Published on YaleGlobal Online Magazine (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu)
Home > Not Ready to Compromise

Not Ready to Compromise

During fierce and closely contested presidential campaigns, candidates hesitate on alienating special interests, particularly those associated with their political base. With every exchange documented on YouTube and online, leaders cannot easily make different promises to every constituency, and they can ignore big issues only until a related crisis hits. A case in point is climate change and Hurricane Sandy’s massive strike on metropolitan New York City, explains Nayan Chanda, editor of YaleGlobal, in his column for Businessworld. Another challenge is climbing debt and a 31 December deadline for automatic and steep budget cuts. Republicans have vowed not to raise taxes. After winning the presidency, gaining seats in Congress and with polls favoring a balanced approach, Democrats are understandably in no mood to balance the budget with program cuts alone. Americans expect consistency from their leaders but also reasonable compromise to achieve resolution to some pressing problems. Otherwise their government is dysfunctional. – YaleGlobal

Not Ready to Compromise

Mixed US election results have only made the government’s job to make tough decisions even tougher
Nayan Chanda
Businessworld, 12 November 2012

A memorable moment of the long drawn-out US presidential election campaign came in March when a Mitt Romney advisor explained how his candidate would switch gears once the primaries were over. From the position of a severe conservative he would become a moderate. “It is almost like an Etch a Sketch,” he said referring to a mechanical doodling toy. “You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again,” he elucidated.

With the polling over, Etch a Sketch reveals itself as an apt metaphor for the entire election campaign. Issues such as outsourcing, abortion and gas prices that long filled the debating stage, can now be pushed to the background revealing the more portentous issues that were inconvenient to raise earlier. The looming fiscal cliff faced by the government and threat of global warming are two of such issues that the world waits to hear about from Washington.

Having shunned the divisive issue of global warming during the campaign, President Barack Obama raised it within hours of his victory. “We want our children to live in an America that isn’t... threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet,” he said. While the campaign was on, with coal mining constituencies in mind, Romney loudly proclaimed his love for coal. Obama timidly responded by affirming his support for clean coal. Even after the unprecedentedly large hurricane Sandy that wrought disaster and interrupted the campaign, the candidates were mum.

But Sandy finally pushed even mainstream publications like Bloomberg Businessweek to drop its standard journalistic equivocation and run a cover proclaiming “It’s Global Warming, Stupid.” Increasingly, many climate scientists are acknowledging the role of global warming in the frequency of mega disasters, even if these cannot be directly linked to climate change. Obama’s mention of the “destructive power of a warming planet” suggests that shorn of the electoral constraints, he may be ready to call a spade a spade.

He has already taken some executive measures to curb emissions and promote cleaner energy. However, major steps to stem global warming and mitigate the anticipated ill-effects would require strong leadership and congressional legislation. It remains to be seen how much political capital Obama is ready to spend to leave this legacy for “our children”.

More urgent than leaving a legacy is to figure out what happens to the US economy and the world on 1 January 2013. During the election campaign, the question of how to avoid disastrous, across-the-board spending cuts and tax hikes that await on 31 December was avoided like the plague. In the summer of 2011, failing to reach an agreement on a solution a bitterly divided Congress had kicked the can down to the post-election weeks. If in the remaining six weeks the Republicans and the Democrats cannot reach an agreement on how to bring down the mountain-high deficit, it would not only tip the US economy into recession but, as the IMF warned, it would have “large international spillovers”. Scrapping of tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration would raise revenue but hit the middle class hard.

Apart from the inability to compromise, the reason to put off the most vital decision for the country till the waning weeks of the year was perhaps the hope that the elections would alter the power balance making a deal possible. But the election results offer a confusing message. The exit poll shows voters trust Obama more than Romney to protect the middle class but believe the Republican candidate better equipped to manage the economy. This dichotomy is reflected in the results. While Obama won a decisive victory and the Democrats maintained their control of the Senate, the House of Representatives remains in the hands of the Republican Party.

Although chastened by the defeat of their presidential candidate and some radical Tea Party members, the Republican Party is not ready to compromise on their determination to prevent raising taxes on the rich. Buoyed by the Obama victory and poll results showing majority support for taxing the rich, the Democrats, for their part, are in no mood for compromise.

Had the election campaign not been an Etch a Sketch operation and allowed the candidates to openly debate the pros and cons of their positions to avoid a year-end disaster, America and the world would have been spared a cliff hanger.
 

The author is director of publications at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization and editor of YaleGlobal Online.

Source:Businessworld
Rights:ABP Pvt Ltd Publication Copyright © All rights reserved.