American Elections … Two Steps Back
Every time America takes one step forward, she takes two steps back. This appears to be the case the day after the American midterm congressional elections. These elections proved to be a sweeping victory for the Republican Party, at the expense of course, of the Democrats, who lost the majority in the House of Representatives. Even though Democrats retained their majority in the Senate, it has narrowed.
According to voter opinion polls, the economy played a major role, and maybe even a decisive one, in how they cast their votes. The United States is still reeling in the effects of the global financial crisis, which started due to the subprime mortgage crisis. A recession started, banks suffered, inflation increased and layoffs increased, thus resulting in a higher unemployment rate.
But note that the most prominent Republicans, who built their campaigns on the failure of the American government to fix this crisis, actually helped cause it through their affiliations with capitalist giants. Their call for a reduction of government intervention in controlling financial markets and economic development caused the collapse of the American economy.
It has also been noticed that the campaign slogans of the Republicans, especially those of the tea party — the most right-wing of the Republican Party — focused on freeing the economy from government control, and the liberalization of the private sector. The reasoning is this: Employers are the ones creating jobs, not the lying government in Washington.
Thus, it seems as though the step Americans took during elections two years ago toward restoring the government’s role in the control of institutions, legislation and new laws to regulate economic performance has suffered a setback; Americans have taken two steps back.
It is strange that the American voter, who took out his frustration on the Democratic candidates and on President Obama, did not take into account that the president is leading the largest campaign to fix economic and social conditions throughout the United States. The majority of the reform is for the benefit of the poor, particularly the health care bill and increasing taxes on the rich.
However, it is the rich who are financing the election campaigns. Obama’s achievements do not seem to be clear to the ordinary citizen, who is busy asking questions. These questions echo those asked in Egypt five years ago: Who is responsible for the increased revenue growth? Why are we not seeing this growth?
In the United States, Obama has spent $800 billion on his reforms, but they have not yet come to fruition. Meanwhile, Americans went to the polls wondering how useful his reforms can be if the unemployment rate has reached 10 percent. People who are unable to find jobs will not think much of reforms that are supposed to bolster the economy and bring in the reigns of wild capitalism. They also do not think much of a health care system that benefits people the more they age and who thus theoretically have a greater risk of becoming ill.
What is important in any general election is employment, wages, housing, education and even the price of tomatoes.
According to voter opinion polls, the economy played a major role, and maybe even a decisive one, in how they cast their votes. The United States is still reeling in the effects of the global financial crisis, which started due to the subprime mortgage crisis. A recession started, banks suffered, inflation increased and layoffs increased, thus resulting in a higher unemployment rate.
But note that the most prominent Republicans, who built their campaigns on the failure of the American government to fix this crisis, actually helped cause it through their affiliations with capitalist giants. Their call for a reduction of government intervention in controlling financial markets and economic development caused the collapse of the American economy.
It has also been noticed that the campaign slogans of the Republicans, especially those of the tea party — the most right-wing of the Republican Party — focused on freeing the economy from government control, and the liberalization of the private sector. The reasoning is this: Employers are the ones creating jobs, not the lying government in Washington.
Thus, it seems as though the step Americans took during elections two years ago toward restoring the government’s role in the control of institutions, legislation and new laws to regulate economic performance has suffered a setback; Americans have taken two steps back.
It is strange that the American voter, who took out his frustration on the Democratic candidates and on President Obama, did not take into account that the president is leading the largest campaign to fix economic and social conditions throughout the United States. The majority of the reform is for the benefit of the poor, particularly the health care bill and increasing taxes on the rich.
However, it is the rich who are financing the election campaigns. Obama’s achievements do not seem to be clear to the ordinary citizen, who is busy asking questions. These questions echo those asked in Egypt five years ago: Who is responsible for the increased revenue growth? Why are we not seeing this growth?
In the United States, Obama has spent $800 billion on his reforms, but they have not yet come to fruition. Meanwhile, Americans went to the polls wondering how useful his reforms can be if the unemployment rate has reached 10 percent. People who are unable to find jobs will not think much of reforms that are supposed to bolster the economy and bring in the reigns of wild capitalism. They also do not think much of a health care system that benefits people the more they age and who thus theoretically have a greater risk of becoming ill.
What is important in any general election is employment, wages, housing, education and even the price of tomatoes.