USA: A GREAT NATION ON ROAD TO DECLINE – THIRD RATE POLITICIANS AND ASCENDANCY OF MEDIOCRITY PRIMARY CAUSES (PART-II)

Mediocrity in general amongst America’s two main parities – Democrats and Republicans – is also turning out to be a major undoing of the stature United States had. The Republicans want to wrest the White House in 2016 and the Senate in Nov 2014. There are number of Republicans who can be seen in the news jostling for prominence and, therefore, trying to be front runners for 2016 elections.

However, two types of Republicans seem to be trying to court their mass base:

-      One by trying to be ultra-conservative (the ‘tea party’ brand)

-      Others just by way of opposing Democrats – the level of vehemence in their opposition differentiating one from the other (within this bunch)

If one looks at the prominent Republicans and their public pronouncements, sadly, one does not find anyone who is really outstanding. On foreign policy, they are being presented on a platter host of issues to criticize Obama, but no one seems to be coming out on those issues in real statesmanlike manner. Most of them do not seem to have thought through the lines of action they are proposing – their strategies, lines of action sound so over-simplified, brash, jingoistic, gung-ho type.

On domestic topics, again, the public stand of these Republican politicians seem amateurish, some of them even childish, and, in general, lacking deep thought and depth. The pronouncements are just anti of anything Obama is trying to do, for example, on the immigration reform (and dealing with the illegal immigrant children issue/crisis).

To be honest, Obama has created such situations at the moment that if there was any one top class Republican politician at the present time, that person would very likely hit the ball out of the political park, could become a towering figure under whose leadership the Republicans could hand the Democrats a decisive defeat in 2014 congressional elections and set the scene for a repeat performance in 2016.

Sadly for the US, all this is due to debilitating mediocrity in the top political layer that is currently seen to people at large.

Over to the Democrats’, the situation is no better. Hillary Clinton is approaching the 2016 presidential bid very cautiously. She has the advantage of advice and guidance of a very wily political figure, namely, her husband, Bill. Hillary is maintaining a carefully calibrated distance from the 2014 congressional elections – only her husband is pitching in 2014 campaign, wherever he thinks expedient.

Other than Hillary, the rest of the Democrats’ field is also full of mediocre political practitioners – same old names, nothing noteworthy or outstanding about them.

With so much mediocrity pervading American politics, it is not surprising that the leadership, the dynamism, the vision, the statesmanship – the necessary ingredients for a nation’s all round development – are all missing and United States is finding itself floundering miserably on various fronts. Others are exploiting it – whether it is Putin in Ukraine, or, the radical Islamic insurgents in Middle East, or, the Chinese in the South China Sea, or, the illegals surging to enter US and so on. 

The industrial base also does not seem fired up. The corporates seem concentrating far more on how to avoid taxation. The technological edge that US at one time possessed so uniquely is all but gone – there does not seem any burning desire within the spectrum of industrial polity to come up with cutting edge discoveries. If at all there is anything discernible, it is all in the notional world of software related products, services.

If today, UK appears to be taking lead on ISIS (though Cameron’s timing is suspiciously close to Scotland’s independence referendum), Germany is taking the lead in arming the Kurds in Iraq, the Canadians are willing to provide troops for a stronger NATO deterrent force, it is all because there is vacuum at the international stage caused by apoplectic dithering on the part of the United States – and the genesis of all of this is mediocrity (and incompetence).

On the domestic front, the virtual paralysis at the Capitol Hill, the canine-like fighting between the two parties on almost all issues and inability to come to consensus is costing US directly and indirectly both. These continual recriminations can be said to be a major reason for creation/prevalence of an atmosphere which is not at all conducive for harmony, hope, optimism, development and prosperity.

It is sad to see that a super-power which could bring about higher levels of prosperity, strength, technological and military superiority domestically and at the same time ‘lead’ the world toward a safer and better place to be in, is potentially slipping in to a vortex of decline – sadly, due to overwhelming mediocrity pervading amongst the current political practitioners straddling the political scene of the United States.

BALOONING DEFICIT, INABILITY TO FLEX MILITARY MUSCLE, FALLING RATINGS PUT OBAMA IN TIGHT SPOT – MAY SURPRISE PEOPLE WITH A DIFFERENT PERSONA

Let’s start with President Obama’s list of predicaments regarding international issues that is enabling his political detractors to portray him as a wimp:

De-nuclearization of Iran: United States is trying its best to avoid any option of use of force. Reason: With 17 trillion dollar deficit, US is virtually broke. It simply does not have money to spend on any military excursion – even the minor ones will add to the back breaking penury of US. Moreover, there is tremendous aversion in the American public toward another direct involvement. Furthermore, in case of Iran, any military option, which should be perhaps be a recourse of last resort, to be effective would need to be at a scale which would be prohibitively expensive for America and too heavy for war-weary American people’s will.

As a result, US is trying to tough talk its way to some face saving outcome with Iran. But, unfortunately, Iran apparently knows the monetary constraints of US to engage in any military action and would take advantage of the same anticipating correctly the trajectory of American diplomatic maneuverings of Kerry and the like.

