Impossible Bipartisanship
MEXICO CITY — Two events have marked the start of this year’s election activities in the United States: the primaries to decide who will be the Republican Party’s candidate and the State of the Union speech given by President Obama on Jan. 25. Both have been very useful in illustrating the truly alarming polarization now present in American society. This, of course, is not a new phenomenon to be dealing with; the division between liberals and conservatives has been a prominent feature since the movement for independence. Nevertheless, various circumstances — the economic crisis chief among them — have deepened this division to a degree seldom seen in the recent history of the United States. The consequences are extremely negative, as much because of the paralysis produced in the government as because of the uneasiness fostered between citizens, increasingly more critical of and alienated from the politicians in Washington.
Above all, the polarization derives from the rightward radicalization, headed by the tea party. The strength of this movement and its influence on the nomination of the Republican candidate has pushed debates during the primaries toward the extreme. At the far end is Santorum, winner of the Iowa contest, who dismisses the advantages of public schooling, declaring himself in favor of homeschooling, which can better convey the values of family, religion and individual effort that have built “the greatness of America.” It’s not hard to imagine what little enthusiasm for public education he would demonstrate upon coming to power.
This hunger for radical conservatism has not resulted in greater cohesion within the Republican Party. On the contrary, it has divided its many groups, as was made apparent by the fact that the first three contests, in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, have had different winners. It has also cast doubt on the consensus that seemed to have been formed around Mitt Romney because of his better abilities for attracting less radical voters. Now what is valued most is the capacity to reenergize conservatism and thereby defeat Barack Obama.
What keeps the Republican Party united are two obsessions shared by the majority of its members: on the one hand, hatred of Obama, to whom they will not yield a single victory, even if this endangers measures necessary for the economic recovery; and on the other, their convictions about the downside of increasing the government’s ability to intervene in the economy. For the Republicans, the blame for the serious problems the U.S. economy is experiencing lies with government spending, the waste, which involves, among other things, investing in programs that seek to substitute for things that can only be accomplished through individual effort. Nothing disturbs conservatives more than the insistence on protecting “others,” black and Latino minorities or whites on the edge of poverty. For them, defending America is protecting the American dream, which has made possible well-kept suburbs populated by an upper middle class, preferably white and practicing some kind of Christian religion, free from undesirable immigrants, homosexuals or transexuals.
The rightward radicalization of the Republican Party has put a leader like Barack Obama — who had placed conciliation, overcoming the divisions between Democrats and Republicans, as one of the major goals of his administration — in a very difficult situation. And so he arrived at the White House and made considerable efforts, without success, along various fronts. Now the situation has changed. Something remained of bipartisan rhetoric in his recent speech. Nevertheless, the emphasis now is different. He will not win reelection if his position is not more drastically opposed to those who don’t believe government action is necessary to emerge from the grave economic situation that persists in the United States.
The speech, considered by most analysts as a document in which the lines were drawn for the electoral battle and for government intervention, mentioned almost all imaginable areas in which such action can be taken: education, job creation, redistributive fiscal policy, energy and sustainable development, among others.
The themes that largely received attention were his criticisms of politicians dedicated to defending tax cuts for the rich and opposing financial regulation. He spoke out in favor of a policy to make certain that millionaires pay at least 30 percent in taxes, and in no way should pay less than the middle class."You can call this class warfare all you want," he said. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”
It’s difficult to believe, starting from such divergent positions, that there will be any kind of bipartisan initiative this year. Most probably, endless debate will lead to Congress making no decisions. On the contrary, the fight will be fierce in the electoral contest between parties, and efforts to expand funding of the one or the other will be very intense.
For the moment, it is difficult to forecast the results of this election. Many factors will influence it; foremost among them is the behavior of the economy. What one may be assured of is that polarization will not end and that politics that can overcome the differences between parties will not happen. For now, the United States is condemned to live dominated by profound differences that divide its society. The consequences for its role as world leader remain to be seen.
Above all, the polarization derives from the rightward radicalization, headed by the tea party. The strength of this movement and its influence on the nomination of the Republican candidate has pushed debates during the primaries toward the extreme. At the far end is Santorum, winner of the Iowa contest, who dismisses the advantages of public schooling, declaring himself in favor of homeschooling, which can better convey the values of family, religion and individual effort that have built “the greatness of America.” It’s not hard to imagine what little enthusiasm for public education he would demonstrate upon coming to power.
This hunger for radical conservatism has not resulted in greater cohesion within the Republican Party. On the contrary, it has divided its many groups, as was made apparent by the fact that the first three contests, in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, have had different winners. It has also cast doubt on the consensus that seemed to have been formed around Mitt Romney because of his better abilities for attracting less radical voters. Now what is valued most is the capacity to reenergize conservatism and thereby defeat Barack Obama.
What keeps the Republican Party united are two obsessions shared by the majority of its members: on the one hand, hatred of Obama, to whom they will not yield a single victory, even if this endangers measures necessary for the economic recovery; and on the other, their convictions about the downside of increasing the government’s ability to intervene in the economy. For the Republicans, the blame for the serious problems the U.S. economy is experiencing lies with government spending, the waste, which involves, among other things, investing in programs that seek to substitute for things that can only be accomplished through individual effort. Nothing disturbs conservatives more than the insistence on protecting “others,” black and Latino minorities or whites on the edge of poverty. For them, defending America is protecting the American dream, which has made possible well-kept suburbs populated by an upper middle class, preferably white and practicing some kind of Christian religion, free from undesirable immigrants, homosexuals or transexuals.
The rightward radicalization of the Republican Party has put a leader like Barack Obama — who had placed conciliation, overcoming the divisions between Democrats and Republicans, as one of the major goals of his administration — in a very difficult situation. And so he arrived at the White House and made considerable efforts, without success, along various fronts. Now the situation has changed. Something remained of bipartisan rhetoric in his recent speech. Nevertheless, the emphasis now is different. He will not win reelection if his position is not more drastically opposed to those who don’t believe government action is necessary to emerge from the grave economic situation that persists in the United States.
The speech, considered by most analysts as a document in which the lines were drawn for the electoral battle and for government intervention, mentioned almost all imaginable areas in which such action can be taken: education, job creation, redistributive fiscal policy, energy and sustainable development, among others.
The themes that largely received attention were his criticisms of politicians dedicated to defending tax cuts for the rich and opposing financial regulation. He spoke out in favor of a policy to make certain that millionaires pay at least 30 percent in taxes, and in no way should pay less than the middle class."You can call this class warfare all you want," he said. "But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”
It’s difficult to believe, starting from such divergent positions, that there will be any kind of bipartisan initiative this year. Most probably, endless debate will lead to Congress making no decisions. On the contrary, the fight will be fierce in the electoral contest between parties, and efforts to expand funding of the one or the other will be very intense.
For the moment, it is difficult to forecast the results of this election. Many factors will influence it; foremost among them is the behavior of the economy. What one may be assured of is that polarization will not end and that politics that can overcome the differences between parties will not happen. For now, the United States is condemned to live dominated by profound differences that divide its society. The consequences for its role as world leader remain to be seen.