After his defeat, it is worth noting the self-criticism of the U.S. president, which should be imitated in Argentina.
On rare occasions, the loser comes to terms with the blunder, admits his mistakes and as if it is nothing, congratulates the winners. This is what has occurred in the midterm elections in the United States. The defeated is the president of the United States. Hours after the fiasco of his Democratic Party, for having ceded complete control of the House of Representatives and having managed an adjusted majority in the Senate, Barack Obama was not ashamed in assuming the responsibility: "You know, there is an inherent danger in being in the White House and being in the bubble," he said.
It isn't a mere formality that whoever is the most powerful man on Earth — beyond the democracy of America, where the system of checks and balances keeps the power well-distributed — admits that sometimes "the responsibilities of this office [...] and in the rush of activity" has made him [and past presidents in similar situations] "lose track of the ways that we connected with folks that got us here in the first place."
Neither is it a mere formality that, as a politician, he hasn't lost his manners to ruthless critics, generated from the ultraconservative tea party movement, among whom there is no lack of either distrust of his place of birth or of their religion.
Against the attacks, Obama acknowledged that he shouldn't call his Republican opponents "enemies" — rather, "adversaries.” It was late. A critical mass — overwhelmed by economic problems, among which includes first-quarter unemployment — was ready to vote against Democrats [and lean] more in favor of Republicans, as a form of expressing their disappointment with the White House reforms of bold initiatives, like health and financial reforms.
Like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, among others, the current president paid the price of having invested without thinking of the overwhelming political capital in the first two years of his administration. He has now — as the others did, as well — the possibility to rectify that and, above all, to be more attentive to the concerns of his people.
In one gesture of nobility that does credit to democracy, the defeated neither distorted the history nor looked for subterfuges to hide it. It is called a "shellacking," and there is no mistake.
In Argentina, the president and her Peronism sector have undergone a similar adverse outcome in the legislative elections of June 28, 2009. A day later, the president appeared in public to carry out a rigged vote and avoided any self-criticism about the decline experienced by the ruling party. She seeks to change the INDEC so that the Argentinians may look at her in another way.
This isn't the case and, after more than a year of this fiasco, there is no reason to be surprised by these types of attitudes. The problem is that it is incorporated into the social fabric by mistake, and finally, we think that a gesture like Obama’s is impossible in countries other than the United States. This is not true. Michelle Bachelet, the most popular president in the history of Chile, did not have any problem with congratulating and supporting the winner of the last presidential elections, Sebastián Piñera. Neither did the defeated candidate, Eduardo Frei. And as it is often said, we keep moving forward like nothing ever happened.
Americans are not the only ones unhappy with the progress of their country. The difference is that people can express it by voting, without disturbing their democratic culture or harming institutions, and the victim — in this case, [no one] less than the president — does not see himself obligated to find scapegoats or cheap excuses to paint the cloudy horizon with a radiant sun.
It is impressive, in any case, the speed with which a political leader who had emerged as the embodiment of change after those eight tragic years of George W. Bush has been battered in the law. The good — if such a thing is possible — is that he has made a note of his errors, and with a modesty that illuminates with its own light, he has proposed to reinvent himself like Reagan and Clinton, two of the most successful and loved presidents of the United States. What would be foolish, after a defeat, is to make the same mistake twice.
La reinvención de Obama
Tras su derrota, merece destacarse la autocrítica del presidente de los EE.UU., que debería ser imitada en la Argentina
En raras ocasiones el perdedor asume el traspié, se golpea el pecho con un mea culpa y, por si fuera poco, felicita a los ganadores. Es lo que ha ocurrido en las elecciones de medio término de los Estados Unidos. El gran derrotado ha sido el presidente de los Estados Unidos. Horas después del fiasco de su partido, el Demócrata, por haber cedido el control absoluto de la Cámara de Representantes y haber logrado una ajustada mayoría en el Senado, Barack Obama no tuvo empacho en asumir su responsabilidad: "Esta paliza me deja claro lo importante que es para un presidente salir de la burbuja de la Casa Blanca", concluyó.
