It’s the Polarization, Stupid!
Published in El Universal
(Mexico) on 11 August 2011
by Carlos Loret de Mola (link to original)
(Mexico) on 11 August 2011
by Carlos Loret de Mola (link to original)
Translated from
by Elena Atkinson.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
The American presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore in 2000 was so close that the specter of fraud that had only once before reared its head in the greatest democracy in the world — in the race between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960 — emerged once again. In addition, the election demonstrated that the United States was divided practically in half. Nobody was worried, because nobody thought the great power would begin to show economic weakness.
Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 created the illusion that this division had been overcome. Although the triumph was decisive in the district count (almost three to one) in the so-called popular vote — that is, each citizen’s individual vote — the election was divided almost equally, as it had been four and eight years earlier: 52 percent for Obama’s Democrats and 48 percent for the Republicans on John McCain’s side.
This polarization has been going on in the United States for more than a decade. The result of not overcoming it, or at least of not being able to administer it correctly by way of negotiations, has transformed what was principally political into something economical.
Emerging from the great crisis of 2008, caused by lax regulation of the financial-speculation giants, a consensus emerged: The United States has been dragging around a structural problem with its bad handling of its debt that must be solved sooner or later. Until a few weeks ago, this version did not take into account the threat of a new crisis. It was thought that political negotiations, in the middle of the polarization, would be able to overcome the problem. But no. The extremes won out: The political deadlock in Congress went so far that a congressional tug-of-war became an international financial emergency.
Today the debate is if it was the radicalism of the tea party (the most conservative wing of the Republican Party), the rest of the Republicans’ fears, the indifference of the Democrats or Obama’s lack of leadership that caused this American crisis. Experts distinguish this crisis from the European one in the following manner: In the Old Continent the problem of financial origins had already begun its course, whereas here the crisis is simply one of perceptions. But both crises together threaten to revive the international economic chaos of three years ago.
The answer is a combination of the four factors mentioned above and the important truth that they reveal: Political failure can result in economic failure.
There are lessons for Mexico. Re-editing the movie of good guys versus bad guys in a fight to the death in 2012* would assure the vicious cycle: political polarization — economic weakness — more inequality — more deadlock.
*Translator’s Note: In 2012 Mexico will hold presidential elections.
Barack Obama’s historic victory in 2008 created the illusion that this division had been overcome. Although the triumph was decisive in the district count (almost three to one) in the so-called popular vote — that is, each citizen’s individual vote — the election was divided almost equally, as it had been four and eight years earlier: 52 percent for Obama’s Democrats and 48 percent for the Republicans on John McCain’s side.
This polarization has been going on in the United States for more than a decade. The result of not overcoming it, or at least of not being able to administer it correctly by way of negotiations, has transformed what was principally political into something economical.
Emerging from the great crisis of 2008, caused by lax regulation of the financial-speculation giants, a consensus emerged: The United States has been dragging around a structural problem with its bad handling of its debt that must be solved sooner or later. Until a few weeks ago, this version did not take into account the threat of a new crisis. It was thought that political negotiations, in the middle of the polarization, would be able to overcome the problem. But no. The extremes won out: The political deadlock in Congress went so far that a congressional tug-of-war became an international financial emergency.
Today the debate is if it was the radicalism of the tea party (the most conservative wing of the Republican Party), the rest of the Republicans’ fears, the indifference of the Democrats or Obama’s lack of leadership that caused this American crisis. Experts distinguish this crisis from the European one in the following manner: In the Old Continent the problem of financial origins had already begun its course, whereas here the crisis is simply one of perceptions. But both crises together threaten to revive the international economic chaos of three years ago.
The answer is a combination of the four factors mentioned above and the important truth that they reveal: Political failure can result in economic failure.
There are lessons for Mexico. Re-editing the movie of good guys versus bad guys in a fight to the death in 2012* would assure the vicious cycle: political polarization — economic weakness — more inequality — more deadlock.
*Translator’s Note: In 2012 Mexico will hold presidential elections.