The White House: President’s Livelihood More Important than People’s

Published in Xinhua
(China) on 20 June 2011
by Tan Zhong (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Lisa Ferguson. Edited by Janie Boschma.
The biggest special characteristic of America's democratic government is that the presidential election becomes overwhelmingly the No. 1 priority. The president's term is four years and before each president begins his first term in the White House, he has already spent two years busily campaigning for office. After spending only two peaceful years in the White House, he must again throw himself into the next presidential race. Obama is now in this situation.

In 2009, not long after taking office, Obama said in an interview with ABC that he would rather be a one-term president than just be mediocre. He is no longer talking like this. Instead, all his words and actions point to the opposite: He is giving up his ideals for the sake of his political career.

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a few days ago that over the next 16 months, he will be commenting on the U.S. presidential election "under protest" because he thinks the Republican and Democratic parties' contenders do not grasp the main subject of this presidential election: "how to avert national decline."

At present, whether from the angle of international prestige or domestic development, the U.S. is declining — there's no doubt about it. But this downhill path did not start with Obama's administration. Experts have observed that, over the last 30 years, there has been a downward trend in the income of the average worker. The gulf between Wall Street and "Main Street" has continuously been widening. When Obama was on the campaign trail, he sharply pointed out that America was being ruled by "special interest groups,” and promised he would bring reform, leading the masses in their loud chant of, "Yes, we can!" After taking office, however, he has continued Bush's Wall Street "rescue" policies and even expanded them.

During the campaign, Obama often said the U.S. belonged to all Americans and that there was no "Democratic America" or "Republican America.” Yet in the initial stages of his presidency, when he was determined to put into effect the health care reform advocated by the Democrats, he did not receive a single Republican vote. Many Republican representatives publicly asserted that they voted against it not because they were judging the policy on its own merits, but instead because they wanted to keep Obama from having a chance at a second term. Obama vigorously and hastily got the "Healthcare Reform Act" passed, and Republicans claim it is "damaging to the public interest," giving it a bad reputation. During the 2010 Congressional elections, even Democrats avoided talking about it. Since then, Obama has made big changes in both his domestic and foreign affairs policies, especially in his decision to use force in Libya. He has simply become the reincarnation of George W. Bush.

In reality, the battle for the job of next year's president is already fiercely underway. People called Bush's policy "ABC" ("Anything but Clinton"). Now Obama is covertly continuing many of Bush's policies, and yet the Republicans' policies are "Anything but Obama.” Politicians who are concerned with America's decline seem to be few and far between. Presently, Obama's political enemies are concentrating their firepower on striking him down and stealing away his job. Obama himself has made protecting his livelihood a top priority, and he will not think about anything that does not directly relate to keeping his job. This is the special trait of America's "two-party" democracy. One has to ask, who in the U.S. is still thinking of the national economy and the people's livelihood?

The author, Tan Zhong, is an Indian-Chinese scholar who resides in the U.S.


白宫:总统饭碗比民生更重要
2011年06月20日 13:49:06  来源: 环球时报

美国民主政治的最大特点就是总统竞选成为压倒一切的头号大事。总统任期4年,每位总统在第一任期进入白宫之前已经忙碌竞选了2年,进了白宫刚过了2年太平日子,又须投入竞选下届总统中去。奥巴马就处于这种情况。

2009年奥巴马刚上台不久接受ABC电视台采访时说,他宁愿只当一任总统也不甘庸庸碌碌。现在他不讲这种话了,而且他的所作所为显示出相反的方向:就是为了自己的政治生涯不惜牺牲理想。

美国时事评论家布鲁克斯日前在《纽约时报》他的专栏中说,今后的16个月中,他将抱着“抗议”的心情来评论美国总统竞选,因为他觉得共和、民主两党的角逐者都抓不住这次大选的主旋律:如何防止美国衰退?

眼下,美国无论国际威望还是国内发展都处于下滑趋势,这是毋庸置疑的。美国走下坡路却不是从奥巴马执政开始的。行家观察,美国普通劳工的收入,30年来呈下降之势。华尔街与“主街”(美国主流社会)之间鸿沟不断扩大。奥巴马竞选总统时曾经尖锐指出美国受“既得利益”集团统治,扬言改革,领导群众高喊“对!我们能(改变)”。但他上台以后,不但继续前任布什为华尔街“救火”的政策,甚至有过之而无不及。

奥巴马竞选时经常说,美国是所有美国人的美国,没有什么“民主党的美国”或“共和党的美国”。可是在他执政初期,执意推行民主党人提倡的医疗改革,在国会得不到任何一票共和党支持。许多共和党议员公开宣称他们投反对票的目的不是就事论事,而是不让奥巴马有第二任的机会。奥巴马狠抓国会急忙通过的《医疗改革法案》,被共和党炒成“损害群众利益”,名气大臭。2010年国会改选时,连民主党候选人都避免谈论它。自那以后,奥巴马就在内政外交上大变样,特别在对利比亚动武事件上,他简直成了小布什的化身。

实际上,明年总统饭碗的争夺战,现在已经开始激烈进行了。人们称小布什的政策是“ABC”(“Anything but Clinton/逢克林顿必反”)。现在奥巴马倒是变相地延续小布什的许多政策,但共和党人却是“逢奥巴马必反”。美国在走下坡路,关心这一点的政客似乎不多。现在奥巴马的政敌集中火力轰他,要把他的饭碗抢掉。奥巴马自己也把保饭碗看成重中之重,和保他自己的饭碗没有直接关系的事,是不会挂在心上的。这就是美国民主“两党制”的特点——试问美国还有谁为国计民生着想呢?▲(作者 谭 中 旅居美国的知名印籍华人学者。)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Austria: If This Is Madness, There is a Method to It

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Topics

Japan: US Signing of Japan Tariffs: Reject Self-Righteousness and Fulfill Agreement

Russia: Trump the Multipolarist*

Turkey: Blood and Fury: Killing of Charlie Kirk, Escalating US Political Violence

Thailand: Brazil and the US: Same Crime, Different Fate

Singapore: The Assassination of Charlie Kirk Leaves America at a Turning Point

Germany: When Push Comes to Shove, Europe Stands Alone*

Guatemala: Fanaticism and Intolerance

Venezuela: China: Authoritarianism Unites, Democracy Divides

Related Articles

Germany: It’s Not Europe’s Fault

Spain: State Capitalism in the US

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

India: Will New US Envoy Help to Repair Ties under Threat?

France: Global South: Trump Is Playing into China’s Hands