pains me to say it, it appears the Democrats are not going to have a good night on November 2^nd. It pains me even more due to the influx of anger and departure of logic from the Republican Party. As things stand, the GOP look set to regain the House of Representatives and make gains in the Senate, but fall short of taking a majority there. So from January of next year we will once again have divided government in Washington, with the Republicans in charge of the House and the Democrats in charge of the Senate, and of course Barack Obama in the White House. 

But this is not your father’s Republican Party. Make no mistake, the Republicans have moved considerably to the right, over the past two years especially.

There is nothing inherently bad about the GOP, or about being a Republican. This is the party that gave us Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, however it is extremely likely that neither of these two greats, nor the conservative icon Ronald Reagan, would be as successful in today’s Republican party – Reagan raised taxes as governor of California and President, which would essentially means he would fail the litmus test of today’s rank and file members. 

None of today’s big name Republicans are fit to shine the shoes of any of these three former Presidents. This is not the party of great statesmen or of big ideas, it is not the party of Lincoln or Roosevelt but of Palin and Gingrich. The intellectual power and eloquence of Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol has been replaced by the ignorance and fear mongering of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

To be an intellectual in today’s Republican Party is a bad thing. Ignorance is now celebrated. 

Let us look at a few recent examples. During the health care ‘debate’, conservatives told us that Obama was in the process of creating ‘death panels’ that would decide which elderly people would live or die. This was a lie based upon the idea that the Government would reimburse families for any end of life counselling they may receive for one of their loved ones. Not only is this idea harmless and good, it was in fact a Republican idea, put forward by Sen. Isaakson of Georgia. 

Or when the certifiable Rep. Michelle Bachman said that, as part of a public service bill, that happened to have been co-authored by conservative Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, President Obama would be setting up ‘camps’ similar to gulags or re-education facilities. 

Newt Gingrich, he who divorced his wife whilst she was in the hospital, who is supposed to be the intellectual ideas man of the right, has said, amongst other things, that placing an Islamic community centre, which was to be run by a man who had worked for the Bush state department and had given speeches oversees on the virtues of America, three blocks from the site of ground zero, was the same as the Nazi’s placing a memorial at Auschwitz. He has also recently said that the President is channelling the Kenyan anti-colonial worldview of his dead father.

I don’t even wish to begin on the complete cartoon that is Sarah Palin. If she wasn’t taken so seriously by so many members of the public and glorified by so many in the conservative media she would finish her career as nothing but an insignificant blip. I refuse to call her Governor; after all she quit two years in to her term running Alaska to sign a book deal and star in a TV show. She has now, scarily enough, become the queen of the Tea Party movement. For some bizarre reason, there are many who feel she would be a viable challenger to Obama in 2012. Although she would have a frighteningly good chance of being the nominee, Obama would, quite simply, wipe the floor with her. Mrs Palin now spends most of her time criticising Obama for his socialism and redistributive policies (in her opinion) yet her dominion of Alaska hands out residual cheques every year to its citizens – their share of the states oil revenue. There are few people in America who need to avail themselves of a dictionary faster than Mrs Palin.

On economic issues, the Republican distaste for facts continues. In American politics, there is a distinct case for amnesia, and the GOP has used this to their advantage. After all, it was the Bush Presidency, and Republican control of congress that led to a record surplus becoming a record deficit, with tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars, and a massive prescription drug benefit all being paid for with borrowed money. Yet now the deficit appears to be the most important issue for Republicans and is a central plank of the Tea Party platform. But the Republicans now want more tax cuts for the wealthy, and refuse to pay for them. By their own words, they don’t believe tax cuts should be paid for. They want to balance the budget, but do it by not dealing with defence spending or entitlements. 

Such practices by the Republicans might make for comic fodder, but it is nothing but bad for America. It has become impossible to have a debate on the issues based on reason, fact and logic. Much blame for this rests on the US media, but the behaviour of many Republican politicians is nothing short of selfish. The refusal to have such debates and unwillingness to actually solve problems, favouring instead short term political gain, will see the US continue to tread water whilst developing economies such as China, India and Brazil continue to boom. The US will be outdone in every area – including education, infrastructure, and energy.

The Republicans should have good ideas on how to solve all of the big problems that face America. Even though they despise government action, they are public servants, and at the very least need to do their jobs. The best solutions are only going to come about after debating opposing ideas. How are the Republicans preparing for power? Certainly not by espousing their own ideas to solve the big problems, instead their grand vision is simple: to stop Obama. Recently we have had leaders such as Mike Pence and John Boehner say there will be no compromise with the President and the Democrats. Mitch McMconnell has said the most important task for the Republicans will not be legislation, but making Obama a one term President. Encouraging. In a democracy, sometimes the other side wins. But problems need to be solved – this is the task of politicians. And America has an awful lot of problems right now. But for one political party to be intellectually barren and foster anger and hate instead of ideas and debate means only bad news. 

Most Western economies are still struggling. The American economy certainly is. It is growing but at a paltry 2%, and private sector job growth is so anaemic it cant absorb the natural increase in the labour force, let alone begin to eat into the 8 million jobs lost as a result of the recession. The $787billion stimulus had an effect, but it was poorly designed, for political reasons, with too much money on tax cuts. Congress is proving once again how dysfunctional it is, and the Republican Party has gone off the deep end in to a pool of crazy, so any significant action from Washington is unlikely. So all eyes turn to Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, with further quantitative easing a near certainty.