No es un mero formalismo que quien se supone el hombre más poderoso de la Tierra, más allá de que en una democracia como la norteamericana el sistema de pesos y contrapesos mantenga bien repartido el poder, admita que, a veces, "la precipitación del trabajo en Washington" le ha hecho "perder el camino, la conexión con la gente que me puso aquí". Tampoco es un mero formalismo que, como político, no haya perdido los modales frente a críticas despiadadas, formuladas desde el movimiento ultraconservador Tea Party, entre las cuales no faltó ni la desconfianza sobre su lugar de nacimiento ni sobre su religión.
Frente a los embates, reconoció Obama que no debió llamar "enemigos" sino "adversarios" a sus rivales de la oposición republicana. Era tarde. Una masa crítica abrumada por los problemas económicos, entre los cuales figura en primer término el desempleo, estaba dispuesta a votar en contra de los demócratas, más que a favor de los republicanos, como una forma de expresarle a la Casa Blanca su desagrado con algunas de sus iniciativas más osadas, como las reformas sanitaria y financiera.
Como Bill Clinton y Ronald Reagan, entre otros, el actual presidente pagó el costo de haber invertido a tontas y locas su abrumador capital político en los dos primeros años de gestión. Tiene ahora, como ellos también, la posibilidad de rectificarse y, sobre todo, de estar más atento a las preocupaciones de su pueblo.
En un gesto de grandeza que ennoblece a la democracia, el derrotado no tergiversa la historia ni busca subterfugios para disimularla. La llamó "paliza" y no se equivocó.
En la Argentina, la Presidenta y su sector dentro del peronismo han pasado por un resultado adverso parecido en las elecciones legislativas del 28 de junio de 2009. Un día después, la primera mandataria se presentó en público para realizar una amañada interpretación del voto y evitó cualquier autocrítica frente a la caída experimentada por el partido gobernante. De no haber intentado reinventar la realidad, como por otra parte se busca hacer con el Indec, otra sería la forma en que los argentinos nos miraríamos a los ojos.
No es el caso y, después de más de un año de aquel fiasco, no hay por qué asombrarse de ese tipo de actitudes. El problema es que se incorporen al tejido social como corrientes y, finalmente, pensemos que un gesto como el de Obama es imposible en otro país que no sean los Estados Unidos. No es cierto. Michelle Bachelet, la presidenta más popular de la historia de Chile, no tuvo prurito alguno en felicitar y apuntalar al vencedor de los últimos comicios presidenciales, Sebastián Piñera. Lo mismo hizo el candidato derrotado, Eduardo Frei. Y, como suele decirse, ni allá ni acá ha pasado nada.
No sólo los norteamericanos están disgustados con la marcha de su país. La diferencia radica en que la gente puede expresarlo por medio del voto, sin desvirtuar su cultura democrática ni dañar las instituciones, y el damnificado, en este caso nada menos que el presidente, no se ve obligado a buscar chivos expiatorios ni excusas baratas para pintar el horizonte nublado con un sol radiante.
Es impresionante, de todos modos, la rapidez con la cual un líder político que se perfilaba como la encarnación del cambio después de los ocho aciagos años de George W. Bush ha sido vapuleado en su ley. Lo bueno, si cabe, es que tomó nota de sus errores y, con una modestia que lo ilumina con luz propia, se propone ser distinto, reinventarse a sí mismo, como Reagan y Clinton, dos de los presidentes más exitosos y queridos de la historia de los Estados Unidos. De necios es, después de una derrota, persistir en el error.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The U.S. must decide what type of foreign policy it wants to pursue: one based on the humanism of Abraham Lincoln or one based on the arrogance of those who want it to be the world’s policeman.
U.S. companies, importers and retailers will bear the initial costs which most economists expect to filter through the supply chain as a cost-push inflation.
If the Green Party or No Labels candidates steal enough votes from Biden, they will go down in history as the idiot narcissists who helped Trump return to power and possibly finish off U.S. democracy.