The US presidential election…The American electorate

By R M Austin

Last week Reince Priebus, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) called the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, a “dirty liar” for  saying Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for years; the same individual said President Obama has “blood on his hands” for cutting Medicare; and  David Axelrod, the mild mannered adviser to President Obama, was apoplectic with fury when he was asked on ‘Meet the Press‘ last week whether Romney’s allegation that an Obama ad, which gave the impression that he was responsible for a woman’s death, was beyond the pale. There are charges, counter-charges and denials without end in the print and electronic media. Add to this the relentless and ubiquitous campaigning. The elections consume everything. This is just a small snapshot from the recent developments in the race for the White House.

The sharpness in the differences between the two parties were only intensified by the selection of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republicans. Ryan is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative who is known for his extreme views on fiscal and social matters. As such he may become a liability for Mitt Romney, especially with the female element of the electorate. Ryan has become the lightning rod for attacks by the Democrats, primarily because in his budget plan to fix America’s fiscal woes he proposed, among other things, the ending of Social Security and Medicare as American seniors have known them for the last 70 years. He stands in marked contrast to Joe Biden, the current Vice-President, who is more of a liberal and  a brilliant campaigner. The clash between these two different men will add more heat to the campaign, if such a thing is possible at the moment.

But I wonder sometimes if the unsettled nature of American political society is not a reflection of deep-seated fear of the future. This is the last election that America will enter as a white Christian nation. What is called “communities of colour” is the fastest growing demographic and will have an impact on the elections. In the words of political scientist, Ruy Teixeira, in a paper entitled ‘Demographic Change and the Future of Political Parties‘ “A powerful concatenation of demographic forces is transforming the American electorate and reshaping both major political parties.”

Reince Priebus

In all the “swing states” minorities might determine the outcome of these close elections. Also, a “fiscal cliff” looms. Unless an agreement is reached by the legislators a number of tax increases and spending cuts will go into force at the end of 2012 and early 2013. These measures will slash the federal deficit by 60%. The effect on the existing fragile economy can only be imagined. It matters therefore which administration administers this better medicine, if no agreement is reached. The Democrats would spread the resultant burdens throughout the society. The Republicans are not averse to confining such burdens to the middle class and the less fortunate.

I have seen with my own eyes how several Guyanese who have lived here most of their lives and who depend on Social Security cheques and the benefits of Medicare are simply terrified of a Republican victory. They do not trust the plans or intentions of the Republicans to effect cuts to these programmes. However, there is need for truth telling. Paul Ryan might be the devil to the Democrats, but he has got one thing right: America has to tackle its fiscal problem now or face a grim future, in which its accustomed standard of living will be seriously affected and its place in the world as an economic power questioned.

It is clear that the Republicans are concerned by the impact of minority votes in a number of the swing states, as well as those of the young people. These demographics have traditionally voted for the Democratic Party; in fact, they were critical to President Obama’s success in 2008. Republican administrations in several of the swing states have engaged in activities which do no credit to their democratic credentials. In every case they have passed laws which are intended to deny supporters of the Democratic Party their votes. When confronted with charges that it intends to suppress the vote the Republicans offer the explanation that is needed to prevent fraud, even though there has been precious little of this over the decades.

David Axelrod

Recently, however, the Chairman of the Republican Party in Florida – a key swing state – Jim Greer, has revealed on Al Sharpton‘s TV programme Politics Nation that the suppression of the Black votes, in particular, is a deliberate policy. It is appropriate that Mr Greer’s description of Republican strategy as outlined in a December 2009 meeting be quoted: “There is no doubt that what the Republican-led legislature in Florida and Governor Scott are trying to do is make sure the Republican Party has an advantage in this upcoming election by reducing early voting and putting roadblocks up for potential voters, Latins, African-Americans to register and then exercise their right to vote. There’s no doubt. I was in the room. It is part of the strategy.” For good measure Mr Greer added that the Republicans recognised that it was futile to seek the votes of Latins and Africans. The question of voter fraud was never raised.

I must confess that even as I write I am puzzled by the evolution of events as it relates to this presidential election. By any measure, Romney is not the best candidate the Republicans have ever fielded. Yet the polling (this must be the most polled election ever) suggests that the elections will be very close. Indeed, the pundits have affirmed that the winner will be the one who gets out the base in record numbers on November 6. The two things seem contradictory: a poor candidate and a close election. Is it that the hatred for Obama is greater than the dislike of Romney? The Republican Speaker John Boehmer has said as much. It is certainly not the most enlightened way to choose the leader of one of the most powerful nations.

Harry Reid