Only Half of the U.S. Is with Barack

Published in La Stampa
(Italy) on 3 November 2012
by Gianni Riotta (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Agatha Aissa-Dallongeville. Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
On the eve of Election Day on Tuesday Nov. 6, the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for the White House remains where it has been during the whole campaign, with the Democratic president maintaining a narrow lead, especially in swing states (such as Ohio), and the former Republican governor lagging a little behind. But this does not mean that nothing has changed. Barack Obama, the charismatic champion elected by a new generation in 2008, was hastily awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and praised in books and artwork. Even if he wins the election, he will come out belittled, a “normal president” risking rejection like Carter in 1980 and Bush Senior in 1992. He did control the economic crisis and launch healthcare measures — but without managing to inspire unity or pushing for agreements with the Republicans in Congress.

Romney erased the image of an extremist in the grip of Tea Party activists with which the powerful Democratic machine wanted to saddle him. The governor of the progressive state of Massachusetts approved a healthcare reform that was a copy of Obama’s. It triggered an anathema on the right. About foreign policy he only proposes “effervescent” versions of the president’s ideas. Besides, his fiscal plan — less taxes and less public expenditures but more military expenditures — left the moderate voters puzzled, particularly the less wealthy, women and immigrants.

Neither the eclipse of Obama from prophet to politician, unable to warm the heart of the average American “Joe Six Pack,” who is worried by the $50,000 average annual salary that can fall to $30,000 for a new employee, nor the comeback of capitalist Romney in favor of the layoff to the centrists, seems to have reversed the situation. Nate Silver’s survey for Real Clear Politics gives a seven in 10 chance to the Democrats. The paradox is explained by analyzing unemployment data published yesterday: 171,000 new positions and an unemployment rate that has dropped to 7.9 percent, a modest 0.1 under the 8 percent figure that by tradition eliminates any president. The economist James Marple, in an essay that should inspire people in Europe, says, “Forget about the prophets of doom. The American economy shows an incredible strength in the face of serious predicaments. Even though there are still doubts regarding the fate of the fiscal cliff and the sluggish global economy, the U.S. generates jobs at a respectable pace.”*

If on Tuesday Obama joins these 171,000 people and keeps his job, the reason will be these figures and nothing else. Charisma was his 2008 signature; but the 7.9 percent unemployment rate, the economic stimulus of Bernanke and the Federal Reserve, and the bailout of the automobile industry are his 2012 signature. Have a look at the state of Ohio, which has been voting for the winning president for half a century. All I know about America and all the traditional political analysis of masters such as David Broder and Bill Schneider would leave us to assume that the president would have difficulty with the quarrelsome voters in one of the last “Made in the U.S.A.” manufacturing areas. Instead, Obama is leading and Romney is struggling. Why? Because as Michigan lives through General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, Ohio lives through the automotive industry. Obama’s plan means that the unemployment rate is “only” seven percent and that 150,000 automotive positions were protected. In the 1990’s there were 1,100,000 workers in Ohio; today 657,000 remain. Many of them are sensitive to the appeals of Romney and vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan to reduce taxes and expenditures and to launch start-ups, and might share these views. But when they look at their loans, at their salary that does not increase, at the children they need to send to college, they think that Obama and Bernanke’s grey status quo is — for now — reassuring. These opinions of the Ohio workers are shared by Nobel candidate and MIT economist Peter Diamond and famous Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who argue, “… the U.S. has an unemployment crisis and a public debt problem.” Obama talked academically about the “job emergency,” while Romney, non-extremist and encouraging on TV, focused on the “debt problem” without clarifying how the tax cuts, modest cuts to social expenditures and steep increases in military expenditures could solve it. According to the old American saying “first things first,” these problems must be solved one at a time. Independent and moderate voters especially think today about the “job crisis,” and will focus on the “debt problem” tomorrow.

In its last hours, the campaign, which cost a remarkable $6 billion (4.6 billion euros), was left in the hands of the statistics and “Big Data” experts who — it might entertain readers to know — apply the computer calculus methodology created for baseball, as in the movie “Moneyball,” to politics. Nate Silver, blogger for the austere New York Times, learned the ropes with game results at “Baseball Prospectus.” That gives you the opportunity to examine the curves and diagrams for hours, until you go blind. The result, national or state-by-state, changes little: Obama has three chances out of four to win, leaving Romney with longer odds. The skeptical political scientists Brooks, Scarborough and Podhoretz sneer, “If Romney wins, all of Nate Silver’s followers will have to go back to baseball.” Nonsense: “probability” is not certainty, but you would never get on a plane that has a one in four chance of crashing, while you would rush to buy a lottery ticket that has a one in four chance of being the winning ticket.

