The American Election Will Be About More Than Iraq

It is difficult for most people around the world to grasp two important facts about the US presidential elections, scheduled for November 2008. First, a crucial, if not the crucial phase will be just about over in less than a year. By next February about half of the delegates to the nominating conventions of the two parties will have been chosen in primary elections around the country. That means that right now the candidates are scrambling to raise the $10 million per month they will need to get their messages across. Which is why Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are enganged in a battle for access to the deep pockets of Hollywood moguls.

Second, Iraq will not be the only issue that will decide whether a Democrat or a Republican succeeds George W. Bush. By election day in November of next year Iraq might will have been decided, either by an American retreat or by the successful pacification of the country. In that case, all eyes will focus on the domestic economy.

The issue most likely to dominate is inequality: the sense that the rising income produced by the growing US economy is not being shared fairly. CEOs seem to leave companies they have wrecked after pocketing golden goodbyes worth hundreds of millions of dollars, while workers laid off because of their bosses’ blunders, and because of foreign competition, are left stranded without even pensions to cushion their old age.

It matters little that the figures being used by the new populists grossly overstate the increase in inequality. The fact is that most Americans have seen large increases in their wealth and their living standards. The portion of workers owning their own homes has increased; cars are newer and safer; international travel is within reach of most people; a nde prescription drug plan is now helping the elderly.
But the average worker has not done as well as the average investment banker. That gives the liberals -- in the American sense -- a chance to position themselves as champions of the “small guys’”, and to label Republicans the party of the rich.

The fact, of course, is that rising inequality is a result of two things.

First, at the low end of the wage scale there is fierce competition from unskilled immigrants and from workers in Asia. That keeps wages of the unskilled from rising very rapidly. At the top end, the better-educated are benefitting from the increased international demand for skilled workers and managers. So globalisation hurts the unskilled and helps the skilled.

The candidate with a sensible plan to make training and education more readily available to the unskilled will have taken a long step towards the presidency.

The feeling that globalisation’s benefits have not been fairly distributed is carrying over into disputes about trade. Free trade has lifted millions of Asian workers out of poverty, and kept inflation low in developed countries by making inexpensive trainers, t-shirts, flat-screen television sets, and a host of consumer goods available. Now, America’s Democrats are saying a whiff of protectionism is needed. Republicans will contest that position, but in my view the age of freer and freer trade has ended. Those hurt by trade know who they are, and vote; the scattered consumers who benefit are unaware of the source of those wonderful low prices.

So watch for the candidate most successful at riding this tide of resentment. He -- or she -- may be the next President of the United States.

Comments

[jes alexander]

I really don't like to talk politics very much. Political conversations often end badly because people take partisan views and stick with them no matter what (the other reason political discussions end badly is because our society has lost the art of dialogue - just because people don't agree on a topic does not mean they are arguing. At least it shouldn't. I don't have to agree with your perspective to respect your right to have it .. but the lost art of discussion is for another time). I don't want to enflame any partisan discussions here, in fact, I think the whole partisan thing is out of hand on both sides of the aisle, but what I am trying to say has nothing to do with partisan politics whatsoever. Still, I am not sure that most people have a clear understanding of how this whole political thing works, so I hope to enlighten, a little:

The founding fathers would be appalled at the state of US politics today. Why? because holding public office was never intended to be a career. You were called by your peers, you served, and when your term(s) was done you returned to your farm, your law practice, or your general store. That doesn't happen, anymore. What we have now is, quite ironically, a House of Lords. Sure, there is a greater opportunity here than un the UK for anyone to be "elected" into our House of Lords, but once you're in the club, the goal is to stay there. It was never supposed to be that way. There was never supposed to be such a thing as a, "career politician." Even Thomas Jefferson begrudgingly accepted national office when elected or appointed time and time again, but he really wanted to be home at Monticello, running the farm. In-part because he was never home to tend to the management of his land, Jefferson died in debt.

Speaking of debt, this is something today's politicians know nothing about. Think about it a minute. If Hillary Clinton were to raise $200 Million in campaign contributions for her run for the White House, and she spends $150 Million on her actual campaign, guess where the remaining $50 Million goes? Uh-huh, in the Clintons' bank account .. win or lose. How often do you hear a candidate say, "I've raised $200 Million for my campaign, but I think I can cover the essentials for just $20 Million. Therefore, if I am elected I will use the remaining $180 Million to build schools, create feeding programs for the needy, or help reduce the National debt." What's that you say? Never? We give our candidates license to take taxpayer dollars and put them in their own pockets.

Take it a step further - Why should Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or John McCain be out there campaigning at all? They are, after all, each on the Federal payroll. Would you get paid if you told your boss, "I'm not coming in this month, because I am applying for another job."??? Does this make sense? I say this to all the presidential candidates who currently hold public office: If you feel that strongly that you are the best person to serve as the next President of the United States, remove yourself from the Federal, State, or local payroll you are on to concentrate on your platform. You are not being fair to the constituents who elected you into office by not being there to serve their needs because you are serving your own. Step down. You won't need the salary anyway - you're still going to end up with $50 Million in your pocket. Right?

So, are Joe and Jane Citizen the sole contributors to these political campaign funds? Of course not. An alarming amount of that money comes from large corporations. Let me give you an example of what's going on here - Some bazillion dollar pharmaceutical company gives $25 Million to a candidate's campaign. Why? You know the answer, but hold that thought. The same pharmaceutical company runs ads for prescription erectile dysfunction medications and birth control pills on partisan-focused 24 hour cable news network A or B, which is owned by a large corporation, itself. Why are the pharmaceutical companies advertising prescription pills to a public who can't get them without a doctor's approval? Because while the pharmaceutical companies are counting on the fact that if you can't get your doctor to give you a prescription for Viagra, you'll buy it from Mexico or somewhere on the Internet - and the pharmaceutical company will still profit. Oh, sure they say they are against overseas drug purchases, but are they really? Are they lobbying at the congressional level to enforce the illegal importation of prescription drugs? Of course not, because THEY are still selling pills. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical company now owns a piece of their candidate of choice, and if that person gets elected you better believe that the drug company lobbyists will be asking for concessions, tax exemptions, and the like. [and I apologize for picking on the pharmaceutical companies - they're just an easy target - besides, VIAGRA is funny!]

But, here's where it gets really interesting, especially for a "green" candidate. With non-stop coverage of the upcoming presidential election almost guaranteed on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and other cable media outlets, is there really a need for candidates to spend millions of dollars on campaign ads? Is there anyone in the country who does not know what Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani look like already, who will care on election day? With all this free face-time provided by the cable news industry, is there a need to see John Edwards hugging his family during a commercial break between McDreamy and McSteamy on the regular networks? Not really. So, too (and this is where the "green" thing comes in), with the advent of the visual media, the Internet, cable programming, and podcasting, is there really still any need for each candidate to spend millions on campaign posters that will only end up in another over-filled landfill? There's your platform, Al Gore - a recyclable-free campaign. And win-win, the less you spend on cardboard posters, the more you can add to that $50 Million you are going to pocket. Right?

[Sheldon]

Hillary Clinton will try to position herself as the anti- Iraq war candidate, but her pro-war vote and failure to confess her error will haunt her throughout the campaign. Iraq will be as much of a burden for Hillary Clinton as for her Republican challengers.