This is essentially central banks printing money to buys government and corporate bonds from banks, insurance companies and pension plans. This creates more money in the system, which is supposed to lead to economic vibrancy and growth.

However the first round of QE did not work too well, as evidenced by the performance of the economy since then. Corporations in the US are already sitting on a huge $2 trillion dollars worth of cash, instead of spending it or investing it. There is already plenty of cash available in the economy.

What has been happening is that easy money is being used not to expand business but to invest either in US equities (hence the rise in the stock market whilst the economy still struggles) or to invest in emerging markets, which creates asset bubbles in places such as China or Brazil. Bubbles will obviously burst, so quantitative easing now could lead to major problems later.

We also appear to be engaged in a global currency war – another nasty side effect from QE. The more you print of a given currency, the lower its value will go. This is supposed to help your exports, which would be an excellent way to get yourself out of an economic slump. The problem is everyone wants to weaken their currency – the US, UK, EU, Japan, China, Brazil. You cant export your way to growth when no one else can buy what your making.

Given these issues, why would the Fed go for another round of QE? Simply, its all that can be done right now. Interests rates cant go any lower, and the economy is no where near where it needs to be, so more QE is all that is left. But we shouldn’t blame the Fed, they see where the economy is are going to do all they can. The real problem is Congress. They are the ones that should be stepping in, but they wont. If they were to act on say, creating an infrastructure bank, or through a payroll tax holiday, or some more aid to states to prevent local government layoffs, it would likely be more help to the economy than anything else the Fed can do. But any of these is unlikely, certainly in the short term. So next month when the Fed meets they will probably announce they are going to print more money, and it will likely have little positive effect on the real economy. Even if the private sector begins to spend some of that $2 trillion and job creations reaches decent levels, the likelihood is that unless Congress gets its head out of the sand, the American economy is going nowhere anytime soon. And that’s bad news for everyone.

What the hell is wrong with Democrats? For some reason, the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ seems to have lost the ability to govern. This has not only been apparent in the last 18 months, but was also apparent in the first two years of the Clinton administration, before the party went to get whooped in the 1994 midterms and allow the intellectual colossus that is Newt Gingrich to become Speaker of the House to usher in an era of revolutionary change (that last part was sarcastic by the way). This piece will be an introductory summary to the problems that face the Democratic Party in Washington, and their inability to govern as well as they should.

This has less to do with who is in the White House, than it has with leadership in Congress, and the make up of the party itself.

The Democratic Party is ideologically diverse, unlike today’s Republican Party. The problem for the Democrats is that the liberals and the moderates don’t seem to get along enough to form an efficient governing regime. The moderates have shown the ability to outright defeat major legislation that the leadership supports (such as cap and trade), and considerably water down legislation that does pass (witness health care, financial regulation).

The problem is that the moderates are not the pragmatic wannabe problem solvers that they wish to be seen as. Many have differences with the leadership based on principle, and many want to just pick fights with what is perceived as the liberal leadership to make themselves look good in their home states or districts, however almost all of the moderates seem to be afraid of big change. They are conservative in the sense they are incrementalist at best.

During the recent economic crisis when a large stimulus was needed, these moderates were wrongly too concerned with the deficit and favoured tax cuts over things such as infrastructure spending.

You have a President faced with massive challenges in almost all areas of policy. Yet he is almost powerless unless congress acts, and congress is completely dysfunctional, and despite their massive majorities, the Democrats don’t govern as a single party, but more as a coalition. And too many in this coalition are for the status quo and too willing to vote based on short-term politics.

The grassroots of the party, particularly those known as the netroots must also take a massive amount of responsibility. These bloggers and internet activists are crucial to the party, and have been vital in the Congressional victories in 2006 and 2008, as well as Obama’s election. But if the Democrats loose next month, it will not be because the ‘Tea Party’ has caused so many voters to shift to the GOP, it will be because too many Democrats are ridiculously staying at home and not voting. Unfortunately, they do not see the massive achievements made by the Democrats and Obama since January 2009. They only see what has not been done. The Republicans insistence on ideological purity makes it easier for them to stay on message at all levels. The Democratic internet base has too often taken aim at Obama and Congressional leaders. This has caused many in the party to become disillusioned, despite the fact that this Congress has been more active then any other for decades, and achieved major policy aims. The health care bill alone is the biggest piece of domestic social legislation since the 1960’s – this by itself should be enough for Democrats to vote in droves in November.

The Democrats have done a lot in the past 18 months, but they could have done much more. In next months midterms they will almost certainly lose control of the House, however retain control of the Senate. There is the potential for gridlock, which many, especially on Wall Street, seem to favour, but which would be disastrous given the problems America faces in education, infrastructure, the tax code, energy, entitlements and the housing sector. All of these require reform and major policy actions. Gridlock will simply leave America continuing to tread water whilst the likes of China, India and Brazil continue to storm ahead.

The Democrats have been faced with a nightmare scenario. They inherited an economic catastrophe unlike nothing seen since the Great Depression, as well as major structural problems that had gone unsolved for decades. They also faced an opposition Party intent on not supporting anything, and which is moving to the extreme right. They also faced a lobbying effort by corporations of a size never before seen, as well as a media which behave like children on a football pitch, they all run after the ball at the same time, focusing on an elitist mentality of political point scoring versus serious debate based on fact. However the Democrats in congress have once again shown the inability to govern and blown a massive opportunity. And the grassroots members as well as the politicians have no one else to blame but themselves.