Romney or Obama? Strangely Enough, There Is a Difference

The second presidential debates have taken place between the U.S. Republican Party’s candidate and the Democratic Party’s candidate for a second presidential term. The questions raised were not very interesting, possibly because they were asked by viewers. As a consequence, they concerned rather narrow and biased propaganda themes, which are relatively unknown to those outside the U.S. However, the result of this debate was somewhat different from the previous one.

This time, judging by the audience’s remarks, Obama won by a little. He did not come close to Romney’s previous victory, but nevertheless, according to CNN, 46 percent of television viewers preferred Obama and 39 percent preferred Romney. According to the results of CBS’s instant poll, 37 percent of viewers watching the debate preferred Obama and 30 percent preferred Romney. The rest of the respondents to this poll thought that the duel ended in a draw. We must remember that according to CNN, which usually sympathizes with the Democrats, the last round ended in a victory for Romney of 67 – 25.

So, we can say that Obama failed to take a convincing revenge, and the citizens’ opinions sympathizing for one candidate or the other with regards to voting in the election is still practically balanced, with Obama just a little in front (but still within the boundaries of statistical error). In this way, the debates’ results depend on the outcome of the third round, which will be dedicated to foreign policy. Given the current state of economic affairs in the U.S., however, it is unlikely that this will have a serious impact on the voters’ decision.

We must take into account that U.S. elections are not straightforward, as it is entirely pointless to attract voters to your side in states where the majority firmly support your rival. Representatives who will also be voted for on November 6, are different too: in particular, some may even change their vote in the final election. Naturally, if one of the candidates achieves a convincing victory, this is unlikely to happen, but if the situation turns out to be more like 50/50 and neither will achieve an absolute majority, then anything could happen.

For now, we must note that the results of the elections are becoming increasingly important to the development of the economic crisis. The flight of the Citigroup leadership from their positions in the third (until recently, the first) U.S. banking group, is in this sense very revealing. At the beginning of every crisis, the psychology of all businessmen is somewhat similar: We must hide all problems as much as we can and wait until the situation improves, in order to patch up the “holes” using our later profits. That would all be well and good, but sometimes the crisis is prolonged. The holes remain un-patched. It becomes more and more difficult to explain their presence to the bosses, and to the judiciary.

U.S. monetary authorities are planning to conduct regular stress tests on the banks, and it is possible that some problems will come to light even at this stage. However, it is likely that they will not catch anywhere near all the problems, as “one hand washes the other,” and until recently, the financial elite were fairly united. The bureaucrats are reluctant to reveal their own gaffes. In any case, it is likely that the financial sector will continue to do not very well at all, to put it mildly.

Here, let us remember the case in spring 2008 when Eliot Spitzer, governor of the state of New York, drew attention to the difficult situation of insurance companies — for which he paid with his own position. To give another example, not quite so typical, let us take Dominique Strauss-Khan, who suffered more for his political than for his professional mistakes, but the very procedure of his punishment should have left a lasting impression on the bureaucrats. In this situation, they will be very careful with regard to the disclosure of any information that may affect the layout of power amongst the financial and political elite.

To keep Obama in his post as president would practically guarantee the bureaucrats that nothing will change before almost all resources are exhausted, and in this sense, they are in favor of keeping the status quo. However, Romney is likely to try to change something, although it is not clear what, nor to what extent. The bureaucrats will try to actively resist this, as even the weakest reforms could cause a collapse. In any case, the leaders of the largest financial firms have actively begun to leave their posts — we must assume that this is not accidental. Citibank is not the first, and I think, will not be the last example.

The key, therefore, will be the attitude of the population, which may not understand (for this it has neither information nor a common culture), but should, more likely, feel that we simply cannot continue in this fashion, and that the continuation of Obama’s policies will sooner or later lead to a situation from which there is no escape — as all resources will be wasted to maintain a model that will not exist, all the same. In this case, it is not the scenario of the “great” depression that will be realized, but something even worse.

If the people feel this, then Romney’s rating should rise sharply directly before the elections, or in the results of the elections themselves, regardless of what the polls might say. Then, incidentally, Obama’s hands will be untied and he will have two months in which to do as much as he can without taking responsibility, which the people will already psychologically blame on Romney.

Of course, this is all speculation. In the meantime we can only note that U.S. society has not yet felt the full importance of the decision lying before it as regards their medium-term future; and it believes that very little depends on the identity of its new president.