Wise American Voters Trigger Bipartisan Management of the Economy
Published in Le Monde
(France) on 3 November 2010
by Georges Ugeux (link to original)
The American people brought to an end — more or less consciously — the concentration of legislative power in the hands of the Democratic Party and its president, Barack Obama. That is rather good news, even for the latter, in spite of the fact that it is a major electoral defeat.
During the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Republicans, who no longer benefit from a true internal leadership, chose to carry out systematic opposition to government initiatives.
They played an ultra-partisan game and gave birth to an important group within the party — the famous “tea party” — where positions range from extremism to the most irresponsible form of reactionary ideas. This movement was victorious in the House of Representatives, but [they] most likely failed to achieve a similar victory in the Senate. A one-party supremacy in Congress and at the executive level creates too many temptations to drift toward complete hegemony.
The way the U.S. democratic system is set up, the leaders of the various congressional groups of the House of Representatives will be Republican, and those of the Senate will be Democrats. This means that important decisions must be negotiated and that Republican House leaders who oppose proposals made by the Obama administration will be forced to come up with alternative proposals. In other words, they will have to take responsibility for their actions and actually stick their necks out. In order to do that, they will have to ensure there is some sort of coherence within their own party, and that is not an easy task.
On the other hand, the presence of an opposing force in the midst of various demands, which a purely Democratic administration could not always refuse, is good news from an economic standpoint. In a bipartisan manner, Congress will support a necessary strict budget policy. In addition, employment stimulus plans will have to be agreed upon by both parties and will no longer be mere slogans.
What is clearly an electoral defeat should allow the Democratic Party — which relied on the Obama majority — to get a grip on itself, and it should allow the country to function better. It is in 2012 that the matter of the presidency will be subject to electoral votes. Let’s beware of Pyrrhus-style victories. This defeat can consolidate the American president’s chances of a reelection for a second term.
Beyond these considerations, economic constraints — as well as federal and local budget deficits — will not leave the new Congress with much leeway. That is rather good news for the world economy.
During the first two years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Republicans, who no longer benefit from a true internal leadership, chose to carry out systematic opposition to government initiatives.
They played an ultra-partisan game and gave birth to an important group within the party — the famous “tea party” — where positions range from extremism to the most irresponsible form of reactionary ideas. This movement was victorious in the House of Representatives, but [they] most likely failed to achieve a similar victory in the Senate. A one-party supremacy in Congress and at the executive level creates too many temptations to drift toward complete hegemony.
The way the U.S. democratic system is set up, the leaders of the various congressional groups of the House of Representatives will be Republican, and those of the Senate will be Democrats. This means that important decisions must be negotiated and that Republican House leaders who oppose proposals made by the Obama administration will be forced to come up with alternative proposals. In other words, they will have to take responsibility for their actions and actually stick their necks out. In order to do that, they will have to ensure there is some sort of coherence within their own party, and that is not an easy task.
On the other hand, the presence of an opposing force in the midst of various demands, which a purely Democratic administration could not always refuse, is good news from an economic standpoint. In a bipartisan manner, Congress will support a necessary strict budget policy. In addition, employment stimulus plans will have to be agreed upon by both parties and will no longer be mere slogans.
What is clearly an electoral defeat should allow the Democratic Party — which relied on the Obama majority — to get a grip on itself, and it should allow the country to function better. It is in 2012 that the matter of the presidency will be subject to electoral votes. Let’s beware of Pyrrhus-style victories. This defeat can consolidate the American president’s chances of a reelection for a second term.
Beyond these considerations, economic constraints — as well as federal and local budget deficits — will not leave the new Congress with much leeway. That is rather good news for the world economy.
Bi-partisan? I hope not, we are looking forward to complete gridlock until 2010, at which point we will reverse all of the socialist insanity.
Best regards,
Gail S
http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
Oops..I meant 2012!