The US: I Only Know that I Know Nothing

Another turn of the screw. The election campaign in the United States doles out another surprise. A few days ago, a victor was emerging in the Republican primaries: the moderate Romney. The polls had him winning this week’s three primaries, and, with an aura of inevitability in his party, the pollsters also had him neck and neck with Obama in November’s main event. He was, they said, the Republican best suited to beat the president.

Today, dark clouds have gathered. Romney lost Tuesday’s three primaries to Santorum, and the polls show that Obama would beat Romney by a significant margin.

The forceful emergence of Santorum is surprising and shows the unpredictability of the American electorate. It is widely believed that a rich candidate who is at least moderately articulate will win the primaries. This time it hasn’t happened. Santorum does not have a cent; in Tuesday’s states — Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado — Romney spent 40 times more on advertising than Santorum, and he lost all three anyway. In Missouri and Minnesota, the margin was huge. A cause for concern for the erstwhile front runner is that, in those three states, he won fewer votes than he did four years ago, when he campaigned in the primaries that were eventually won by McCain. The latter, by the way, had begun his campaign with very little funding.

No Republican creates general enthusiasm among the voters. The turnout for the primaries is shaping up to be — in spite of the heat generated by 19 debates — lower than in prior years, and two out of three independents say that there is much about Romney that they dislike. Now the polls are turning toward Santorum, who has succeeded in reviving the tea party.

Meanwhile, smiles are brightening in the Obama camp. The president, for the first time in months, sees his approval index, at 48.6 percent, higher than his disapproval rating of 47.4 percent. The fundamental reason is improvement in the economy; unemployment has gone down to 8.4 percent, and although the country is truly polarized, many commentators believe that Obama is performing well in the stormy sea of foreign affairs. He showed a steady hand in the elimination, through expedited methods, of bin Laden, which Americans appreciate, and he has kept his promise to pull the troops out of Iraq. In Libya, though no one knows if the country will stabilize, Gadhafi was eliminated without considerable economic cost or damage to the image of the United States.

Now, however, Obama has a tough challenge with Iran. These days he is feverishly consulting with the government of Israel on the growing threat of the Ayatollahs’ nuclear bomb. Israel says that Iran needs very little time to obtain it, and that they cannot wait long before launching an attack to keep this weapon of mass destruction from a country whose president affirms that Israel should be wiped off the map. Obama argues that there is still time, with sanctions and other measures, to force the Ayatollahs to stop the program — an opinion which is not shared by all analysts or by the Republican Party. Romney says that the administration is being too soft on Tehran. The U.S.-Israeli talks have intensified in the last few weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to argue that if time is wasted, not only will the Iranians get the bomb, but they will be able to deposit it in a site that is invulnerable to air attacks. Obama continues advocating prudence, aware of the negative effects — increasing oil prices, terrorist attacks — that military action against Iran would have.

It is possible that Iran will join the economy in deciding the U.S. presidential campaign.