Those are extreme probabilities. The certainties for Obama or Romney are the problems to come: jobs to create; innovation and production to sustain even if they are better off than Europe; the public debt problem that will turn into a crisis if it is not tackled; a deficit in the domestic demand that remains abysmal with spendthrift consumers; social inequality that does not protest in the manner of Occupy Wall Street but witnesses young people and the middle class losing their purchasing power and social status; and Washington and its polarized politics unable to negotiate agreements between the White House and Congress. In conclusion, the Obama-Bernanke plan seems more realistic and less ideological than Romney’s call for the market: The electorate is aware that no Republican has voted for a tax increase since 1990, a whole generation. But as the old Richard Cohen wrote in the Washington Post, “Anyone who saw Obama as the new Bob Kennedy was seriously mistaken.”** The comparison is unfair to the young president: The U.S. is now divided and lacks places of common social life that schools, military service, playgrounds or popular neighborhoods once provided. Citizens of the digital economy and those of the old economy do not meet anymore unless they run into each other in the street. Obama had given hopes not of an embrace between the two worlds, but at least of the possibility of a dialogue between these two Americas — and he failed. He might be reelected, but only by half of the democracy. This year, there is no dream; only dollars, jobs and bills to be paid every month.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
** Editor’s Note: This sentiment is expressed in Richard Cohen’s Post article “The President Who Seems Not to Care,” though this exact quote could not be verified.


Alla vigilia del voto di martedì 6 novembre, la sfida per la Casa Bianca tra Barack Obama e Mitt Romney è dove è rimasta per l’intera campagna elettorale, poco avanti il Presidente democratico, soprattutto negli Stati cruciali, vedi Ohio, un’incollatura dietro l’ex governatore repubblicano. Sarebbe però un errore concludere dunque che «nulla è cambiato». Barack Obama, eletto da una nuova generazione nel 2008, campione carismatico, laureato in fretta col Nobel per la Pace, elogiato in libri e opere d’arte, anche vincendo uscirà dalla gara ridimensionato, «normale Presidente» a rischio bocciatura come Carter ’80 e Bush padre ’92. Ha sì controllato la crisi e lanciato la riforma sanitaria, ma senza ispirare unità o forzare alle intese i repubblicani al Congresso.

Romney ha cancellato l’immagine di estremista preda dei Tea Party che la poderosa macchina democratica voleva affibbiargli. Governatore del progressista Massachusetts ha approvato una riforma sanitaria copia di quella di Obama, anatema a destra, e in politica estera offre solo una versione «effervescente» delle idee del Presidente. E’ forse il suo piano fiscale, meno tasse, meno spesa pubblica ma più spesa militare, a lasciare perplessi gli elettori moderati, specie se non abbienti, donne, emigranti.

L’eclisse di Obama, da profeta a politico incapace di riscaldare il cuore dell’americano medio, Joe Six Pack, preoccupato dal salario medio di 50.000 dollari l’anno che scende per i nuovi assunti a 30.000, e la rimonta di Romney da capitalista duro dei licenziamenti a centrista, non sembrano però ribaltare ancora la scena. I sondaggi di Nat Silver, il sito realclearpolitics, assegnano 7 possibilità su 10 ai democratici. Il paradosso si spiega analizzando i dati sulla disoccupazione, diffusi ieri, 171.000 nuovi posti, tasso che scende a 7,9%, un modesto 0,1 sotto la cifra di 8% che, per tradizione, elimina i Presidenti. L’economista James Marple, in una sintesi che dovrebbe far riflettere in Europa, dice «Lasciate perdere i profeti di sventura. L’economia Usa dimostra un’incredibile grinta davanti a guai seri. Malgrado restino dubbi acuti sul destino dell’abisso fiscale e con l’economia globale in panne, l’America genera lavoro a ritmi rispettabili».

