On the Re-election of Barack Obama

I’m relieved that Barack Obama has won the election.  He’s quite far to the right of me. If I’d been voting in the US Presidential election I would have voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party. (1) However, he’s not insane and he probably stops many of the social advances America has seen over the last 50 years from being reversed. His election makes it less likely that the US will become a free market theocracy. Or at least less likely that the Federal Government will inflict free market theocracy on the US states I like. It makes it less likely that the US will pick a fight with an Asian state. Less likely that my own country will dragged in that fight too. 

The US may even see some social advances on issues like same-sex marriage.

 So that’s a win. I suppose.

However, Obama is pretty much a Blue Dog Democrat so the US isn’t going to see significant redistribution of wealth or control of corporate power or private wealth.  There might be more equality of opportunity. That’s not a bad thing.  And health care. As the economy starts growing again it likely that ordinary workers will feel more of the benefit of that growth than they would have done with a Romney presidency. (2)

Obama’s leadership still relies on the co-operation of both Houses of Congress.  I don’t see the Republicans in the House of Representatives entering into a new period of pragmatic co-operation. The Republicans do need to go and have a think about whether they try and move back towards the centre or are content to leave the centre to the Democrats for ten or twenty years. (3) Whilst they are having this internal discussion I don’t see them changing tack in Congress. So Obama has a few years of obfuscation and filibuster to contend with.  

Which brings me to reform.

Now I have no hopes that any significant electoral reform will happen in the US in my life time. (4) So what I’m about to say is more a wistful hope than any serious suggestion for the future.

It seems to me that the well thought out system of checks and balances in the US Constitution is unable to cope with the current electoral and cultural situation.  Two broad coalitions tending towards a centrist position and operating in a nation with a genuine sense of unity could make the system work. The system only works if you get brownie points for being able to work across the aisles. One of the problems as I see it is that the Tea Party / Republican Right is operating as a party within a party and moderate Republicans are left with a Devil’s choice of voting for policies they are not particularly sympathetic towards or falling out their partisan grouping. Crucially, there are no prizes for working with the Enemy, so moderate Republicans don’t seem to be able to work with centrist Democrats to get anything done.  

First Past the Post makes it very difficult for voters to communicate with politicians.  Duverger’s Law crams more and more diversity within party boundaries. When the choice is two broad coalitions it is difficult to tell which faction or tendency are most favoured. Primaries help a bit with that but not as much as STV would.  When what you have on offer is, on the Left a broad coalition ranging from social democrats to classic liberals and on the Right a coalition that ranges from classic liberal to libertarian or Christian militant but it is unclear whether the libertarian / Christian militant coalition inside the party is running things or not and won’t co-operate with anyone it becomes very difficult to make or communicate any kind of choice.

If you are a moderate Republican can you switch your vote to the Democrats when you are unsure if they are going to show up as the social democrats you don’t like or the classic liberals you want?  Difficult.  (5)  Even if moderate Republicans do switch to vote Democrat the US is left with one party government and the factional disputes inside the Democrat party become pre-eminent.  I’m not a great lover of political systems where national decisions are made inside political parties.

The answer is clear to me.  The US should adopt STV for Congressional elections and AV for chief executive elections and accept that this means that the Republicans and (probably) the Democrats will split, that the Green Party and the Libertarians will get some properly badged representation. And the conversation between different interest groups and different value systems that the system of checks and balances is meant to insist on will happen more and more publically.

However, it is easier and cheaper to buy politics if there are only two parties. 

What I suspect will happen is that the Republican party will formally or informally split into two geographically concentrated organisations, The Tea Party and the Bull Moose Party. Which will be as fun to watch as it will be slow to happen.

(1) I can say this safely as if I lived in America I’d be living in the safe Democrat state of Oregon and drinking beer and whisky with my spiritual brother.

(2) I think that the main problem that the US middle and working classes face is the same as that faced by the middle and working classes in Europe. Namely that Chinese labour is cheaper than USian or European labour and so the holders of capital are able to play Chinese workers off against European and USian workers and keep a larger share of economic growth for themselves.  At some point this stops being the case.  I am unclear if this will be  in about 10 years, 20 years or 30 years.  There’s not a lot the US president can do about that really.  Short of training Chinese Trade Unionists.

(3) That’s a really interesting choice for them. I’ll come on to Reform in a moment. But the temptation for sincere Tea Party Republicans is surely to try and take a firmer control of their Party. They are committed and seem to be well funded. However, you win elections by getting more votes than anyone else.

(4) I was amusing myself with thoughts of what the ERS and UD should do in 2038 when we’ve achieved Reform in the UK and concluded that we’d be much better working for improved democracy in the developing world than wasting time and money in the US.

(5) Of course we see the same thing in the UK with the Euro-sceptic wing of the Conservative Party or the Militant Tendency who are perhaps a better match for the Tea Party than anything else.