However, a lot of American politicians from both sides of the isle are apprehensive of and uncomfortable with the approach US is adopting and do not seem to be very optimistic about a meaningful outcome. The Democrat front-runner of 2016 presidential election Hillary Clinton has said (as reported by NBC News website) “The odds of reaching that comprehensive agreement are not good,” Clinton said, per the Washington Post. “I am also personally skeptical that the Iranians would follow through and deliver. I have seen their behavior over the years…”.

Syrian crisis: US policy on Syria has been predicated on being hesitant to get directly involved, again, due to virtual financial bankruptcy of the US economy and war weariness of the American people. President Obama said Syria had “red line” when Assad regime used chemical weapons against the rebels. The world thought US would take some punitive actions through air strikes but at the last moment Obama went to the Congress to seek authorization for such an action which was turned down (by the Congress) as expected. There was huge disappointment with the ‘hawkish’ elements, like, Republican Senator John McCain and others. Obama looked timid, dithering and mousy.

The Assad regime seems to be reclaiming territories lost to the rebels. However, it is said that Obama administration’s reluctance toward any deeper involvement stems from presence of Muslim extremist elements fighting against Assad’s forces. It seems Obama administrations would prefer less extremist minded Assad prevail rather than Al-Qaida or Taliban type forces to win – this may not be a bad idea but unfortunately, for Obama, his detractors do not want to see that way.

Ukraine crisis: Russians have annexed Crimea and are now seem to be consolidating their position in the newly acquired region. The US and the European allies have imposed sanctions and articulated lot of tough sounding verbiage. However, all this does not seem to have caused any perceptible impact on Putin and his coterie. Obama detractors in the US are, again, criticizing him imputing Putin’s actions to his alleged ‘weak’ stance at the international stage.

It must be said that there was simply nothing that US or the Europeans could do in Crimea because of proximity between Russia and Crimea, and logistical challenges for the western powers to undertake any preventive action militarily. The only thing that may, however, be pointed out is that West was probably too lost in the euphoria and celebration of having caused the pro-Russian President of Ukraine and his cronies to flee, and failed to anticipate Russian reaction to it. The West remained oblivious of Russia’s sensitivities to developments in Ukraine which Russia considers as their backyard and also the century old historical linkages between the two.

US troops presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014: President Obama has yet to make a decision on the size of a post-2014 US force in Afghanistan after a 13-year war that has become highly unpopular among the American public. Outgoing President Karzai surprised the international community and many Afghans in December 2013 when he ignored the recommendation of an assembly of tribal leaders and other dignitaries to sign it, saying he would leave the final decision to his successor after 5 April elections.

A bipartisan delegation of US Senators to Afghanistan called on President Barack Obama this week to announce a decision on his plans for future troop levels in the country, on the assumption a much-delayed security pact eventually will eventually be signed with Kabul. One of the delegation members, Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, a Republican, said Obama should not wait for that to give an idea of what the US presence would look like after the Nato-led combat mission ends at the end of this year. This issue is confounding Obama and his reticence on the subject is providing ammunition to his opponents to criticize him for his indecisiveness.

Then there are some other issues that is causing headache to Obama:

Strains in relations with Israel: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is not very happy with the American policy trajectory on Iran and pressure on Israel to make some hard choices before 29^th April toward resolution of Israel-Palestine imbroglio.

Since the global powers reached an interim agreement with Iran last November, Netanyahu’s warnings about Iran have been largely ignored. A frustrated Israeli leadership now appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on the international community to take a tough position in its negotiations with Iran. A front-page headline in the daily Haaretz this week reported that Netanyahu has ordered “to prep for strike on Iran in 2014” and has allocated US$2.87 billion for the groundwork. Earlier this week, Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon hinted that Israel would have to pursue a military strike on its own, with the U.S. having chosen the path of negotiations.

Whether Israel would translate its rhetoric in action remains to be seen and seems improbable, nevertheless the above mentioned developments were meant to jolt the global powers as a wake-up call.

Drop in approval ratings: Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in March shows President Obama's job approval moved down to 41% in March from 43% in January, marking a new low. Some 54% disapproved of the job he is doing, matching a previous high from December, when the botched roll-out of his signature health law played prominently in the news. The latest survey also showed the lowest-ever approval in Journal/NBC polling for Mr. Obama's handling of foreign policy.

Democrats’ worry about losing Senate in November elections: As per NBC News, prominent figures still associated with President Obama and his White House team are sounding the alarm bell that the Democratic Party could lose the Senate -- if not more -- in November. Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the Democrats’ control of the Senate was “definitely” in danger.

NBC News also reports that due to falling approval rating of Obama some vulnerable Democrats are already shunning Obama’s assistance. The president reportedly acknowledged his lackluster approval ratings during his meeting with Senate Democrats at a retreat recently.

The Democrat candidates Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina are especially keen on distancing themselves from Obama because of his overt opposition to Keystone XL pipeline project. The above mentioned four senators joined the Canadian Ambassador to US, labor union leaders and others in February this year to express support for this project. Obama has stated that he would give his decision by end of April. If he rejects this project, these four senators’ political future and Democrats’ hopes of retaining majority in Senate would be almost surely be compromised.

