Sandy vs. the Vulture Capitalist

It’s entirely possible the outcome of the U.S. presidential election will be decided by Hurricane Sandy; that results of the most expensive political campaign in history, a campaign that was full of dramatic twists and turns right up to the end, may depend on a natural catastrophe.

The storm helped Barack Obama get the image he so desperately needed. It shows him as a strong leader, a man of action, a man who has control of the situation, makes the right decisions and can turn them into accomplishments. The rest of his term was anything but that. He also hasn’t succeeded in reconciling a nation deeply divided by eight years of George W. Bush’s leadership — on the contrary.

The opposing fronts seem to have hardened the most since the Civil War. The U.S. system of government appears to have become paralyzed, nearly frozen solid. The economic problems have not been solved. If anything, they have ensured that both sides have burrowed even more deeply into their respective trenches.

The closer to election day, the less apparent became the famous American “live and let live” tolerance. Anyone sitting down at the table with Americans of different political persuasions who brought up Mitt Romney or Barack Obama discovered how quickly every political discussion degenerated into an explosive slug fest.

Racial Prejudice

With a clarity unimaginable to most Germans, racial prejudices are used to attack opponents in American politics. The white upper class defends its tax privileges tooth and nail despite what effects they may have on the poor. It doesn’t matter whether the “American Dream” becomes a cynical caricature or not. Neither does it matter what ramifications it may have on national stability, the mortar needed to hold the whole thing together rather than breaking apart because of societal differences.

For many blacks and Latinos, the dream already seems to be fading; many think it has already disappeared. In addition, less affluent whites are disappointed at how little their president has done for them over the past four years. They have awakened to the brutal reality that they will never advance upward and escape from their poverty. From this hopelessness grows a dangerous mixture of rage and hate against a class that continues to get richer. The motto “Yes, we can” has become just a hollow phrase for many. Many Obama supporters have turned away from a politician who hasn’t come up with any solutions to their problems.

This dynamic doesn’t exist in Germany. Even without “Sandy,” Obama would be reelected here with breathtaking majorities. More than 90 percent of Germans would vote for him. That should be surprising because in matters relevant to Germany, both Obama and Romney wouldn’t pay much attention to Europe — as their third television debate devoted to foreign policy proved.

Obama also hasn’t succeeded in putting together bipartisan support for closing the Guantanamo prison camp, that shameful stain on Cuba. He hasn’t ended the wars he inherited from George W. Bush; he has instead even initiated a cyber war in support of Israel that targets Iran’s nuclear centers.

In clear violation of our understanding of human rights, the Obama administration is waging unmanned drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen — two nations against which the U.S. hasn’t bothered to declare war. According to data released by the U.S., about 350 terrorists have been killed in this manner. Unofficial war observers, however, say that more than 1,000 civilians have been collateral victims.

In spite of all that, more than 90 percent of Germans would vote for this bellicose president. Why? Certainly first and foremost because the Bush years are still clearly imprinted on the German collective memory. Nobody wants a rerun of the man who turned the entire world into a gigantic powder keg by any stretch of the imagination.

It’s less the pragmatic, technocratic Mitt Romney than it is his deputy, the young Paul Ryan, that frightens everyone with his pithy cold war rhetoric. People rightly fear an ideological right-winger seeking to cover up America’s weaknesses by starting more senseless wars.

But isn’t it still immaterial who is chosen president on Tuesday? No. Especially not when it involves our own national interests as well as the internal makeup of the United States.

Yes, both men represent foreign policies mainly oriented toward a very American view of the nation’s best interests. As far as domestic, tax and budgetary policies are concerned, however, the differences couldn’t be more stark. Here, they part ways to pursue two basically different social philosophies.

Should the Wealthy Pay More?

It’s all about the basic question of whether the rich should relinquish a larger portion of their wealth or whether more cuts should be made in programs that help the poorest part of the population, many of whom already live on the edge of poverty. It’s also about whether the state should continue neglecting its future for decades to come, or whether it should strengthen its infrastructure and its education programs to instead invest in the nation’s future.

If even Hurricane Sandy isn’t enough to keep President Obama in the White House, it will be because of the beliefs of those in the U.S. — as well as many in Europe — who think conservatives are best suited to lead the nation out of the economic crisis. It seems to be a trans-Atlantic phenomenon how amazingly quickly people have forgotten that the perpetrators of the global crisis were the hedge fund managers — in plain German, the vulture capitalists.

Men exactly like Mitt Romney.