Se martedì anche Obama si unirà ai 171.000 e terrà il posto di lavoro, si dovrà a questi numeri e a niente altro. Il carisma fu sigla 2008, il tasso di disoccupazione a 7,9, lo stimolo economico della Federal Reserve di Bernanke e il piano di salvataggio dell’auto, le sigle 2012. Guardate lo Stato dell’Ohio, che da mezzo secolo vota il Presidente vincente. Tutto quello che so dell’America, tutta la tradizionale analisi politica di maestri come David Broder a Bill Schneider, lascerebbero ipotizzare un Presidente in difficoltà tra i riottosi elettori di uno degli ultimi laboratori di manifattura Made in Usa. Invece Obama in testa, Romney arrancante: perché? Perché, come il Michigan vive di General Motors, Ford e Chrysler, l’Ohio vive di indotto auto. Il piano di Obama significa disoccupazione «solo» al 7% e difesa di 150.000 posti «auto motive». Nel 1990 gli operai erano in Ohio 1.100.000, oggi sono rimasti in 657.000. Molti ascoltano volentieri gli appelli di Romney e del suo candidato vicepresidente Paul Ryan a ridurre tasse e spesa, lanciando start up, li condividono magari. Ma quando guardano a mutuo, salario che non cresce, figli da mandare al college, pensano che il grigio status quo di Obama e Bernanke – per ora - sia rassicurante. Giudizi da metalmeccanico dell’Ohio al coffee shop, condivisi però dal premio Nobel per l’economia del Mit Peter Diamond e dalla firma del «Financial Times» Martin Wolf con lo slogan geniale «Negli Stati Uniti la disoccupazione è una “crisi”, il debito pubblico un “problema””. Obama ha parlato, sia pur con tono accademico, di “emergenza lavoro”; Romney, non estremista e rassicurante in tv, s’è però concentrato sul “problema debito”, senza chiarire come tagli alle tasse, modesti tagli alla spesa sociale e robusto incremento alla spesa militare possano risolverlo. Secondo l’antico proverbio di buon senso yankee “First things first”, un guaio alla volta, gli elettori, soprattutto indipendenti e moderati, pensano oggi alla “crisi lavoro”, domani al “problema debito”».

La campagna, costata la fantastica cifra di sei miliardi di dollari (4,6 miliardi di euro), è in queste ultime ore affidata agli esperti di statistiche e Big Data, che – la cosa forse divertirà i lettori - applicano alla politica i metodi di calcolo informatico creati per il baseball, come nel film «L’arte di vincere». Nate Silver, blogger dell’austero «New York Times», s’è fatto le ossa sui risultati delle partite al «Baseball Prospectus». Potete accecarvi per ore su curve e diagrammi, il risultato, nazionale o stato per stato, cambia poco, Obama ha qualcosa in più di 3 chance su 4 di vincere, l’ultima va a Romney. I politologi scettici, Brooks, Scarborough, Podhoretz, ridono: «Se vince Romney, quelli alla Nat Silver tornano al baseball». Sciocchezze, «probabilità» non è «certezza», ma voi non prendereste mai un aereo che ha una chance su 4 di cadere, mentre vi precipitereste a comprare biglietti di una lotteria con una chance su 4 di vincere.

Queste dunque le probabilità estreme. Le certezze, per Obama o per Romney, sono i guai a venire: lavoro da creare; innovazione e produttività, migliori che in Europa, ma da sostenere; il «problema» debito pubblico che si farà «crisi» se non affrontato; un buco nella domanda interna, che malgrado consumatori «cicala», resta vertiginoso; la disuguaglianza sociale che non mobilita intorno a Occupy Wall Street, ma vede giovani e ceto medio perdere potere d’acquisto e status sociale; Washington politica polarizzata e incapace di negoziare accordi tra Casa Bianca e Congresso. Alla fine il piano Obama-Bernanke sembra più realista e meno ideologico dell’appello al mercato di Romney: pesa sull’elettorato la consapevolezza che nessun repubblicano vota per un aumento delle tasse dal 1990, una generazione intera. Ma, come ha scritto il vecchio Richard Cohen sul «Washington Post», «chiunque si fosse illuso di riconoscere in Obama il nuovo Bob Kennedy ha fatto in tempo a ricredersi». Il paragone è ingiusto per il giovane Presidente, l’America è ormai divisa, mancano luoghi di vita sociale comuni, come erano una volta scuole, esercito di leva, campi da gioco, quartieri popolari. Cittadini dell’economia digitale e Cittadini della vecchia economia non si incontrano neppure più, se non per strada. Obama aveva fatto sperare non in un abbraccio, ma almeno, nel dialogo fra le Due Americhe. Ha fallito. Sarà forse rieletto, ma da una sola metà, la democratica. Quest’anno non si sogna, si contano dollari, lavoro, «bills», bollette da saldare ogni fine di mese.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Trump Is Washing His Hands of the Ukraine Problem, Without Quite Saying It

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Canada: Donald Trump’s Oddities Mask a Real Threat that Lurks in Plain Sight

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Italy: Trump Dressed as the Pope on White House Social Media

Italy : How To Respond to Trump’s Tariffs without Disturbing Beijing

Italy: How To Respond to the (Stupid) Tariff War

Italy: Putin’s Sly Ability To ‘Dupe’ American Presidents