United States at the Crossroads

The major decisions recently instituted by President Obama represent turning points in the alarming political decline of his country. The medical coverage plan, the clean energy program [the Clean Power Plan], and the agreement with Iran are three policies representative of deeply rooted challenges to the economic and political establishment. The handful of companies and political alliances that have dominated the American scene and kept draconian tax limits for that country’s society respond furiously to the strategies and decisions of the first African-American president of the United States.

Ever since the Republicans adopted a neoliberal creed during Ronald Reagan’s presidency and frontally attacked the welfare state, social inequality and political polarization have been growing hand in hand. The Democratic administrations (Bill Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack Obama 2008-2016) have served, among other things, to resist that ultraconservative ascent which, nevertheless, to this day becomes even more bitter and polarized. The activism of the tea party and other ultraconservative groups, financed by more predatory American economic interests (such as the Koch brothers), has added fuel to the fire: a fire that only 10 years ago appeared to have smaller dimensions, thanks to the departure of Clinton and the succession of Bush, Jr., whose economic policies were concealed by his warlike affairs in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration inherited the disaster created by Bush of the economy (the 2008 crisis) and worldwide security — in particular what prompted the breakdown in the Middle East. Nevertheless, besides addressing the construction of policy that privileges the diplomacy of war, he [Obama] attacked several fundamental subjects on the domestic front, which, if consolidated, could correct the lost course of the ultraconservatives and isolationists. Aside from the economic recovery, which is significant considering the gravity of the 2008 crisis, they are the previously alluded to programs. “Obamacare” consists of the regionalization of health services that balances universal coverage with health care institutions and insurance agencies. The arrangement reduces the cost of users’ insurance, avoids monopolistic practices and grants access to 16 percent of the population that was previously excluded from it. With the clean energy program, the president recognizes that climate change is caused by human action and establishes the goal of a 32 percent reduction of CO2 emissions by the year 2030. His plan to reduce greenhouse emissions also has a regional approach, and it gives each state and city the option to adapt suitably. The agreement with Iran imposes measures of international supervision that will make sure it [Iran] does not produce atomic weapons.

Powerful insurance companies and fossil fuel lobbyists, which includes those from the Republican right and the extreme right of the tea party, have risen up against both programs and the treaty.* With the treaty* it goes something like this: The Republicans, the Israeli government and some lobbyists in the United States want to reverse it by using an aggressive policy that, according to Obama, would bring about a new war. Key to understanding the three measures is that they dismantle great oligarchical interests that are deeply entrenched within the nation.

These subjects have become, next to immigration policy, the focal point of Republican attacks. The foundations outlined with these measures are the beginning of a breaking point for ultraconservative economic and social policies. For that reason, the next elections will be a plebiscite on the course to be taken by American society, and yet, we still know little about what has become of this society’s old level-headedness in the face of tyranny. The consequences will be felt in that hemisphere and the wider world — hence their importance.

*Editor’s note: As per translation of the original Spanish, the term “treaty” is used, although the distinction between this and the alternative term “executive agreement” is currently being debated within the U.S.