‘Weight’ of Nobel Peace Prize: President Obama seems to be continually weighed down by Nobel Peace Prize conferred on him – he seems to be struggling with himself on every issue that involves potential of military option; he seems to feel hand cuffed and suffer from dissonance within himself due to this prize (and unsaid expectation that came with it). As well, Obama seems to be very worried about the legacy he would leave behind and how history would judge him on various issues – be it US interventionism, or stand on environment, or bipartisanship at Capitol Hill and so on.

So, what might Obama do now? It is quite clear that President Obama needs to do something different to shake off the following perception:

·       Professorial, less of a man in command at helm

·       Speaks too much (from scripted speeches)

·       More words, less of actual action (esp. regarding international matters)

·       Afraid of re-calibrating his stance on issues (which explains his being fearful of environmental lobby)

·       Paralysis by over analysis

·       Unreliable, shifty, dithering, indecisive

·       Worried about legacy and Nobel Peace Prize expectation

In order to deal with the above mentioned perception issues and not get relegated to being a lame duck president for two years, Obama needs to change tack, take decisive stands (e.g., he should okay Keystone XL instead of being cowed down by some of his so-called donors). Hopefully, the Democrats would see an invigorated, crisp, concise, bold person who is not worried about how history will judge him. After all, two years is too long a period to remain in a semi-retired ineffectual state waiting for the term to be over. One is remembered in history not because one shied away from unpopular stands but because one overcame one’s shyness to take a right stand.

KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE AND 2014 CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS: OPPORTUNITY FOR OBAMA TO RETRIEVE HIS OWN RELEVANCE FOR DEMOCRATS

Pro-Democrat TV channel MSNBC stated on its website on 10 February 2014 the following:

........Perhaps the top reason why Republicans have a realistic shot at winning back the Senate is the GOP-leaning playing field. They’re taking on Democrats Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and Kay Hagan in North Carolina -- all states President Obama lost in 2012. Not surprisingly, Politico reports that these incumbents don’t want the president to campaign for them this year…..

Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, and Kay Hagan do not want Barack Obama (BO) to campaign for them not because BO lost these states in 2012, but because of BO’s opposition to Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline project. These four senators joined the Canadian Ambassador to US, labor union leaders and others last week to express support for this project. These four senators are completely frustrated with BO’s dithering, foot dragging on this issue and spineless countenance towards the so-called environmentalists opposed to this project.

Heidi Heitkamp (Democrat-ND) is reported to have said: “We have been waiting 5 years. We fought a world war and defeated the Nazis in less time than we have been waiting to have a determination on the Keystone Pipeline..” Such is the frustration of the Democrats. And, rightly so! They know that BO’s genuflection in front of a motley group of fanatical anti-KXL people can very well ruin their chances in 2014 congressional elections.

The most important point that makes any dithering on KXL utterly foolish and un-called for is the US State Department’s report on environmental impact assessment – published in January 2014 – which puts at rest all doubts if this pipeline would “significantly exacerbate climate change”. To start with, it required a huge amount of stupidity to conceive that a pipeline carrying only 830,000 bbl/day of bitumen could “significantly exacerbate climate change”. Moreover, it is widely accepted that Canada has well defined set of regulations in regard to environment protection which makes climate change related doubts appear more foolish or driven by some agenda.

Further, the above cited State Department report also mentioned about the fairly big number of direct and indirect job that would be created by KXL project and the economic benefits that would accrue to US. Not only this, the scare mongering created by anti-KXL group about pipeline leakage has also been addressed by the Report. All in all, there does not seem to be any logical reason to not approve this project.

Now, there is a 90 day period (from the date of publication of report which works out to 1^st week of May 2014) to carry out ‘benefits assessment’ of this project, and then State Department would convey its recommendation to the President after which BO is supposed to give his decision – he may approve, or he may punt it further down the road on some pretext. But whatever decision he makes, it would be before the 2014 congressional elections in which Republicans are hoping to wrest majority in Senate by defeating the four Democrat senators mentioned at the top and gaining couple of other senate seats.

If BO dithers again on KXL and does not approve the project, it would mean a solid nail in the coffin of chances of winning of the said four senators. If Democrats lose Senate (and they already do not have control of House of Representatives), it would mean BO will be virtually relegated to the sidelines in the form of a ‘lame duck’ president for the rest of his presidency. The Republicans would make sure that he does not make headway on any policy issue that he proposes; in short, his political life would become miserable.

Would Obama like to be an outcast within his own party for the rest of his presidential term? Would he like to be portrayed as a pusillanimous person who could not stand up to the agenda-driven so-called environmentalists and scheming, manipulative persons, like, Tom Steyer? BO seems to possess tenacity and stubbornness but stubbornness for a just cause is understandable – stubbornness for something illogical and foolish endangers that very person and his surroundings. Hope BO would let rationality triumph over foolish stubbornness!!