Governing by the Negative:The Example of the US

The country always ready to criticize and opine about the world has, since the beginning of this month, been demonstrating a notable example of an incapacity to have a dialogue — of ideological radicalism, to put it more succinctly: how it is possible, in opposition, to govern by the negative. At the end of the 2012 electoral campaign, the Republicans let it be known that a presidential defeat — as it happened — would not represent the handing over of power to Obama and the Democrats. They did so pointing to the conquest of the majority of one of the chambers. One might forecast — but not want to believe — that the Republicans, having lost the presidency and without the majority they had hoped for in the Senate, would block the actions of the administration.

Such a situation however, would be so surrealistic that the majority of American and foreign analysts ended up, after much consideration, denying the possibility. The national interest would speak more loudly. Especially when the world is going through a serious crisis, whose origins were not unrelated to the United States. The world became an unsafe place, and the U.S. remains in undeclared conflicts in various parts of the world. However, the U.S. economy gave positive signals.

On the other hand, blocking the actions of an administration would not be part of the American political culture — one could almost say it was “anti-American.” In the past, divergences between the two parties or between the president and the opposition were resolved with a policy of “checks and balances” where everyone ended up gaining something. The opposition would cede to a determined point, and the president gave something in return. This time the question became falsely ideological. The United States has to reduce its budget deficit. Between the White House and the Republicans who control the House of Representatives, there is no agreement.

Obama wants an understanding for the long term and a policy that balances budget cuts with selective tax increases on the most privileged. The Republicans don’t want to hear anything said about tax increases. Pure and simple, the “Grand Old Party” refuses to sit at any table or to have any conversation where the word taxes might be spoken, unless, of course it is about a decrease.

Thus, the country entered into such an unthinkable, ridiculous and dangerous situation of having to suffer automatic spending cuts across the board in all sectors, from defense to Social Security. Hundreds of thousands of people could be without work. In California alone, 100,000 to 200,000 people could lose their jobs. But the consequences do not stop there. Private businesses with important contracts with the federal government that are designated by the Department of Defense would be obliged to have mass firings.

Those companies central to the U.S. economy and companies either up or downstream from them will also be dragged into the same crisis. Other countries will once again suffer from the errors of the United States.

A policy of undifferentiated spending cuts has never been tested. It is a strange solution and a lot easier than studying selective cuts. But it is interesting that the Republicans have left this to happen when the economy is giving positive signals and unemployment is declining, the opposite of what the defeated candidate, Mitt Romney, said during the presidential campaign.

The precedent that the Republicans are setting regresses the social understanding, is contrary to bipartisan understanding and undermines the cause of political compromise. It leaves us with the prospect that the U.S. will be governed by the negative and that the second term of Barack Obama will be a migraine headache.

The world has the right to expect a bit more from the Congress of the United States of America, always ready to gives others lessons in democracy and civility.